Leaderboard

Tom, I must now agree wholeheartedly with our friend, William; you are a very smart man. Thank you. Please remember something about stripper well operators; we are generally small, family oriented shops that can take the prospect, or project, from start to finish entirely on our own. I do my own geology, my own land work, design and engineer my own wells and then manage those wells for decades, all to the benefit of hundreds of mineral owners, compliance with regulatory agencies...everything. Whatever the big boys do, we do the same thing, only a little shallower, and a lot smarter. Then I get to standby, with my hands tied, while OPEC on one side, my illustrious President and the US shale oil industry on the other, manipulate my product prices at will. Its incredibly difficult. And one last thing about stripper well operators...if you want to know if a well, covey of wells, a field, a resource play, whatever, is economic, ask a stripper well operator. We deal with real dollars, our own dollars, and know what's profitable and what's not. I've had the US shale oil phenomena pegged for the past eight years. Its a loser. I get the heebie jeebies when folks, mostly my own industry, now dismiss OPEC as no longer being a significant factor in world oil markets. It is, of course, as William points out, and will continue to be. There are lots of smart people in the Middle East, with computers, and OPEC understands the shale oil thing in America very well. It knows the shale phenomena is totally credit/debt dependent and all about its enormous decline rates, water and infrastructure woes. OPEC is forced to deal with all this at the moment but, I believe, knows US LTO is in a very financially precarious place and is only a threat to world oil markets as long as America is so ignorantly willing to fund it with low interest monetary stimulus. How bad is shale oil debt? Public and private upstream shale oil debt totals something in the order of $3000B, about the same as the total national debts of Russia and Saudi Arabia combined. https://www.oilystuffblog.com/single-post/2018/11/28/Cartoon-Of-the-Week

What a refreshing reminder of reality! Thanks, Mike.

I hear you, Jan. I just cannot buy your answer. If nothing else prevents your outlook from occurring, I think that timing will. Already Canada is being forced to shut in production by the inability to find enough buyers to take their heavily-discounted bitumen. In a year the problem suddenly magnifies five or ten fold. Your proposed workaround doesn't lend itself to "suddenly" treatment. So I expect shut in to prevail.

For the benefit of readers following this thread and interested in matters of Ukraine, I have placed in bold and underline the various points I would now respond to. 1. Is Russia a "Soviet-era prison"? Answer: but of course. Yes. And that is especially true if you are a political dissident, or an Opposer of the Putin regime, or advocate a parliamentary democracy, or advocate a Monarchy, or advocate anything other than Putin for Life. Under those circumstances, you will either be assassinated, or imprisoned in some filthy dungeon until you develop some lung disease and die. Now I appreciate that people don't want to hear that, yet there is ample evidence flowing out of Russia that it is Putin or, well to put it plainly, your death. 2. Is Putin some monster bent on taking over the world? Answer: No. That said, I would argue that he is certainly bent on "taking over," to the extent that he can control, subjugate, have puppet regimes, and exploit for resources and strategic advantage, his immediate neighbors. In that sense, Putin is a rebuilt British King George III, occupying neighbors with mercenary troops (Hessians in the days of King George III; "volunteers" in unmarked green uniforms, basically discharged soldiers being recycled as mercenaries by Putin through some black-ops front in order to maintain some "plausible deniability," a technique used by the old KGB for decades. Did Putin order the invasion and occupation of the Ukraine Donbas? But of course. Did Putin invade, occupy, and annex the Crimea? But of course. And the same with Soviet Georgia, and other little exclaves scattered around. Let's not kid ourselves about Putin. 3. "We all need an enemy." No, we don't. Having to deal with Putin and his continuing conflicts is something we really do not need. In the past, "appeasement" was the tactic used. Putin invaded Crimea; nobody in the West even did one little peep. The West has been buying Russian gas, also oil products, also manufactured goods, specifically to try to bring Putin and Russia into the world family of nations. Nobody gains anything (OK, lunatic Border Control aficionados gain, but reasonable folks do not) with having a violent and aggressive Russia sitting on their borders. Russia has that heavily-militarized wasteland known as the Kaliningrad Oblast, a left-over from the take-over of Germany and Poland at the end of WWII, that threatens the Baltic States. Nobody wants to see Putin again using his black-ops troops knocking over the Baltics, using the Kaliningrad as a salient against the West, taking over the Baltic Sea, and exploiting the locals. So the tactic of the West is to buy Russian products, and hand the RUssians western currencies. Has not been working out so hot, so far. Ukraine is not an "abscess," except perhaps politically. Ukraine has well developed industry, especially in aircraft engines and airframes (Antonov), and Ukraine has vast amounts of raw materials including coal and especially wheat. That wheat historically has fed Russia. Putin wants to use Ukraine as a vassal State in a mercantilist format, where Ukraine supplies raw materials at priced dictated by Russia, and sells Ukraine manufactured goods and gas at prices dictated by Russia. Ukraine is thus a source of immense profit to Russia. So, Russia will undermine political stability, probably invade the East including taking over the city of Kharkov, and enslave local Ukrainians especially the native Russian speakers. Don't kid yourself about the harsh realities of Mr. Putin. He will kill you in an instant, if you cross him. Yes, he is a monster.

