Leaderboard

Right on. Getting good ratings and subscriptions nowadays requires 'frothing at the mouth', and 'pumping up your base of pre-loaded confirmation biased partisans'... The product is sensationalism, as opposed to sober and fact based information. The information age is more appropriately labeled the 'misinformation age'....

just getting things setup here, looks BAD. Not sure what is going on whats making oil prices so depressed, but future looks bleak, Not sure if i want to throw out the next trade setup, last time it got me in hot water, not because i was wrong, like i said last month by now my setups are 2nd to none, both for the long term and intraday setups. so although i think wti can still drop, this point here, will be the most difficult part to trade. I think in about 2 weeks, you will see why. In other words since i know what is comming next but not when, i can simply chose to stay out, and when i see they are staring the move, simply go with them. Once they do their move, eventually everyone gets in the act, some later than others. key here is really to get in a the apex or close to it.

I have been following the nuclear fusion project in France since the early 1990s. In 1993, specifically, I predicted that the world would undergo a technological lag for about 20-30 years before we could start to see the displacement of internal combustion engine vehicles by electric ones and nuclear fusion operating on a commercial scale to demand significant quantities of lithium. We are now approaching the upper limit of my forecast and can ascertain that only one half of my prediction was met. What happened? My first guess is that despite many billions of dollars spent by major powers in the ITER project, a lack of political will characterized most of these years of slow technological development mainly because of the existence of vested interests working within the different sponsor governments that prevented the consolidation of scientific breakthroughs. What I am saying now is that just as it occurred with EVs the time has come for some private entrepreneur such as Elon Musk to turn nuclear fusion feasible.

Thanks for sparing me the effort to write this. And they say Musk makes unrealistically grand statements, eh?

Maybe I am poor at putting my argument across, in fact I know I am, communication is not my strong point. And I am sorry I don't do justice to my position. Have you ever been to a village school and watched those babies in the pram just at the level of those exhaust pipes. Harming those most vulnerable that can't change whats happening. Last-gen diesels aren't as clean as they where thought to be, ask Audi's exboss. Not sure how it is where you live but I've lived and worked in many countries across the world living in cities to very rural and the cost of living in the cities is less (maybe not the bits you go to). It is also cheaper per person for a country to have it's population in cities. Rural areas are often a burden that needs subsidies. If a person is only just managing to feed themselves moving is extremely expensive, I guess you've never tried it with a couple of dollars to keep you and the family going. It's not just the emissions that come from the exhaust that do the damage, the oil industry creates all sorts of pollutants that spread. Tribalism, thinking only about yourself isn't a healthy option. Also pollution does cause damage not just to theperson that's breathing it but also often to their children, the future generations. Local government often does not have the power to regulate or the power to stand up against large companies, leadership has to come from the top. I suggest trying to look for some further education on these subjects. There are many free online course from many top universities available online. Have to mention Edx.org as my sister inlaw works at MIT which is one of the many.

Cars are everywhere, I grew up country and pollution is every where. Even when you can't see it, even if it's not emitted there. The poor are far more exposed to pollution and it's far harder for them to move to a rural area. We are all responsible to look after the planet and let our children inherit a better place than we found it. Regulation is needed as companies/organisations/people can not be trusted to do the decent thing as the past shows us.

Ask a baby in a push chair in a rural area if pollutions a problem as she goes with her elder sibling on the way to the village school with passing cars directing their exhaust directly at them? As for the augment cherry picking a small sector of the market to try to cover the entire area it doesn't work. Friend of my brothers just drove down from Norway in his EV to the UK, no problem, lots of charging points, quick charging with a decent long range battery that will last for many years. A friend just gave me a lift in his EV (van) loves it, perfect for his work, also based on a Nissan Leaf and hardly lost an capacity for charging although it's 4 yrs old.

