Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/29/2020 in all areas

  1. 10 points
    This election is going to decide everything. It will decide how much oil Russia will be allowed to send into the world market. It will decide Nordstream II. It will decide how Ukraine and its pipelines will end up. It will decide the fate of Libya oil and gas production. It will decide the defense of Saudi Arabia, and the relationship with Iran. It will decide how much oil China will import from Iran. It will decide how shale oil in the USA will unfold. It will decide the retail fuel prices at the pump. It will decide if the USA is going to hop back onto the Paris Climate Change Accord standards. Need I go on?
  2. 10 points
    What you are seeing is a microcosm of what goes on in the greater society. There is this loss of self-restraint, a grab for power without consideration of the consequences. Look, this Forum is for the community membership, not the self-aggrandizement of some moderator. If the members want to spend some time conferring on election issues, hey, it is not strictly "oil," but so what? Let the members decide what they want to post about. Ultimately, the climate inside Washington is going to determine the shape and flows of the international oil markets, so it is not as if it is totally out in left field. These are serious issues. For example: assume Mr. Trump is re-elected. It is plausible that the US will retract from Middle-east entanglements and leave the Arabs to their own devices. Will that re-shape world oil markets? You bet it would! If Mr. Biden is elected, then the Obama/Clinton hangers-on in that coming Administration will once again re-energize the Trans-pacific Partnership, and re-boot China into the top slot of world manufacturing. That will have significant consequences for the minerals, oil, and coal trades. It will also doom the US aluminum-ingot, steel smelting, and various recycling efforts to disaster, all will flow over to Mainland China. I predict it would also result in Chinese shipyards taking far more than the current 49% of shipbuilding tonnage, mostly away from Korea and Japan, two staunch allies of the USA. What that does for instability on the Korean Peninsula is anybody's guess, but it is not good. These are serious issues, and the censorship of the "moderators" is not helpful.
  3. 10 points
    Guys We lived through the greatest era of world history; post WWII through, you pick the year it ended. The United States with all her flaws was indeed a shining city on a hill. The US fought tyranny and liberated the defenseless. The US fed the hungry. The US stood for freedom. The US created immense wealth across the globe. It's over. Power hungry politicians in the US do not work for the benefit of the citizens. Indoctrination masked as education has left us dumb. Belief in economic theories which have NEVER brought positive economic results now prevail. There is no longer a sense of responsibility or integrity in the average American. The high water mark of this grand experiment is over likely having seen it's peak in the 1990's. Blame whomever you want but the Media is at the forefront of the demise. Societally destructive technology maimed the minds of the young who now find themselves pitted against the a country which delivered so much to so many. I get little sleep some nights thinking what my 20 and 17 year old girls face. Maybe it's just normal to worry as the world changes and my views don't? I don't think so. Our country used to be united against socialism. Today we are moving at warp speed into adopting socialism. In the words of the great David Byrne of the Talking Heads .... My God, What have we done
  4. 9 points
    I am not aware of any major oil producing company which has any interest in restraining oil production - BP and Shell among them. OPEC does to the degree that OPEC as an organization has any singular goals or objectives, but none of the IOC's do (International Oil Companies). However your analysis leaves out the sector which has created the oversupply problem even before the coronavirus came up, which is the US shale oil sector led by smaller scale upstream only oil companies. As a general rule, these companies are heavily indebted, and they need cashflow NOW to make payments. They won't let up on the gas pedal to keep their production as high as possible unless it produces a reduction in current cashflow. The moment that oil prices rise, or even show any signs of not falling very much, they increase production as much as they can afford to do so. This process won't end until they are bankrupt, or until some outside factor causes oil prices to rise so much that they are no longer heavily indebted. This process will probably take several years to play out with our without a demand recovery, and only then will other factors influence the price of oil.
  5. 8 points
    The future of the world. I mentioned in another thread that this must be addressed now, else it will be much more difficult to extract ourselves and the world from. I mean there will be war. If the U.S. and her allies figure this out too late, they will have no other avenue than war. That's how world wars begin. Countries/peoples that delude themselves until all options have faded away. I don't want THIS for my child and grandchildren; we'll work out any environmental problems and challenges as they come, but world war means there will be a better than average chance that my, and your, family will end up wiped out. A message to our Leftist friends: do not ignore history. History is not evil. History reports on the evil that happened and gives you the chance to avoid evil in the future.
