Leaderboard

For the boomers buying a car was the way for young people to be free to travel and meet friends (boyfrends and girlfriends also). Now the millenials meet online on social networks and the smartphone has replaced the car as the freedom symbol for teenagers.

An old investment saw is "The answer to high prices is high prices." Meaning that: high prices will inevitably price out consumers, who will stop buying the product. As it applies to oil, high prices destroy entire economies because everyone uses it. This then destroys demand, which then brings down prices.

Plant extinction 'bad news for all species' I made the effort of taking a screenshot of all the headlines. Spot the differences.

Auto manufacturers are finding lower demand too so I think the less driving hypothesis is probably correct. The millenials don't drive as much as boomers did at the same age and cars are more efficient today so it makes sense that demand in the US is probably not increasing as it used to. India and China are definitely still on the increasing side of the demand equation. My wife and I are raising our 11 year old grand son and so we drive a fair amount still but then we are unusual for our age group. There are younger families with kids around us that are certainly driving big SUVs and consuming lot's of gasoline though. There are multiple Suburbans and an Infinity QX80 on this street. Those people have school age kids and are in their 40s so they are Gen Xers who drive about like boomers did.

Interestingly, the inflation index last year was around 2.5% and right now, even with higher gas pump prices it's around 1.8% which is even more interesting when you consider the 1.8 comes in the face of the tariffs that weren't in force yet last year. There are lots of arguments about what items go in the inflation basket, but fuel is Always a component as opposed to say, butter. I'm convinced that as the population ages, driving goes down, and with millions of baby boomers retiring every year now, not all of them are buying big motorhomes and touring the country. I bought one brand new a decade ago and only put about 15,000 miles on it before I essentially gave it away. It was (sorta) fun but after I'd been to all the national parks nearby I'd kinda been there, done that and didn't keep doing it. The most fun I had with it was touring wineries, but you don't drink a bunch of wine then try to navigate a 42 foot beast on windy roads. What I did was climb into the sack and leave in the morning. But I digress. People on this forum should ask themselves if they're driving like they used to? If not, where has that "demand" gone? The IEA and the global warming enthusiasts have been assuming this linear progression of increasing oil consumption. It ain't happening, if anything it's gone down instead of up. And that, as they say, is that. Silly supply demand…

It's not a defense of anything, I am questioning your rationale and you failed to answer the question. The question is, how does lowering the price of gasoline increase consumer spending if the consumer has the same amount of money to spend? In addition, since fuel and food are both consumer spending, how does an increase in the price of meat work? The same way? As a tax on consumers? Who says discretionary purchases such as entertainment or vacations are any more positive for the economy than a purchase of fuel or food? This has nothing to do with the price of oil but everything to do with the specious argument that says reduced gasoline prices are a boost for the economy. Stick to the topic.

The old "create job" argument. How come every discussion turns into a defense of high oil prices blog. Self interest. Denial. It will get a lot worse for those that over leveraged . The next 2 years will be hell. But Shale oil production and exports will thrive. Just the reality. Those posters that are collecting royalties, small independent producers or small drilling or fracing companies or invested in small independents aren't happy. That doesn't mean the US SHOULD LEGISLATE: "OIL PRODUCER WELFARE SYSTEM" Cowboy up. You made some good money. Party is over.

Sorry Tom. Nothing new in CNN article. The point is Oil Supply is on CNN a general mainstream news station. What does that mean.

That raw sewage is actually part of the master Bio-Mass plan. JJ

Marina that site really has an agenda and is worse than CNN contra Trump. They said more or les - Urbanization will cause the Dengue or Zica etc vírus to spread and will remain more prolific in areas where mosquitoes 🦟 are present. This has zero to do with Climate Change but evolution of humans and our requirements to stay housed and the natural progression of any virus 🦠 so based on this I call BS as we have been evolving since we started moving out of caves and settling. Blame the petrol heads again ..... 🥴

We kind of do: the last mass extinction event wiped out what was it, 90% of all species, plant and animals or 99%. The Earth survived and new species emerged including our very own.