OK so upon looking back at what happened at end of week whilst i was sleeping- the price almost broke out at the top of the range but then slid back down into range again. This is exactly why i wait for a strong break well above the resistance or support line as otherwise you can be caught in the wrong side of a reversal. The best way of knowing is to watch the price action. Equities still sliding downwards so the market does not have confidence in making risky speculation on oil for now... The range pattern is still valid tho- look for a clear break upwards which will occur around $68.00. Or a clear break below $66.00. Some may attempt to trade the range , buying near $66.30 or selling near $67.80 , but beware of the spike reversals near the range extremities which can lead to losses. I dont like the risk of that typee of setup and only take higher probability setups of the actual range breakout. You wont get as many points in the move as its a late entry- but its much higher probability. So im waiting for that and hope im awake when it happens.

Basic fact of International Relations is that unilaterally escalating a situation will cause an asymmetric response....

I know, right? It's kind of frustrating for a casual observer such as myself so I can't imagine how frustrating it must be for those involved in crossing that 30-year bridge.

It always seems to be 30 years away😉

We are entering the natural gas heating season in the Northern Hemisphere. I don't know why Brent but oil just dropped.

The same in simple economic language of Trump presidency US has growing budget and trade deficit because a lot of its products are not compepetive on world market. Fortunately USa has a shale gas. Unfortunately it will be 50% more expensive then russian pipe gas in Europe so its completely not compepetive from economic point of view because its much more expensive source of gas. So we will say no word about price because it really doesnt matter. We will talk all the time about energy security and democratic values despite the fact Russia had never cut supplies even during Cold War. As a consumer I am more interested in final price of this democratic lng. Maybe lets talk about it?

Something like 15 years if you're optimistic, but as stated it might not be cost-competitive with renewables (especially solar-on-the-roof) because I suppose there is a big investment for the reactor and also the cost of transmission. https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/long-wait-fusion-power-may-be-coming-end-ncna833251

Um, one that generates energy continuously and can be used on a commercial scale?

And history repeats itself. Churchill and FDR agreed to allow eastern Europe to be a vassal states of a sort, and the U.S.S.R. was disarming at an impressive state. FDR died, Churchill got Truman's ear in the late 40s, the A-bomb was in play, and initially only with the US, and the assertive posturing served as a catalyst for the hard line iron curtain. Since Peter the Great Russia views the Ukraine as critical. For a short while the US had the "Power Doctrine". Why go to war, DON"T. If absolutely positively required there better be a true global buy-in (Gulf War 1), or an attack on the US. The Powell Doctrine was the product of a Vietnam vet in charge, knowing the folly of asymmetric war., working under a vet as the president, Bush41. Clintons, Bush43, Obama, and now Trump with OMG Bolton, coupled with a no draft military where most people have no concept or stake in the game, the price of war is again forgotten. And the fact the war is mostly a lose-lose proposition. By the way, I happen to believe there is no nobler profession than the military, loved my time, and nothing asks so much of you, but that is on the soldier level. Too often militaries are political tools, or a key part of politics, or both.

Civil war in Ukraine is natural consequence of western support for Maidan. It was many times clearly said its a red line for Russia so western support for Maidan was a provocation which led us to war. No russian leader can allow this to happen. Its like Cuban crisis and red line. I hope some of you were in Ukraine = its a country of 3 parts= western Ukraine central Ukraine and eastern Ukraine - imho this country is so politically and ethically divided going back to XVII century that people discussed Ukraine disintegration from the beginning and being neutral like Finland its still the only way for such divided society. I would like to remind you that western leaders assured Gorbachev that there will be no NATO expansion on the east. This expansion and broken agreement not Russia is the single biggest risk for peace in Europe in last 25 years. This is a very good article about it https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-13/the-story-behind-putin-s-mistrust-of-the-west

Worth remembering now, when some are actively trying to dismantle two institutions created after WWII to prevent future conflicts : the UN and the EU.