The physical availability of WVO limits its use. I recall reading somewhere that the USA produces approx 1.2 mt of WVO. If you assume crude WVO is roughly the equivalent of crude oil then it equals to approx 29000 barrels per day

The West loved Yeltsin because he was selling the country to the western corporations. He enriched his friends and supporters by allowing them to buy national industries for peanuts, turning them in oligarchs. And then the oligarchs were selling the Russian companies to western companies making billions from goods they had bought for millions or less. Yeltsin, the new friend of the West, was coined a "démocrat" despite the fact he started a bloody war in Chechnya and sent the tanks in Moscow to fire on the parliament building to solve a constitutional crisis he had created by trying to illegally dissolve the parliament to avoid an impeachment vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis Under Yeltsin the GDP had been declining, corruption was rampant, violent crime was skyrocketing, medical services were collapsing and life expectation was falling. Russia was dissolving into chaos and was increasingly irrelevant on the international stage. So many Russian credit now Putin to have stopped the free fall of the country into the abyss and restored a powerful Russia they can be proud of. He has replaced Yeltsin's oligarchs by his own oligarchs but at least the new oligarchs are not selling the national industry to the West. The economy is faring far better than under the Yeltsin years and Russia is back on the international stage. We have to take into account these facts if we want to understand Putin's Russia.

You have talked about "radiation forcing" and "radiative shielding", neither of which are terms used in climate science. Your ramblings on radiation shielding seemed to have overlooked the basic fact that the concept related to effects on matter, rather than the atmosphere. At no time in a any of your posts have you indicated how your terminologies (concepts if you will) affect climate. Indeed, your only real forays into climate were about global cooling - an area which received short shrift in the science community once its protagonists learned how aerosols impacted global climate. Conceptually, radiation shielding is about ionizing radiaton's affects on matter, which has absolutely no bearing on the planet's energy budget which is a factor of radiative forcing. There are 5 IPCC Assessment Reports which deal in significant detail with radiative forcing and I could cite many hundreds of published papers outlining the concept. I just completed a key phrase search of the last 3 IPCC Reports for "radiative shielding" and drew a blank. For a person who claims to have aced this subject area, your knowledge seems somewhat limited.

@William Edwards knows firsthand more about OPEC's historical pricing and supply machinations than probably anyone else reading or lurking on this forum. If you nicely ask William an intelligent question, he will likely respond. You may not agree with what he says. But simply ignoring his perspective is probably unwise.

History suggests that the price necessary for oil sands producers to shut in dilbit production is a WCS price around $20/B, FOB Hardisty, equivalent to $25/B, FOB USGC, using spare, incremental-cost pipeline capacity. Such a price can be easily matched by stranded Eastern Hemisphere sour crude supplies from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Russia and Iran. Once the IMO 2020 sulfur regulation kicks in, there will be upwards of two million barrels a day of Eastern Hemisphere sour crude looking for a home in the US. At that point Canada's protected position as US supplier will vanish. In the expected desperate situation, Eastern hemisphere crude can compete in the US , not just in the Gulf Coast, but also in the Midwest, utilizing Capline. Canada's future is grim.

"Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman met Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and told him about plans to scale up investments in India’s tech, farm and energy sectors, an Indian official and the Saudi news agency (SPA) said on Friday.The two leaders, who are in Argentina for the G20 summit, met in the prince’s residence in Buenos Aires and discussed Saudi Arabia’s readiness to supply India with oil and petroleum products. The G20 summit in Buenos Aires is the first major international event the Saudi prince has attended since the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October. The Saudi prince told Modi he would soon be finalizing an initial investment in India’s National Investment and Infrastructure Fund, a quasi-sovereign wealth fund, to help accelerate the building of ports, highways and other projects, a top Indian diplomat said." Apart from this meeting, Mbs will meet with many leaders of G20, so money can help you get amnesia.... Over the past several weeks, the Saudis have offered multiple, contradictory explanations for what happened at the consulate in Turkey and Khashoggi's brutal murder..

I keep telling you guys this, and you keep ignoring it, that Canada will refuse to collectively face the "grim future" that you paint. The idea that Canadian crude from Alberta specifically is going to get "shut in" is a scenario that NO Canadian government can allow to happen. That oil MUST be produced and MUST be converted into fuels via distillation, and if the USA market specifically and the Asian Market generally is not going to buy the stuff, then Canada - inevitably - will turn its domestic market into a closed market, place a prohibition onto the import of oil, and require all and sundry inside Canada to burn and use only Canadian oil (and gas, of course). There are serious technical problems, of course, but Canada is a sophisticated country with a deep reservoir of well educated engineers who are capable of building the refinery capacity to take the oilsands material and upgrade that oil, and then both build additional refineries on-site to produce distillates, and to ship the upgraded material to other refineries in Sarnia, Montreal, and St, John, New Brunswick by railcar, to be used as exclusive feedstock in those plants. Now, does that imply that Canadians will pay more than the world price for their gasoline and diesel (and heating fuels)? Of course it does. And so what? Think of those extra sums as a form of tax, for the "privilege of being Canadian." Historically, all kinds of stuff are justified in terms of that special "privilege," so don't be surprised if a closed-system of only internal heavy oils ends up. Canadians themselves don't really suffer from that, as they have historically paid little - and continue to pay very little - to support their military. For example, right now the Canadian Navy has zero combat-capable blue-water ships, and zero operational naval supply-support vessels (the last one conked out in the Caribbean and had to be ingloriously towed back to Halifax). If you don't spend tons on the military, then relatively you can spend some coin on oil refining. What continues to hurt Canada is the profoundly stupid governance of the Province of Ontario. There, an entire generation has operated under the thumb of an imperious and insolent Liberal Party, so oppressive that in the end it got slaughtered in the last election, going from roughly 126 seats to 5. It is such a rout that it is no longer even an Official Party. It converted Ontario from a manufacturing powerhouse into a penniless province, reliant on handouts from the Federal Equalization Payments (from rich Provinces to poor). Once the new provincial Premier, Mr. Ford, gets manufacturing re-started, the wealth will slowly (very slowly) start to come back. And key to that is peace with the USA over tariffs, and access to the US market. But it will, albeit at the cost of a chronically devalued currency exchange rate. I say again: Canada will not shut in its capacity. It will convert their entire country to run on Alberta crude. That is my prediction.

How did the story go Mr. Kirkman? We help him get there to the throne and let him win by our choice already? Can't wait to know more...

For those that think climate change is some sort of conspiracy theory run by the Chinese with bot's.

I think Exxonmobil, prima facie have had a conversion of sorts. In truth, probably to promote gas as a clean alternative to coal. Tillerson, in his Sec of State capacity is on record as saying - we can live with the Paris Agreement. Meanwhile Koch Bros donations to climate change denial organisations at least $100m since 1997. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

Of all the possible oil topics, this is by far the most exciting to discuss (for me). And yes, firsthand knowledge is invaluable, whether it's OPEC or US shale. Keep going! The comments from that interview above about Russia's aging wells was interesting. Are they in a position to restrict oil production again?

It is not in doubt Evgeny Levedev also owns the Evening Standard the afternoon London daily. I wasn’t pointing out bias merely the irony. http://www.albionmill.org.uk/?p=1476

Ok great - youve started posting screen shots - heading in the right direction at last. Can i ask that you post screen shots of your analysis and when/why you take a position at that point in time just prior or after taking a position? For example, you have started a thread indicating it will go down to $40, can you show where you shorted it, and where / when you plan to add more positions as it progresses with the view of holding those positions down to $40? So if it gets to $48-49 - will you add more shorts and keep the existing ones open? if not- why close them if you beleive it will keep going down to $40? Basically im trying to extract your reasoning from you rather than simply "look how good i am" - dont mean disrespect, its just that the reasoning and ideas are worth discussing here, the latter noone is interested in... we can turn this whole thing into something productive and useful as opposed to just unesessary noise...