I am only ridiculing the one sided approach. Yes, plants, insects and insects are going extinct every day, and have been doing so for millenia. By the same token, new species of each are being discovered regularly. I am simply pointing out the biased, one sided reporting. I am not making light of the issue.

Sad? Yes. Unusual? I don't think so. Underneath the thin veneer of civility, I think this is how politics has always functioned - even in the US. Our Founding Fathers were pointedly explicit about the evils of large government, the risk of corrupt politicians, and the need to decentralize power. The United States is a giant, somewhat-failed experiment in decentralizing. Oh well. Maybe the next attempt will get a little closer. There is definitely a large, disenfranchised group. Nearly half the country, actually. To some extent, Trump can restore the glory of old. No, we can't change the crippling national debt, fix the public schools, or undo decades of rural decline - but we can stop pissing away what wealth & advantages we possess. Tax reform put more money into productive hands. Repealing the Affordable Care Act - which was an unaffordable abomination by design - was at least attempted. Bringing the EPA to heel and focusing it on its original mission has restored some confidence in industry. Paying attention to natural resource dependencies is good for national defense. Giving the military funding to maintain equipment & training standards. Appointing judges that respect the constitution is stamping out judicial activism. Slowly establishing security at the borders. You get the point. Despite Trump's rhetoric, "restoring the glory of old" doesn't look like grandiose projects; it looks like boring, competent management. It's doing a thousand little things to ensure the system runs smoothly. "Boring, competent management" is what Trump's voters want. Yes, they were angry after decades of abuse. Yes, there was some emotional release when Trump was elected. Ultimately though, they just wanted competent management - and Trump is delivering. I don't know how elite social circles function, but I imagine the presidency provides certain advantages to Trump's family. Maybe it gets them access to information. Maybe it opens the door to new social circles & business opportunities. Maybe they got bored and wanted to try politics. Maybe Trump just likes playing games, and this was the ultimate game. I have no clue; best to just assume he has his reasons. On the other hand, he's made his fortune, his life was great, and he has nothing to prove. Why would an aging billionaire want to endure constant abuse and a grueling schedule instead of playing golf? The only compelling argument I've heard is that he's a father. When fathers grow old, they start thinking about the world their children will live in. It's possible Trump saw an undesirable future and resolved to fix it. No doubt he enjoys playing the game and has his share of ruthless tendencies, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that, underneath the shrewd businessman, he's trying to do some good. Whatever his motivation, it's working out well for us. He doesn't need to have pure motives; he just needs to get the job done.

So America's 'oil boom' is kicking OPEC in the tail...and the price of oil is falling. Isn't this the epitome of 'shooting yourself in the foot' or 'killing the goose that lays the golden egg'?