The shut-off of gas in the middle of a winter in 2006-2009 was related to a Russia-Ukraine gas dispute over the price of gas. Russia claimed Ukraine was not paying for gas, but diverting that which was intended to be exported to the EU from the pipelines. Ukrainian officials at first denied the accusation,but later Naftogaz admitted that natural gas intended for other European countries was retained and used for domestic needs. Ukraine was getting Russian gas at a low price since the soviet era but when Russia rose the price to the market price Ukraine refused to pay at the new price. So Russia shut the gas sold to Ukraine but not the gas transiting to the EU markets. Ukraine then diverted the gas in transit to use it for domestic consumption creating shortages in Europe. At several occasions Russia cut entirely the gas transiting to Ukraine for some days. Since this crisis Russia decided to reduce gas transit to Europe through Ukraine and use others ways to ship the gas to the EU customers using for instance the Nord Stream gas pipeline connecting Russia directly to Germany through the Baltic Sea. A pipeline they plan now to expand by laying two additional lines. So it's true the gas supply has been use as a political weapon against Ukraine but it has never been used against the EU. I don't see Russia risking a war with the EU over Lithuania or Latvia. I think the fear of a Russian invasion of the Baltic States is emphasized mainly by the US to try to sell more weapons to the east European countries.

Poland gas market is not so huge... They overwhelmingly rely on domestic coal for power generation. And Poland and some other east European country aside, I'm not sure Europe really wants US LNG. The current US administration pressure over Europe on the Iran sanctions is not helping to promote US energy exports. Reducing energy dependence from Russia is not a bad idea but increasing energy dependence from the US could be a bad idea. I'm not sure you understand that in the US but today, from a European point of view, Trump is more threatening than Putin. Trump is threatening Europe with tariffs and sanctions, trying to undermine the EU by supporting populists and meddling in European politics telling the Germans what they should do with their energy or migration policy... Contrary to what many Americans believe, a Russian military invasion of Europe is not seen as a major threat by the Europeans. Europeans are more afraid by climate change than by Putin. And on climate change Trump is more an enemy than an ally.

Yes, you are right. Small volume from US could be sold at low price. But big volumes? Guess, the volume from Russia will not decrease. Actually, it may inrease if a small amount of US LNG helps to push the price of pipeline gas down. Who will invest in this terminal? Until now only politicians had been forced by the american friends to provide the verbal commitment.

LNG delivered by ship is a heck of a lot more expensive than NG delivered by pipe.

Which particular people in Ukraine? There are millions.

Marina, polish politicians has never been really very good in realtipolitcs and pragmatism. Thats why we were partitioned 4 times in last 300 years and despite hard-working population Poland is still one of the poorest countries in European Union= malignant polish people often called our country China or even Bangladesh of Europe because of hard work and 3-6 times lower hourly rate than France or Germany for similar job in assembly plants= average 6-7 euros before taxes per hour. Medium wage in Poland its about 550-650 euros after taxes. Its called good gdp growth thanks to low labour costs. In result we now have populists in power. Why I think so We are for example between Western Europe and Russia\China so in perfect place to make a really huge amount of easy money from polish perspective thanks to very good location on the trade route. We could have been also a broker in trade between EC and CIS countries but unfortunately its not possible. Only on Jamal I and Jamal 2 we could earn at least 3-4 bilions $ per year = its comparable with 1% of polish gdp. Instead for years we had relatively the biggest trade deficit with Russia in the world of high commodity prices environment= thats really an archievement when you have good location from economic point of view between Russia and Germany= maybe not from historical perspective but you could really earn decent money on that ...... Read this very good article from polish magazine Polityka sorry for google translator https://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/rynek/1741922,2,jonathan-stern-o-polskich-problemach-z-gazem.read And very good summary from russian agency Tass = a important informations in my opinion were bolded From last report of IEA - World Energy Outlook 2017. Its free if you register your email so I think I can show you this number without legal aspects Total Export Russia 2015 188 2025 265 2040 314 USA 2015 -1 (import) 2025 120 2040 200 Gas price 2015 2025 2030 EUROPA 4.9 7.9 8.6 Usa 3 3.7 4.4 China 5.6 9.4 9.7 JAPAN 7 10,3b 10,5 IEA Assumption Crude Oil price 2025 83 $ 2030 94 $

Russian pipeline gas will always be cheaper than US LNG, so no, the EU might buy some LNG from the US, but not vast quantities of it. The Europeans would be wise to build enough receiving terminals so as to prevent Russian domination using the threat to cut off their gas as a weapon. It is unlikely, but better safe than sorry.