Heh heh, but it's true what I said, William. I could say similar things about @Mike Shellman experience in U.S. stripper wells. He's been hands on in stripper wells his entire life, and probably has forgotten more about oil than I know about oil. Since you were nose to the grindstone with OPEC deliberations decades ago, it would be foolish for me to ignore your views. You are well aware that we don't agree on a number of issues, but that doesn't mean I am foolish enough to ignore your views on issues we disagree about. The world would be pretty darn boring if we all agreed on everything. It's easy to get distracted by totally useless information. Like this: Seems better to me to pay attention to the bigger picture, rather than get distracted by the MSM disinformation News Du Jour shiny objects about oil & gas short term fluctuations.

You are simply a smooth-talking devil, Tom.

We are talking about a "forcing" effect, so your points were not relevant to climate, and are distinctly different to the concept of radiation shielding. This is a plain and simple matter of you not knowing what you are talking about. Moreover, if you did have a clue you would have introduced how forcing effects were pivotal the the planet's energy budget. Swallowing a text book and regitating irrelevances does not cut it. It's difficult to know how to respond to you because you appear to have no demonstrable knowledge of climate science. You do, however, continue to make unusual claims. For example, you said " You < meaning I > appealed to the "authority" of peer-reviewed articles." Please learn some logic. The peer review process is one where those with expert knowledge of a subject area review claims being made which are relevant to that subject area. I requested something factual from you. Will you continue to disappoint with yet more irrelevances?

You are right. It is my fault. I did create this thread using the headline term "GAS" instead of "GASOLINE". Sorry. I won't do it again.

fascinating interview. I've seen bits and pieces quoted but I'm not sure I've ever read it in its entirety. @Mike Marcellus what Ali Naimi had to say about Venezuela may make me rethink a few things.

Near as I can guess, ● Russia can live with (and has budgeted for) $40 oil from 2016 to 2019. ● But Russia actually needs oil at around $55 to cover budget gaps. ● Anything above $55 oil this year is a pleasant budgetary windfall. ● Russia apparently plans to budget for oil at $45 from 2020 to 2022. ● Again, anything above $60 or so for 2020 to 2022 will be a pleasant budgetary windfall for Russia. It's no wonder OPEC wants to work together with Russia, because Russia can actually think more logically about medium and longish term oil prices than the absolute dictators within OPEC Middle East countries can. ME OPEC countries who rely extensively on oil revenues to support their respective regimes, are not realistic in their assumptions and expectations that high oil prices can be maintained for many years into the future, in order to support their assorted grandiose ruling regime's grips on power. Low oil prices certainly yanks the carpet out from under the feet of oil producer hubris. Russia is now apparently the Voice of Reason in OPEC gatherings. This should get amusing. Really. Also, for amusement, someone alerted me to this: https://twitter.com/davidgura/status/1068247822565298176 And then WSJ corrected the correction: Putin Trump Derangement Syndrome is real, folks. But with your generous donations, there is hope for a cure.

The army will be happy when Vlad tells them to be happy. Or he'll just take off his shirt, get on his pony, and shame them into being tougher! LOL!

MEES Interview with Ali Naimi in Dec 2014.pdf

Maybe everyone should be reminded of the bedrock principle -- you cannot put ten gallons of oil in a five gallon bucket. If the production plans for total industry crude output exceeds the total worldwide demand, some producers will be forced to cut production plans. Whether a coordinated decision is implemented to minimize the price drop or not, production expectations will be adjusted down to the demand level. If there is no agreement to spread the pain, the first step will be a price drop. $20/B is not unrealistic when the trading community shifts their attitude from higher prices to lower prices, net long futures contracts are dumped and shorts are added. The second step will be the industry picking up the pieces of a decimated price environment, but at lower prices for less production. The alternative scenario is for the major players to coordinate their production activities and not try to maintain market share by cutting prices. In that case, if the group stays compliant, the price drop will be only half of the alternative every-man-for-himself scenario. In both cases, production drops to the level of demand.