OPEC increased its production/exports by 2Q15 in response to 4.8MM BPD of US LTO that "saturated" a balanced world oil market. The did that to regain lost market share. Its business. You'd done the same thing. Google it. The American shale oil industry initiated the lower for longer mantra with leveraged oversupply. Oil prices will never be stable again. Who do YOU think is trying to raise oil prices now by limiting production? Every business wants to be out of debt ASAP; you are never truly profitable UNTIL you are completely out of debt. Most of the US shale oil industry pays 10% of the value of its product price in the way of interest on long term debt. You think that's a good "business model?" What shale oil company is borrowing more more to buy back stock? They are deferring debt, selling assets and scrounging money to pay dividends to pissed off lenders and to drill MORE lousy wells so they can meet debt costs. I don't have a burr under my saddle about shale oil, I am actually disappointed so many Americans are so stupid about it. Grant you, I don't get anymore free money from the shale biz so we know where you stand. I hope you are "good" with mid to low $40 oil prices because that is where your beloved shale oil industry is taking us. JC Penny? Your kidding, right? What retail business is remotely similar to spending $9MM per "unit" to realize 140% ROI's...over 15 years? That's less than a CD will return. What retail business puts a product on the shelf that depreciates in value 85% the first three years of inventory life? We're not talking about PP&E, or good faith, or control of 10% of total market share; when that well has reached an unacceptable NPV it is an enormous liability ! "Hopefully" the shale oil industry can pay back $400bn of long term debt? Hee hee...how much longer and how high do you want prices to be for them to be able to do that? NYMEX does not have squat to do with fiscal or monetary policy in America. The FED does, or did before politics entered into it. Growth thru use of debt is fake. Falcon, economics 101 my ass. Anyone that believes they've got OPEC out of their lives now and forever because of stinking shale oil... is nuts. These amazing $20 "breakeven" prices must have JUST happened, I mean just yesterday, because 1Q19 hardly nobody made any money, or enough money to pay down debt. Google it. We can roll with LTO for the next 4-6 years, then what? There are 3-4 shale oil cheerleaders here that unfortunately don't understand anything practical about the oil and gas business at all. Nothing. If this shale oil thing is the depth of understanding in America regarding our energy future, we're toast, our kids are toast and it makes me want to move to Costa Rica.

That is the Merkel approach, and it has been a colossal failure. The downside to "co-operating" with Russia is that it is one-sided: the Europeans hand Russia hard currency, and they get aggression in return. Russia is not interested in some form of mutual-construction activity; it is interested in restoring the grand Russian Empire of the old Soviet Union, and perhaps some more tossed in for good measure. Try to grasp that Russia wants to gobble up the former East Bloc countries, make them vassal states, obedient to Putin. You cannot co-operate with Russia as long as Putin runs that show. And he is in quite good health, so that is going to be a very long time. It is an unfortunate situation. Could the current situation have been avoided? Probably not. Russia has these internal dynamics that preclude Western influence. Putin took over, and there is no way to dislodge him. You are stuck with this sociopath running a country with lethal military equipment there. You cannot get into bed with this guy. As to the Middle East, it is not going to "erupt into warfare." Do you seriously think that Qatar and KSA are going to start shooting at each other? I don't think so. How about KSA and Iran? I don't think so. They would demolish the oil business, and for those guys, oil is everything. Even when Saddam invaded Iran, with the idea of a quick war to take over some border oilfields, it did not spread past those combatants, went into stalemate, and eventually to a truce. Today they are building a joint railroad and pipe project from Tehran to the Med. Even in Syria you don't see say Egypt sending its army in there, nor the Lebanese, OK so you have some mercenary troops from Iran and very little from Turkey (just enough to keep those Kurds at bay), and you have that war at the boot of the Arabian Peninsula, but other than that, for such a volatile region, it is remarkably restrained. Notwithstanding all the blather, nobody is thinking in terms of war with the Israelis, and the Palestinians are pretty much abandoned to their long-term fate of servitude and slavery. I really don't see some big war erupting there.

The number of wells completed per month falls from 1500 in June 2020 to about 550 new wells per month in 2023 and to 425 new wells per month by 2028. The model has about 134,000 wells completed in the US by March 2019 and another 108,000 wells from April 2019 to Dec 2035 (no wells completed after that date). This is for a low price model where oil prices remain at $70/b long term. Total Economically recoverable tight oil is about 52 Gb in this scenario.

I think you are getting into the area of wild speculation. These are politicians and national-security types that you would be contending with, not economists. These guys do not sit down at the table and say: "Now, how can we plot to keep shale oil prices high? I know: let's wreck the Iranian economy. How can we justify doing that to the American public? I know: let's say the Iranians are breaking the uranium enrichment pact." These guys are not that convoluted. They think in terms of revenge and retribution. They want to kill those guys that were involved in the Embassy take-over in 1979. They have long memories, and then can and will try to create chaos and overthrow that government. Death is the aim, not shale oil prices.

And yours as real as image below.... jerry.mp4

In that case, please no deal

Wars are bad, but wars make some people really rich....