  6. 8 points
    No. No evidence 🙄... I don't need a link to a 'survey' or specific stats that prove your point. Look at the Macro. Record low unemployment, GDP growth 38% higher than Obama (pre COVID). The average REAL GDP growth rate under President Obama was 1.88%.Here is the Real GDP Growth as per US Bureau of Economic Analysis by year. Do the math yourself to confirm:2009 0.18%, 2010 2.57%, 2011 1.61%, 2012 1.47%, 2013 2.61%, 2014 2.7%, 2015 2.00%, 2016 1.88%; The average is 1.8775%; The average REAL GDP growth rate for President Trump is 2.8%, so far. Do the math yourself to confirm: 2017 2.5%, 2018 3.1%; 2019 2.3%. The average is 2.6%. That's a 38% increase in GDP growth rate versus Obama. It's all tax cuts and deregulation. This is my go-to page for the Which Party is Fiscally Responsible debate https://extranewsfeed.com/who-is-better-at-controlling-deficits-republicans-or-democrats-af24c0fd00b0 Who is better at controlling deficits, Republicans or Democrats? I love to disspell myths with data. It makes me happy What’s great about the subject like deficits is that the data points are fairly straight forward. The data points around who’s to blame for deficits are not that exact but let’s take a stab at it. I frequently hear the claim that Democrats are better at containing costs and deficits than Repbulicans. Better check your math. Go to the archived Obama website (just to make sure I’m being fair I’m using the data from the previous party in power) https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budget/Historical Download a historical table. The first one will do: “Table 1.1 — Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789 — 2021” Add a column and label the years from 1970 to 2016 with which party was in control of the White House (we can get more granular later) I did some Pivot tables here are the results: Deficits by Party in Control of the Presidency Deficits run up by sitting President by party since 1970: DEM $(7,859,779) GOP $(4,474,671) (note: these numbers are in the thousands… so that’s $7 Trillion in deficits vs. $4 Trillion). From this angle, it’s hard to state that the GOP is worse than the DEMs at keeping down the deficit. I would say it is factually true that Democrat Presidents are worse. Deficits by Party in Control of the House and Senate This time we’re looking at which party was in control of the House and Senate or if the power was split. Disregarding the party that owns the White House and just looking at who controlled the House and the Senate. Since 1970, if you examine budget deficits according to actual outlays and receipts for each year the breakdown is as follows: DEM. $(6,597,219) GOP $(2,302,718) SPLIT $(3,434,513) Again, these are in 1000's of dollars = TRILLIONS. And once again from this angle the data says that the best way to keep the budget deficits under control is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate. Deficits by Balance of Party in Power You know — I want to be ABSOLUTELY fair in this so I parsed it another way looking at the total balance of party power across these 2 branches of government. So, if the DEMs or the GOP controlled the White House, Senate and House then I assigned the year to that party otherwise I put SPLIT. DEM $(4,692,288) GOP $(1,386,361) SPLIT $(6,255,801) This time it’s not even close. The DEMs are pretty darn bad at keeping deficits under control. In fact, having a split set of power leads to worsening deficits. AVERAGE Deficits by Party in Power I like averages, let’s go with averages. We’ll use those same parameters: White House party, Legislative party, and Overall party power using total number of years in power as the denominator. The data is all there. So, since 1970. Average budget deficit by party in charge of the White House (GOP has a record of 40% lower deficits): DEM $(392,989) GOP $(165,729) Since 1970. Average budget deficit by party in charge of the legislative branches or split… this one has the DEMs looking a little better. It certainly shows that split bi-cameral options have more debt. GOP still holding the budget line better. DEMS $(286,836) GOP $(164,480) SPLIT $(343,451) Since 1970. Average budget deficit by party across the 2 branches… this one is a slam dunk notch against the DEMs. When the Dems own the White House and both legislative houses — deficts increase… pretty dramatically. DEM $(521,365) GOP $(231,060) SPLIT $(195,494) I frequently hear how people on the right ignore facts and have no data to support their stances. I just used data and I made it available to everyone here. If there’s another way to view this I welcome it. I should note that both parties have a history of running up some serious deficits and increasing the national debt (which is hovering right now below $20 Trillion). No one can argue that Trump’s budget isn’t the most significant budget cut in almost 50 years. It’s pretty astounding (even if it only lowers the federal budget by 13%). If you want to reduce deficits the best way to elect a Republican to the White House and majority Republicans in the House and Senate.
  7. 8 points
    I have discussed this with Tom and at this point he is too busy with his work projects. I am in the process of moving an entire factory. We find someone who is good at this sort of thing and put him to work, again cannot be that hard or expensive. At this point, I vote for having a conversation with the Oilprice owner for a re-structuring of the Forum, with new Moderators. Such as me, for openers. You already know that I will demand sticking to intellectual discussion, trolls will be banned.
  8. 8 points
    The "moderators" that are censoring need to announce themselves and the reason for the censure.
  9. 8 points
    Appreciate above. Unfortunately, the oil and gas industry has played right into the hands of the "Green New Deal." How? While the outcry grew louder over methane and ethane gas emissions, we released more and more of it. Needlessly. Everywhere there is abundant oil on earth, there seems to be even more natural gas. In order to get at the oil, the gas has to be dealt with. In the shale basins and Guyana, gas is vented and flared to the tune of trillions of tons. The world has taken note of that. Ironically, if the TRRC had abided by their own Statewide Rule 32 (can vent gas <24 hours, flare it <10 days), it would have slowed down drilling, raised the price of oil and gas, and we wouldn't be in this pickle we're in. Even more ironically, Mr. Biden will likely be better for oil and gas than was Mr. Trump, because regulations will tighten up and emissions will diminish, all of which will reduce production of oil and gas in the shale fields and raise the prices globally. But the renewables industry is on a tear. We're about to run this big experiment, starting with California. I wouldn't wish a calamity on anyone but California is both energy expensive and insecure, and it would appear that a massive change is about to be implemented with very little backup from the old tried and proven. I doubt it will go smoothly.