Who am I to argue with someone who lives there and I don't? There are enough facts and figures from organisations such as the World Bank and the IMF that prove Russia is doing a hell of a lot better than during Yeltsin's times. But I'm sure you understand it's not the well-being of Russians and the Russian economy that a large part of the world cares about. Let me put it like this: Europe and the U.S. loved Yeltsin for a good reason. I feel like a lot of people living in Western Europe, particularly the UK, and the U.S. have this romantic view of Russia as a Soviet-era prison, straight out of "1984" with Putin as fill-in-the-blank-monster, with no opposition whatsoever and no critical press either, the monster bent on taking over the world. What annoys me is the complete lack of critical thinking in this view. Asking the simplest question of how would Russia benefit from taking over, I don't know, any of the Baltic States, for example, would yield the most logical answer, which is "It won't." Same with Ukraine. Who needs an abscess in their backside, really? But this is why the "Putin the deranged dictator" adage is so popular, I think. It eliminates the need for asking questions that require logical answers. It doesn't hold up in the face of evidence as an accurate description of this person (Russia's doing better than before economically and geopolitically, which is the result of deliberate, rational, efforts) but it appeals to emotions. You understand this is an oversimplification and Russia is far from trouble-free with a lot of poverty and yes, corruption, but that's all I could formulate coherently. We all need an enemy, unfortunately, and right now Putin fills the role for Europe and the U.S. better than anyone else. We'll see what happens in five years. I hope we won't see another Yeltsin. P.S. Here's a story from today that highlights the divide between reality and wishful thinking. Which is why sane, low-emotion reporting about Russia is so refreshing.

Basing your argument on this rather badly done article is leading to a false opinion. For a start Tesla is using these are large vehicles to help finance the drive to more efficient EV's, which the Model 3 is a large step to reach this goal. The goal hasn't been reached but we are on the road forward. Manufacturing is more energy intensive at the moment. But you have to look at life time use and how this is beginning to change. At the moment as the MIT study and Dutch University (can't remember what that one's called) even with dirty coal generated electricity a large EV is better than a small ICE exhaust on emissions in real world use. Then add on the fact that many owners of EV's have solar or buy renewable generated electricity and the grid is turning increasingly to renewables. Then add on the energy used to get that petrol or diesel, which is normally over looked. Also EV's lifetimes are getting to be dam good, far better than an ICE. Always love the cherry picking of "my ICE car has done 400,000 miles", that's great but he average ICE isn't so good. Yes riding a bike is far better, but in reality most people aren't going to give up their car (until self driving comes and that changes everything). And already EV's are on apples to apples comparison better for the environment when all factors are taken into account, especially when we take the human health impact into account. Everything we do has an environmental impact it's just trying to find the best way forward to a wealthy world but for the least amount of environmental damage possible.

Speaking of facts, perhaps you should check the accuracy of your link. The climate science community laughed it off a long time ago. Of course, you can easily check from the source: Time Magazine's actual cover

I guess you are not an atmospheric physicist. The concept of an energy budget is basic, and it's not hard too work out that if more energy is being retained by a system than is being released (which has been the case for planet earth for some considrable time), then it will increase in temperature. So your claim on "warming" has no merit. Your idea that we need all the variables to predict an outcome is a nonsense. I think you are confusing the idea of weather with that of climate but, more particularly, temperature. The rather simple fact here is that there are no GCMs that predict a declining temperature concurrent with increasing radiative forcing. To get such an outcome requires a violation of physical principles. Your claim that it is me missing the point is fallacious. You never mounted an argument of merit because you completely ignored the reasons behind the original claim, viz. that technogical advances have led to greater efficiences while at the same time costs are declining. A more credible response in any case might have introduced the concept of LCOE. Perhaps some facts might help you mount a case. Do you have any?

Here in Californiagrad, new taxes have been collected for road repairs. We have seven refineries. Perhaps the new funds are hoarded to pay lawsuits when 5 year old cracked pavement throws passengers out of windows seats, safety belts and all? I believe chairman Brown wants 200% alcohol at the pump, regular unleaded in the scotch and higher taxes on marijuana. Our Costco gasoline is one dollar per gallon costlier than what this article headlines. If Sacramento had their way, government executives would be furnished with Muskmobiles with free fill-ups and Zil Lanes. Disgusting. The poor get poorer -- much poorer in this misguided utopia. I should know I live on Social Security.

So, Blue Oyster is your place? Will they let me in for free if I mention your name? Is that where you keep the time machine stashed? I'll bet there are historians and judges in the back in the secret room, aren't there?