I love the "Gas as a weapon" adage but this "weapon" has never been unsheathed. Yes, Gazprom did stop gas flows to Ukraine on a couple of occasions but maybe, just maybe, it could have been because the Ukrainians were not paying for the gas they were getting. Let's try to remember the truth that there are always two sides to a story and Ukraine, for all its loudness, is not exactly an exemplary anything, let alone a trade partner. @Tomasz, Poland is very eager to replace Russian gas with LNG, I hear. Is it really as eager as it sounds in the media? Word from the experts: But exporting LNG is an expensive business and likely will not be a big part of European energy anytime soon, experts said Thursday. "What counts for the European consumer is the price," said Thierry Bros, a researcher at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, who noted the lofty costs of US LNG. After Europe liberalized its energy markets, "the price is set between buyers and sellers at the exchange in Holland," he added." "I don't see how the US can force European clients to buy US liquefied natural gas that is more expensive," said Matt Smith, analyst at ClipperData."

So when Russia cut gas to Germany. Give me a detailed date please. Even during Cold War. All supporters of LNG really dont like talking or mentioning simple and small economic problem with LNG= its 30-40 % more expensive than russian gas. And I would like to talk about price because its most important factor in details.. Europe even now can import 160 bilions m3 of LNG and imported 47 bilions last year and even less in 2015 and 2016 - its less than 30 % of maximum capacity. So lets talk what is the biggest problem with LNG and come back to economic reality thats simply a very expensive gas.

Gazprom exported 190 billion cu m of gas to Europe this year, which is apparently a record. What I don't understand is how they step up the rhetoric but keep buying the gas. There are alternatives, after all, so break the chains, Europe.

Two good reads from Oxford Institute regarding Europe and Gazprom: https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Gazprom-Is-2016-the-Year-for-a-Change-of-Pricing-Strategy-in-Europe.pdf https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Gazprom-in-Europe-–-two-Anni-Mirabiles-but-can-it-continue-Insight-29.pdf Another good article: http://energypost.eu/a-grand-bargain-with-gazprom/ I don't personally believe U.S. LNG will ever be a threat to Russia pipeline gas to Europe.

Reagan and Saudi Arabia colluded to tank the price of oil which is what led to the fall of the S.U. There will be no Russian collapse this time.

It's good to have several suppliers (Russia, Allgeria, Libya,, Qatar, US...). More competition means lower prices for the european consumers. But Russia will remain the main suppliers for long, at least until Europe starts producing own .green gas using the excess solar and wind capacity. Gas demand will increase as Europe get rid of coal and nuclear energy then renewables will start to bite the gas market share.

I think they already are, it's all a show, saving face.

I think Europe must get used to situation of more than 200 bilions meters of Gazprom gas on european market in next couple of years because its just best source of energy if you dont like coal anymore.

Yes I agree with you. Germany also need to compesate a high labour cost in their industry in comparison with other countries with cheap raw materials- especially gas.

Tante Angela is very much pro-Nord Stream 2. Germany is shutting down its nuclear power plants as well as coal plants but it needs huge amounts of energy and wind and solar just can't cut it, so more gas is the only way. She's pragmatic, that one. Except when it comes to immigration, that is.

Absolutely no way. Germany is simple biggest beneficiary of Nord Stream II - they will become gas hub for all of Europe and will have keys to european gas system. Simple one more powerful tool of political domination over Europe. And of course cheaper gas for german industry so they really want it.

"We have confirmed reserves, we have transport and we are building new transport routes. If Europe tells us what it needs and is ready to sign the pertinent contracts, I’m not ruling out that we might need new gas pipelines, like, for example, Nord Stream 3,” Gazprom's Alexander Medvedev said in a recent interview. Say what you will, I like their sense of humor.