  10. 7 points
    Oil, petroleum, Covid politics Hmm, did anyone see anything like this in the MSM? 2020 City of Sturgis Motorcycle Rally Update September 9, 2020 Quote Sturgis SD - 2020 City of Sturgis Motorcycle Rally Update The San Diego State University IZA study regarding the COVID-19 cases resulting from the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally is blatantly faulty. The study concludes that nearly 20% of the COVID- 19 cases reported in America from August 2 to September 2 are due to the event. This outrageous conclusion is antithetical to actual case data as numerous State Officials across the United States have been actively seeking to tie any COVID-19 case to the event. Despite these active efforts, fewer than 300 cases have been identified nationwide. The careless ease with which mainstream media outlets have published a report that multiplies that factual data by 1,000 is shameful. The absolute preposterousness of the conclusion is further demonstrated by the results of the community-wide mass testing which occurred after the event, where there were 26 positives cases out of 650 patients tested. The City of Sturgis holds those affected by COVID-19 in our thoughts and prayers as the virus continues to impact our nation and world. We recognize that individuals were exposed to the virus on their trip to, from, or while at the Rally, but the data reported by health officials across the nation show that the impact from the event was a mere fraction of what was projected and anticipated by many of the experts. The continued media focus on infection and the hope of increased transmission rates and death, following this event are reminiscent of the models that told us that locally our hospitals would be overwhelmed, we would have a massive lack of ventilators, and 3-5% of us would not survive. Fortunately, as we have seen, the underlying assumptions of these models were unfounded and categorically inaccurate, just as is the conclusion of this report.
  11. 7 points
    The presidential candidate debate tonight had one very clear outcome. Biden pretended he never said he'd ban fracking. We'll soon have multiple links to videos and articles of him clearly lying. He also attacked refining and clearly indicated he's going to cancel tax deductions for the fossil fuel industry. How many Oil Price readers knowing that, still want to vote for Biden?
  12. 7 points
  13. 7 points
    They will try to name it as a "miles traveled tax" for upkeep of roads and infrastructure and preservation of the environment. Green New Deal= Greed New Deal (for making Americans poorer and making China richer)
  14. 7 points
    Some day, God willing and the creek don't rise, this made-in-china pandemic will be over. About a dozen vaccines are ready to hit all at once. If you get the thing and are old and get sick, there will be synthetic antibodies like the president received. If you hadn't noticed, people have taken to doing weird things during their zoom calls. Humans are herd animals; they need to talk and smile and watch each others facial expressions in person. They will need new hair-dryers, which are plastic, and last I heard weren't being made from lithium or hydrogen. They will drive cars, most of which are still ICE. They will fly and take cruises. The renewables are wonderful, just marvelous. To get enough lithium for a Tesla battery you have to gouge about 8 tons of earth, send skinny little boys down holes to retrieve cobalt, smelter nickel with an incredible SOX effluent. To make a windmill requires massive amounts of petroleum, tons of cement which emits CO2, and then they fatigue and fall apart. Solar panels are better, but not much--especially when they go through a Texas hail storm the size of baseballs. Sounds wonderful. This isn't one or the other--nature's finest or nature's evil fossils of the past. It's a bit of both. Then, eventually, renewables will very likely take over a good bit of energy and fossil fuels will be used for petrochemical plants. And don't' forget, unless we've already exceeded the # of humans that can exist on Mother Earth, we will still need fossil fuels for electricity, the growth energy of the brave new world. The reason they call this a boom or bust industry is because it does just that. We are coming out of an incredible bust. BP, Eni, Shell, Total are all switching to renewables: buying wind farms, solar companies, battery companies, contracting with the city of London for charging stations. Those are four giant companies--bye boys, don't let the door hit you in the ass--and their leaving opens up great opportunity for Chevron and Exxon. They will very likely . . . hold your breath now . . . boom! It won't be just another cycle--the pandemic saw to that. But anyone who thinks that all of OPEC is going to go broke and join Israel, who is developing the Leviathan Field--maybe the biggest gas field in the world--and there's not going to be a war, well, you're not much of a student of oil and gas or warring society, either one. ISIS is targeting KSA. Iran is targeting KSA. Nobody likes KSA. I don't like KSA. Furthermore, don't be too surprised if, despite the polls, Mr. Trump wins reelection. I think he has just about had it with the Saudis. He has certainly had it with China, and Iran, and probably is pretty irritated that they're doing deals like there's no sanction and no virus. I really wouldn't want to be in President Xi's chair if Mr. Trump gets reelected. Anyway, I don't think oil and gas is dead. I'm really sorry to learn that some of you don't plan on sticking around for the next fifty years--we're going to miss you, just like Mr. McKinsey.
  15. 7 points
    The Trump economy may have been the last great economic story for decades. China Virus, Blue State politicians and Media destroyed a great economy. Deficits are run up by the House. Spending bills are required to be initiated by the House. Perfect example is every Covid spending bill passed in 2020 Pelosi wanted more spending than Trump did; every one. The most recent aide package is the same; Pelosi wants more and Trump wants less.