I maybe a insignificant pebble easily thrown aside but it happens this little pebble is part of larger collective, a massive beech that is now turning back the sea of fossil fuels. And like a small little pebble, I'm quite tough and remarks like that just wash off me. How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history, that future generations will judge and find wanting?

based on this production cuts will be easy, rather they are already happening in a small degree, because you can only go full bore for so long, this will allow a small "natural" draw back in production always a wild card, everyone exaggerates their abilities,,, they've been exaggerating for so long no oneNot even themselves)really knows how much oil is coming out of Iran I feel the global economy is still a team of horses waiting to run,, but the headwinds of the (necessary imho) tariffs and sanctions are holding them back. I believe Trump and Xi are the players here, just read Nick Cunningham's article and agree with this closing... https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Is-The-Trade-War-Coming-To-An-End.html The bottom line is that the trade war could go one of two ways after this weekend. The ramifications for the oil market are profound. Most economists are already predicting a global economic slowdown in 2019. Any escalation of the trade war will cause more headaches, potentially forcing more downward revisions in oil demand, and thus, drag down crude prices. On the other hand, Trump may give in to Xi and call off the trade war, just as he did with North Korea and the nuclear program last year. Declare victory and go home. If he is, I think he is wrong,,, need the equilibrium price of oil to foster the necessary forward investments He's bluffing Not so sure he feels beholden to the U.S., he should but he's not a thinking man, seems more of a criminal. Bringing me to his den of thieves called opec,, and their new found partner in Russia, Mbs has no power to cut production because none of the "members" trust one another either, and will still look out for themselves first, regardless of what they tell each other. Cutting production means cutting income, and risk of losing market share, that seems counter-intuitive, therefore it take a while for the den of thieves to understand they need to cut production, so the cuts will happen, but will be delayed like last time. Great thread, thanks Guillaume for concisely listing the main points, and allowing me to jump in on the conversation.

Trump not follow through with what he said he would do. That's pretty much his mode operandi.

I'm hearing opinions that KSA is already cutting and by the time the December meeting is finished we will be able to see a few less ships due to less fulfilled orders, and we should be able to see the water line on the ships indicating smaller loads. If we do indeed start seeing these things by the time the meeting is finished it will indicate they were indeed cutting as far back as now (delay from orders to shipments of product). And then ALL OPEC members will participate; they always want higher prices AND more sales, no matter what, and it's usually the Saudis and politics that make them agree to lower price machinations, and even cuts as a last resort. Remember, their time is limited by pipeline under-capacity in North America, mainly the U.S., and all that is slated to change from late 2019 throughout 2020. I'm hearing figures ranging from 1.5 to 2.25 million barrels in cuts. If they go this route, and it is quite possible that they may given the way they got duped by Mr. Trump, they will no doubt cause a shock and drive prices very high indeed. How high? $70+ for WTI. Then, as the pipelines in NA come online, the prices will once again fall until there is a drop off in shale production, if/when that happens and for whatever reason(s).

Still a spread of $10... now prices have dropped this much, the spread as a percentage of price has put brent at a significant premium over WTI... Why is the US not exporting more oil and being paid higher prices on the global market - i read somewhere there was a bottleneck in the infrastructure? Also - is there a bureaucratic restriction exporting oil to trading partners? Whatever the reason, At a $10 premium (nearly 20%) on the global market - US oil producers could be making a bonanza exporting it...

JJ has me and Catch22 blocked so their is no way we can ever have a meaningful discussion with one another. Honestly if you guys want to do this then we need to change how people call out price points, no changing your answers after the fact. Even you guys who are just listening, you don't have to trade in real life but the very least announce a price and in what time frame you believe that price will hit. You will never learn how things work if things are not transparent, people can just brush their losses under the rug and only anounce their wins. Nobody benefits from this as it leads to false impressions about what works and what doesn't work.

Look - he did do two semesters of Physics (Trump University😄)

No kidding! Crematorium, I'm guessing.

Last term at our son's school they took them on a field trip (Yeah! I love field trips!) to an army base. Ok, I guess. This term they took them on a field trip (Yeah! I love field trips!) to the morgue. Umm....... First to the military base with all the really cool big guns and soldiers; and then to the morgue. Makes sense, I guess? 🚑

"The Little Pebble with Big Feelings" The heartwarming story about a little guy with grit, determination, and a heart of stone, who learns so much by getting stepped on by the big, bad, corporations, and triumphs nonetheless.