Nordstream 2 makes sense as does a Nordstream 3 if demand warrants the expansion. Nobody, including the Russians like to see their exports thwarted by would be robber barons. The Germans on the Rhine proved that about 400 years ago. The same arguments concerning secure access also support all of the efforts with the southern route and the plans to export Caspian Sea gas through Turkey, Greece and Italy. There the only fly in the ointment would be competitive gas coming out of Egypt or Israel.

This implies Merkel is unfamiliar with the route of Nord Stream 2, which is impossible. Ukraine has never had any participation in this particular project. I'm honestly fed up with the suggestion that Russia is somehow force-feeding Germany and Western Europe its gas. Nobody can force a commodity on anyone unless the latter wants to buy it. Please. @bo.ris, you mean the consortium building Nord Stream 2 is using inappropriate pipes and nobody has said anything about it? Are the Nord Stream 1 pipes corroding? why hasn't anyone heard anything about that?

I honestly doubt I will live to see TAP. As for geopolitics, right now it's the UK and co. that are trying to make some point that escapes me. One can't really expect Moscow not to respond to diplomat expulsions, can one?

This is mutual interest. Russia needs markets for its gas and Europe needs gas. At least until TAP is built. Not sure that Russia would turn off the gas for Germany just to make its geopolitical point. But it would definitely find other ways to do that.

It's not harsh. If they don't update the terms of the contract, what guarantee does Gazprom have that Naftogaz won't decide to sue again in the future? The Ukrainians sent the payment early this month and Gazprom promptly returned it. So that's three weeks or so when they have had time to do something about it. @Tomasz, yes. If you are going to boast "We can do it without you," please be so kind and do it without them.

Gazprom gas has a price in 2015-2017 about 4-6 $ per brittish termal unit- simple rational decision by european countries to buy cheapest and objectively in historical perspective rather cheap gas. So Europen gas consumption rose for the first time in a decade A cost of production on russian fields is about 1 $ per MMbtu or even less - only Iran has such low cost fields.

Well they shouted loudly on Maidan that they want to be totally independent from Russia despite the fact Russian was and still is their biggest trading partner. The boasted loadly at least several times they dont need it anymore. So they shouldn't use russian gas now in the same time when they were killing russian people in Odessa or Donbas or are attacking russian orthodox churches or banks in Ukraine .

No problem. US LNG is only about 30 % more expensive than russian gas. Qatar gas is about 50% more expensive. Their money their decision. But Poland has a big petrochemical industry and is still a quite poor country - I am courious whether it will be still profitable with such an expensive gas- their Qatar deal is one of most expensive in the world and polish industry doesnt want it. Poland has also a very serious problem with smog because people are burning rubbish and plastics or bad quality but cheap coal to heat their homes because they cant afford to use good quality coal or gas - even russian gas - the cheapest one. A lot of people die every year in Poland because there is dreadful air and now in Poland there is a serious national debate about it for the last couple of years. The best solution for me is cheap russian gas or cheap good quality coal- polish coal is quite expensive because Poland gas a mature mines working sometimes for more than 100 years. But for sure not expensive LNG gas because people will still heat their home by rubbish and plastics.

They get the Russian gas anyway. Anyone with a tiny bit of knowledge knows that they buy Russian gas trough their European allies, so the only thing they do is that they reverse the stream back to themselves at a higher price..

It's just called business. Same everywhere.

hah! definitely. I'm almost afraid to name any of them here in this atmosphere because they've been re-invented to the point that they're doing 'legitimate' business with major US figures (under the last two administrations). So I'll stick with the safer one: Gulnara Karimov, who definitely deserves to be on this list.

haven't you all heard? there aren't any 'oligarchs' anymore. They've all re-invented themselves and are now pretending to be legit.

Putin said to Falih at the meeting "Buy our gas and you'll save oil."