  16. 7 points
    No doubt about it ZL. Trump cares about the economy. The economy does better with lower oil prices
  17. 7 points
    Consider mine the first vote in your favor. I'll pitch in if necessary.
  18. 7 points
    Bob, you can find me at janvaneck.djengineering@gmail.com and I will do the popcorn thing, if it comes to that. Right now, I think it is time for the owner of Oilprice to step in and assert control over his "Moderators"
  19. 7 points
    Yes, I saw that @Old-Ruffneck. But as @Jan van Eck so eloquently pointed out, this election is EVERYTHING to do with energy, not just in the United States but the entire world. How can anyone miss that?
  20. 7 points
    The rest of us don't even know what posts or comments were supposedly offensive, or against some kind of unknown and uncited rules. I still don't know what you two in particular did or could have posted that didn't fit in with normal discussions taking place all over the world right now. What is it? Oil Price owes the Forum Members an explanation. To not explain or give examples does indeed ring of extremely partisan one-sided over-control of an otherwise simple forum that is at least supposed to cover Geopolitics, Energy, Lifestyle and General discussion and debate. Is that truly what Oil Price wishes to espouse? Are actions such as these in line with Oil Price "policy"? We discuss free speech and freedom to express opposing views on the Forum all the time. Does Oil Price wish to take away those supposed basic Human Rights? I think we have a right to know.
  21. 7 points
  22. 7 points
    Mr. McKinsey Just for edification purposes, you may want to preserve that article from the Rocky Mountin Institute as an outstanding example of how information is presented so that public perceptions - and opinions - are both shaped and influenced. Nowhere in that article is made mention of the Production Tax Credits nor the Investment Tax Credits which will expire/phase out in 90 days. Anything not under actual construction gleans no benefits, hence the frantic rush these past few years to get projects to qualify. In fact, should you or anyone check the EIA's chart showing future expected power production, wind drops off a cliff past 2022 as practically no new projects will break ground after January 1, 2021. Of FAR more immediate consequence, however, is the anticipated effects of FERC's MOPR decision which will be nothing short of a knockout blow to new Renewables (sic) if it stands as presently declared. One other item of consequence, perhaps, is the criminal case now lodged against Ohio politicians for accepting bribes from the nuke boys for passing regulations which have dimmed competition from the gas boys. Actually, Mr. McKinsey, there are several massive CCGPs under construction in the Appalachian Basin with West Virginia just granting its first go ahead despite ferocious opposition from the coal industry. BTW, your expectations regarding that massive wind project in Wyoming sending juice to California is getting a little ... dicey. The pols in the Cowboy State are none too thrilled about Oakland's obfuscation surrounding the big coal export terminal proposed in Oakland. Likewise, placing relatively high tax rates on Wyoming-produced wind output is fast gaining traction. A bump up in rates is the last thing you Californians need right now.
  23. 7 points
    As long as you recognize that Bezos, the big beneficiary of your shopping approach, is single-handedly destroying America.
  24. 7 points
    ^ Well, they're trying to survive. There is a very good chance that Exxon won't exist in 2040. Total and BP seem perfect candidates to move into solar and wind. In fact, Total is involved in a huge offshore windmill farm. These Big Oil companies all have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit. BP used to have more pensioners in Great Britain than any other company, because of their huge dividend (which was cut in half). It is odd that BP would have Deepwater Horizon and then lecture about global climate change, isn't it? And to take the counter-position, we really don't know what the unintended consequences of widespread offshore wind farms and onshore solar farms will do to change the climate. Hint: it may not be all good. You're right about longevity, but it's either pack your bag and give up or at least try to make a transition. For example, I bought a thousand shares of Total because of their 8% yield (which they say is safe) and their 25% capex into renewables. They bought a great battery company and run it as a wholly owned subsidiary--this is going to be a big deal in ESS across the whole of Europe and even the U.S. (I can't recall the name of the battery company but all the pros said this one is superior to most.) Hindsight is perfect but it would have been a great move for Exxon to have purchased Tesla, and also Albermarle Lithium Mines. But that's yesterday's wine and here is their perfect fit without a lot of new retrofitting: As you likely know, when an aging oil well reaches end of life, it immediately brings in massive amounts of salts from the source basin and with the salt comes water. So if you have an old well that's chugging along producing 10 barrels of oil per day (which at $40 is $12,000 per month) but suddenly starts producing more water than oil, the party is over. In certain wells, one of the predominant salts is . . . Lithium Carbonate. As an aging guy interested in both oil and gas and lithium (particularly for electricity storage depots), my idea was to buy up stripper wells in certain areas, sell the oil until the water hit, then ultrafilter/electrophorese lithium and other rare earth elements (which are also concentrated in certain wells). Well, s*** happens, and this time it was Covid. Anyway, how many old wells do the majors own? Hundreds of thousands. What is likely to be the limiting feature toward electric renewables? Lithium--too many companies are trying to go EV and so far lithium is the only game in town. Since I own all the majors (for the dividend, obviously not for their sterling performance in value), I sincerely hope that some kid is doing this very thing. Getting lithium out of spoduline in Nevada and China is tough and labor and cost intensive (pit mining). Getting it from brine at the bottom of a well bore in the Uintas Formation should be very doable.
  25. 6 points
    In a more practical sense the fact that around 50% of Americans make less than $30,000 will be a bigger problem going to EV’s. I have yet to read of an electric car that will transport a family of four for less than 10,000 which is what many of these folks drive.
  26. 6 points
    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Trump-Blasts-Bidens-Fracking-Plans-At-Rally.html The conclusion of the piece is that Biden won't need legislation to ban facking . . . but the increased investment in renewables will do the job. I respectfully disagree. Biden won't directly ban fracking but will make it increasingly harder to frack by legislating costly regulations. Biden might eventually suspend new leases on Federal land. But not right away. A Democrat controlled Congress will go wild with new Oil and Gas legislation. In my opinion present green initiatives will turn into major increase in legislation and regulations by countries, states/regions and cities around the world. The demise of oil markets will happen much quicker than I and others projected. First up will be methane emissions. The greenies tried to reduce methane via legislation but could never get it passed. Obama Executive Order in his waning months as President (Nov 2016) signed off on strict and costly regulations of methane leaks and discharge on Federal lands. Of Course Trump reversed them Of course Democrats filed legal action against Trump. Of course Trump filed suit questioning validity of Obama Executive Order. Well, recently Federal courts ordered Trump to abide by Obama EO . . . . BUT then Trump administration won their filing throwing out Obama original EO. So now under Biden Administration and Democrat Congress you will see legislation passed on methane and other regulatory matters (methane just the start) that will greatly hamper the expansion of fracking. Additionally, while Obama EO could only address Federal lands the new legislation will go after all oil and gas fracking nationwide. Will it pass ? Don't know. This would limit fracking and the added cost will (1) be passed on to the U.S. consumer and (2) make U.S. oil and gas exports less competitive. U.S. LNG is already at a disadvantage as the high relative shipping cost to the LNG cost makes it very difficult to compete in Europe and Asia. (Chevron dumped it's natural gas holdings in PA and WV. Now has Noble's NG development with Israel . Much better) Increased regulations and legislation will accelerate the ongoing consolidation. Not like it needs it. Re consolidation: Pioneer CEO said their will only be a few independents left after the consolidation now that the good acquisitions have already been picked over. He referenced Pioneer, EOG, Conoco and maybe Hess. Sheffield said an independents needs a market cap of at least $10 Billion to take advantage of efficiencies, be cost competitive and maintain funding. The naysayers predicting the end of the Shale industry were wrong. The hard assets, the recoverable oil reserves, will transfer to fewer efficient, financially stable producers. What happens to the rest of the Independent Shale producers ? Probably similar to what happened with Whiting , the Bakken player. They had $2.6 Billion in debt and filed for Chapter 11 reorganization. They came out of it with only $400 million of debt on the books and a new CEO. Nice. Ready for someone to buy Whiting with market cap of about $1.2 Billion and a clean balance sheet. What about Harold Hamm's Continental Resources ? High Debt/Equity ratio. Last time I checked they had about $6 Billion Equity and $5 Billion Debt . They cover their debt , but in today's uncertain environment and low oil prices can give some concern. There is talk they might do something with Marathon or Hess. Others think they should buy newly reorganized Whiting. With oil price per bbl dropping the extra transport costs to the gulf now factor into an acquisition calculations. When Bakken started producing years ago the cost to transport oil to the gulf by rail was $8 to $9 bbl. , with pipeline being $4 to $5 bbl. At the time producers chose rail for the flexibility enabling them to ship to either coast or the gulf. I have know idea as to current transport prices. RENEWABLES Re Big Oil and renewables. My opinion it's still a PR stunt. I just can't make sense of it. Its not to say some may try to make a go of it. There just aren't many options. All the oil and gas companies will put in a good effort and give it lip service but it will never be the savior for the companies. Conoco is now in favor of a carbon tax. It was about a year ago CEO Lance Ryan said EVs won't affect oil demand until after 2050. He was only off by 25 years. Carbon tax will be one more addition to burden the U.S. consumer and decrease U.S. exports competitiveness. One more reason size matters. Only the large producers can handle additional taxes, fees and regulation to live to drill another day. I believe we will see the "E&P" oil and gas companies become "P" companies, the emphasis on their production and much less on "E" , exploration. Example Conoco with Concho acquisitions has 23 Billion bbls of recoverable oil in the Eagleford, Bakken and now Permian. Less exploration will increase all oil firms increased profits and free cash flow. Conoco pegs 30% of cash flow for dividends. Size matters, efficiency matters, cost matters . With this model you will be able to model financials based on certain assumptions. The big questions are how fast does the "Green Economy" progress. How fast does the "Stranded Assets . . . . Sell it while you can" mindset set in ? The oil merger madness continues . . . . No merger or acquisitions is too large or too small . Even talk of Chevron buying Exxon. A major (Chevron ?)is looking and may make an offer to acguire EOG, the largest Independent Shale company ($20 Billion Plus). There is talk of Continental shopping around, however Harold has a lousy Debt/Equity ratio. Don't see where they fit. https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/22/the-oil-stock-merger-wave-continues/ Cut costs or die Merge or die What's the end game ? How many Oil and Gas companies will we be left with ? https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2020/10/weekend-at-bidens-is-the-best-political-ad-heading-into-the-election/
  27. 6 points
    There are three ways to do that: gravitational, explosive, and via "inertial confinement". The sun uses gravity. This approach has been operational for about 13 billion years. Explosive compression has been demonstrated. These devices are called thermonuclear weapons. Inertial confinement is done using truly massive lasers. This approach has been the subject of research and development since about 1975, with some really, really big systems such as the ICF being built. It lags behind magnetic confinement, so it is still the same " we will have it in 20 years" fantasy land as magnetic fusion. No, I think we will get to fusion with much smaller devices that use very highly directed and concentrated energy. One possibility is p+B11, where an extremely short pulse of protons is accelerated to extreme energies using a free-electron-type laser and fired into a tiny, short-lived, very high temperature plasma of B11. The trick is in the ridiculously precise timing, which was not possible before the required advances in electronics.
  28. 6 points
    Mr. McKinsey Regarding the 20 year debt amortization ('economic life') situation ... Yes, of course Lazard uses this metric to 'levelize' the financials (capital costs) across the power generating spectrum. What I pointed out - and continue to stress to any and everyone in these discussions - is the Real World context within so much info is displayed. At the end of 20 years, Mr. McKinsey, a wind farm is at the end of its useful life. (They actually have a 1.6% annual 'decline rate' due to wear and tear.) In contrast, at the end of the 20 year payout/amortization timeframe, a 1,000 Mw CCGP will be able to continue to produce 1,000 Mw reliably, on demand, for another 20/30/40 years. Big difference. I will follow up in a bit on your comment "This represents an extreme systems level of efficiency" in referring to the Empire offshore wind boondoggle 30 to 50 miles offshore Long Island. The 2 projects, Empire Wind and Sunrise Wind will have nameplate capacity of 1,700 Mw, will deliver at an average ~815 Mwh rate over 1 year's time (48% capacity factor), intermittently, and cost ratepayers over $8 Billion. For context/contrast, the just-opened Cricket Valley CCGP plant (1,100 Megawatt nameplate capacity), can deliver at a 1,100 Mwh hour rate 24/7 - if desired - and costs ratepayers ZERO as it is privately funded. More to follow.
  29. 6 points
    Just build it out with natural gas. Something that has proven it can do the job. It is superabundant and can be piped to where it is needed and then produce electricity. Natural gas is virtually free aside from the transportation and it requires less infrastructure since that is already built in the United states. Other countries around the world have very large finds, I just read on Oil Price about new finds in Columbia. All the countries with new finds plan on using their natural gas. Using equipment made in Asia or Europe does not benefit the United States. We need to make our own. Your ideas are only good if they can prove themselves at scale. They have never done that. Germany will be using coal for quite awhile. America is the leader in improving air quality among large nations by replacing coal with natural gas.
  30. 6 points
    Be ready for $6 and higher gas at the pump if the rats win. Seen Venezuela situation lately? No gas....If MBS says "Biden you want oil come kiss my ass" he'll be on first flight. We will be at lots of country's mercy. I believe this election will determine the livelihood, survival, and existence of this country as we know it. Covid is a bump in the road that can be corrected, a Biden win, well...get ready for hard times for a longggg longgggg time. my .02 of course
  31. 6 points
    This is all part of the Big Freeze Out that I talked about on this site months ago. High Tech is leading this charge and it's Machiavellian. Drive the price of oil companies down by removing the big institutional investors (who now have no choice but to "invest" in blue sky tech companies with minimal assets), followed by banks being bullied into not loaning to those same companies (while happily holding their deposits) which increases the death spiral. Lather rinse repeat. Again, where can all those trillions go? Why, they're going to Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter and Tesla.
  32. 6 points
    ^ Right, but at some point there is either going to be a) mass privation and starvation of OPEC, or b) an oil price recovery. These companies have been beat to death. Look at the share prices of all the majors, just in the last ten months. A company functions only to the extent of its cash on hand and/or borrowing capacity. None (NONE) of the big investment houses or funds are investing in fossil fuels. That means when say Exxon has spent its last shekel there is no more. I am not totally sure that has sunken in yet. Now here's where it gets interesting. What happens, exactly, when Exxon and Chevron and BP, Total, Shell, Eni are all broke? Well, that's not so hard. There is always a place in the world where oil and gas are being developed. That place is Guyana, right now, maybe Suriname or Namibia in the future. But how much can a company invest, knowing that the hounds of renewables are at the door? I predict that at some point, not clearly definable now, there will be hell to pay.
  33. 6 points
    Hotone ... Great - they test people. But I'm embarrassed for you. You just up voted a post claiming China IMPORTED Covid in frozen fish samples that went through disinfection procedures. No links. No support. And posted by a Chinese troll. Do you even care who you associate with when wild unsubstantiated claims are made? Clearly not.
  34. 6 points
    Point of clarification: modern coal plants with pollution controls emit almost nothing but CO2. I.e. they are compatible with "clear skies". China's coal pollution problems stemmed from three issues: 1) No pollution control equipment on coal power plants 2) Placing coal power plants near cities (they're now placed far enough away that any pollution is moot) 3) Coal heating. This is huge as small coal-fired boilers pollute disproportionately. IIRC, #3 is being replaced with natural gas, which explains the increased demand for natural gas. However, *pause for emphasis* China has also developed a nuclear reactor for district heating. These pool-type reactors are exceptionally cheap and inherently safe, avoiding the issues of Western reactor designs. China has also connected one of their conventional nuclear reactors to district heating and will increase this practice. Together, these developments place limits on China's long-term natural gas demand. It's difficult to justify imported natural gas when domestic, nuclear heat is cheaper. Links: 1) Chinese pool-type district heating reactor: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/CNNC-completes-design-of-district-heating-reactor 2) China uses conventional reactor for district/process heating: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Chinese-nuclear-heating-project-starts-up 3) NEI article on China's nuclear district heating efforts: https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschinese-nuclear-companies-look-to-district-heating-6055928
  35. 6 points
    Trump will win. Even the popular vote will be lopsided in his favor.
  36. 6 points
    Agreed. On that note, the beauty of the US system is that each state is its own experiment. The People's Republic of California can screw up their economy with zero negative impact to me. In fact, their stupidity benefits me as those jobs are driven to the more sensible states I prefer. See Elon Musk's comments on coronavirus lockdowns for more details. Which leads to another interesting point: never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake. I thought about arguing coronavirus restrictions with liberals, but then I realized I'd only be shooting myself in the foot. Why invest that effort and suffer their abuse when I can enjoy watching them destroy themselves? Leftists are a self-correcting problem, provided we leave them alone. Of course, people will argue that leftists are a large demographic that cannot be ignored. Yes, but actually no: 1) Their birth rate is around 1.3 - far below replacement. In a couple generations, they'll die out. 2) Absent a birth rate, they attempted to bolster their numbers with public school indoctrination. This model is failing as competent students flee universities, businesses refuse to fund those universities, taxpayers withdraw public funding, and the universities eventually go bankrupt. We are on the cusp of this. Conservative private schools, trade schools, and cheap (read: "too cheap to fund stupidity") online degrees are rising to replace them. 3) Absent both a birth rate and a public indoctrination system, they attempted to bolster their numbers with immigration. This works until 2nd generation immigrants realize they're competing with 1st generation immigrants and suddenly discover conservatism. See Black and Hispanic support for Trump for more details. It also works until automation and economic distress destroy the job market, forcing US citizens into desperate circumstances and removing the incentive to immigrate to America. Liberals will disappear. We need only ignore them.
  37. 6 points
    You are engaging someone who is deliberately using the site as his personal trash bin. There is no point in it, you are not going anywhere with him. All you are doing is providing him with an audience, the responses feed into a rather immature need to be noticed. Just put him on "block" and be done with it. You can have an intelligent discussion with other folks here on the site, from diverse backgrounds, a true learning experience. Cheers.
  38. 5 points
    Video and photographic evidence is being released by Chinese dissidents that show the CCP has compromised and controls both Hunter and Joe Biden and in all probability more US politicians, both Dem and Repub as they were compromised in the same way. They say further that they have up to a 1 million videos and photos of US and West European politicians. This would explain many Western politicians appeasement of China. Indeed they go on to explain that this is the CCP strategy of waging war. It's called the B(blue) G(old) Y(ellow) program. B = control information: internet, newspapers, etc G = control through bribery and payoffs Y = control through sex (including underage) We've seen this play out with Hunter Biden. They compromised him with sex, purportedly with Chinese minors as well. They gave him payoffs with interest free loans and of course the $1.5 billion into the fund he was a board member of, a few weeks after returning from China with Joe who was VP at the time. This information is largely not reported by state legacy media and of course we know Twitter and Facebook tried to censor and limit its spread. They are going to release more videos and pics every hour for the next 13 days. Joe Biden and his son need to be arrested for treason now. https://gtv.org/web/?videoid=5f94837c7de25667c0fe0c5e#/VideoPlay_UI This is the evidence that our corrupt state media refuses to cover and is actively censoring. I'd guess plenty of them are compromised as well. Stay tuned.
  39. 5 points
    Less than 100. That must be a blow to Barack's ego. Mind boggling that the American electorate will vote for a mentally declined candidate that has put enriching his family ahead of the people. A year from now CV19 will be but a memory, yet the U.S. could have Iran with a nuke, China hegemony and dominance that trashes our economy and jobs, the Deep State will flourish, Big Tech will control the public discussion etc, etc, etc. Oh! Plus the BidenFamily Grifters will make tens of millions. It is what it is. There is a "TRUMP STEALTH VOTE" that does not show up in the polls. The question . . . . is it enough for TRUMP to take Pennsylvania ?
  40. 5 points
    I appreciate that - and where we disagree, I'm happy to keep discussing. Best case scenario, we figure out why we disagree, and a more accurate, common vision will emerge. Worst case scenario, we have fun yelling at each other like grumpy old men. Either way, everyone wins! To be clear, I am a True Neutral. A libertarian. Professionally disinterested. My give a shit broke, and I shan't be fixing it. What people do is none of my business provided I don't have to pay for it. You want to strip down, smear yourself in grease, get high on peyote, and commune with the old gods? Knock yourself out! Just don't bitch at me when you end up starving on the street. I think government should be the absolute last resort for anything, to be used only in case of existential threat. But ultimately, we do need some government, some laws, some strategic direction. Hence, I note that a country weaning itself off foreign energy can be good policy. This is consistent with best financial, insurance, and engineering practice: sometimes its worth paying a little more to eliminate risk. I.e. "green" initiatives could possibly be strategically savvy - but I find the "green" aspect of them intellectually deficient and uninteresting. Is there a better, free-market solution to this problem? Maybe. That's definitely worth debating; I like finding better ways to do things - but that's the extent of my opinion. I'm also a true neutral where climate change is concerned: prove to me that it's a real issue, and I'll take it seriously. Until then, I don't care - and I'm sure as hell not paying trillions of dollars to upend the economy - an extraordinary measure - without extraordinary proof. What's my standard of proof? Bring me evidence that would be accepted in engineering, insurance, finance, or similar. The "peer reviewed" articles I've seen in academia don't cut it because I've read read them, and I've seen academia's standards. They're at best incompetent, at worst corrupt. I'm similarly disinterested in renewable energy and EVs. I see a business case for EV dominance; I see a business case for renewables, but only in select applications. It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other because I can invest in whatever I want. My only concern is understanding what is, in fact, the case. tl;dr I'm as passionate about these topics as Louis C.K. is about rugs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2hzBF2KmqE
  41. 5 points
    I take exception to that. Lots of self-important people can't be bothered to go to a smelly gymnasium to vote, but will have a glass of chardonnay and vote via a mail-in ballot. The election has taken a bad turn: 1) No more debates. 2) Record # of mail-in ballots. 3) Lots of people angry about Covid19. The New England Journal of Medicine, which is venerable and almost 200 years old, has always taken an apolitical stance. Yesterday, their editorial denounced President Trump in every conceivable way. As a retired cardiologist, I think the president did a good job with the pandemic, especially considering the input he received from so-called professional pandemic seers. However, Dr. Fauci has emerged from this chaos as "America's Doctor" like he's caught in a Norman Rockwell painting--even though as far as I know he has never treated a patient and certainly failed to foresee preparations for a pandemic--while the president has emerged as an uncaring ogre. The president is in trouble. And that's really too bad, because I don't think the country or the world realized that by lying down and allowing experimental synthetic antibodies infiltrated, he basically ran an experiment that could save many lives. In fact, with his prompt recovery from an appointment with death (desaturated hemoglobin) to walking out on his own steam, he changed the face of the pandemic. The pandemic turned, right then, at that moment. But I don't think many people realize that yet. With this press, they may never.
  42. 5 points
    In the spring, when natural gas prices dropped dramatically, the Russian business newspaper rbc.ru estimated that Gazprom earns on gas supplies via Nord Stream I at a gas price of $ 90-100, and that this price already includes an export tax of $ 27 at $ 100 $. According to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, American LNG from the Permian field is a minimum requirement $ 2.25 per mbbtu raw material price $ 2.25-2.5 per meter of gas supply $ 1.20 shipping 0.4-0.7 $ regasification So this gives us a final price in the range of $ 6.1 to $ 6.6 per mbbtu as the minimum profitability price. There was a special report by the Oxford Institute for Energy Study for 2025 on this subject. Competitiveness was examined for an environment of low $ 6 and high $ 8 prices. As far as I remember, Qatar met the requirement of low prices for Europe, and most LNG exporters met the requirements of high prices, including new terminals in the USA and the Novatek terminal. As far as I remember, even the high limit was not met by the existing old terminals in the USA according to the Chenniere price contract formula as 115% of Henry Hubb's price plus $ 3-3.5 for gasification. And especially about the topic is new report bt Oxford Insitute for Energy Studies https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Russian-Gas-the-year-of-living-dangerously.pdf
  43. 5 points
    One possible synergy is with offshore wind. Oil companies know how to build offshore platforms and connect them to land.
  44. 5 points
    There are two types of NG plants, CCGT and peakers. You are talking about peakers, The California grid has a whole lot of them, and this has been true since way before wind and solar were introduced. In a properly-run system, There are enough peakers to allow the grid to handle the worst-case peak plus a little more, even when one or two of them are off line do to equipment failure. But this means that several peakers' worth of capacity will never be used at all during the course of an entire year. It costs money to maintain an unused peaker in a ready-to-go condition, so there is economic pressure to define "worst case" optimistically, and therefore decomission a few more peakers than you would using a more pessimistic 'worst case" projection. Therefore, the for-profit utilities want to be more optimistic. This, combined with the NIMBYs and the greenies, causes the state regulatory authorities to allow the utilities to shave it a little too close. Then when you do have a worse than worst case situation, you end up with a supply shortage. That's what happened in August: worst heat wave in California history, unavailability of electricity from AZ and NV due to their heat waves, and the failure of a peaker, when we should have left at least two additional peakers in commission for another year. Basically, everybody gambles that the worst case would not happen before we got our big battery working, and allowed about three more peakers to be decomissioned than we should have.