Tom, there is no reason whatsoever to feel the need to qualify your opinions, or preface them by saying you are pro-oil, yet believe leveraged oversupply of American shale oil is causing extreme price volatility and, at the moment, declining prices. That's a fact. Its not the first time that has happened and it won't be the last. You are in the industry, in a foreign country; you offer an important perspective. American shale oil has changed the entire world oil order and decimated the offshore industry worldwide, including the GOM, and increased the decline rate of conventional production everywhere. Some 85,000 people worldwide in our industry are still out of work from the 2014 disaster. Don't apologize. You'll take note, of course, that in spite of your efforts, you are being labeled anti-oil and anti-Texan for your opinion. You will also note that the "fix" for your concerns is to fix Canada, or fix Saudi Arabia, OPEC, Russia; everybody else needs fixin,' not the US. Its the world's obligation to make room for American shale oil and to keep prices high. We're entitled. I wish folks could understand it is America's fiscal policy that has allowed this shale oil revolution; its not resilience, or free enterprise, or technology; that's crap. If the shale oil industry was forced to pay back its long term debt and could only drill wells on net revenue from cash flow I am not sure it could do it. Growth thru use of debt it artificial, and it is NOT sustainable in the long run. The sooner we wake up to that they more oil we will have for our long term future in America. For our kids. As it is we are on a course to drain all of our resources and leave them with a Mt. Everest of debt. God Bless Texas, America and the amazing ingenuity of the oil and gas industry, including shale oil and shale gas industry. Bless anyone with the ability to think past next week and the cajones to speak up about it.

Yes, over here in Malaysia, Saudi Aramco smartly invested in the huge, new Pengerang downstream petrochemical complex, just North of Singapore. The majority of oil for the Malaysia complex will come from Saudi Aramco, and some from Iraq. You can be sure that not a drop of crude oil will be imported from Iran - Saudi Arabia's enemy - despite Malaysia being on very good terms with Iran. Iranian students don't even need a visa to enter Malaysia. So Saudi Aramco / MBS has a captive market to export oil every month to its joint venture petrochemical plant in Malaysia, while simultaneously preventing rival Iran's oil from being exported to Malaysia (for info, Malaysia is a net oil importing country since 2014). I imagine that MBS / Aramco had similar ideas in buying up oil refinery infrastructure in the U S. - making the U.S. more of a captive market for Aramco oil exports to its own U.S. refineries, along with reducing U.S. oil imports from Saudi rivals.

So glad you are aware........ you are one of the two.........

Your objection is as strong as minion below......... who says:"

I'm trying to think of this as a major. If my credit rating is AA I can probably float bonds very cheap, there's my capital. Or borrow from banks at LIBOR plus 80 basis points. The one thing that doesn't make much sense is paying a high dividend and buying back a bunch of stock. Maybe Shell is trying to break the analyst stranglehold, where the stock is perpetually tied to reserves and reserves replacement. If Shell can move over to the widows and orphans category, they'll stop with the wild swings tied to oil prices. Maybe they'll get the market to treat them like a large utility?

Let's not forget fertilizers and insecticides, which are invariably made from fossil fuels. Meanwhile, I did my part for maritime here by trying to bring back the Yankee clipper. Let's face it, wind powered ships are far more likely than wind powered airplanes.

We already addressed this topic over in the gas section but I guess Mike just can't let it go. Again, not all operators are flaring and not all operators were so short sighted as to complete wells without a way to sell their gas. Allowables WILL NOT WORK ANYMORE, they are only effective for the shallower formations where decline rates are lower and reservoir capacity is tapped by multiple leases. Look at how they determine the allowable in a field anyway, it's not going to work with shale. Shale is a totally different type of reservoir than those at shallower depths. To call shale a reservoir is misleading because it assumes some kind of permeability across the entire "reservoir" which just doesn't exist with shale except on a very nearby basis. The charts of allowables used by the RRC are decades old and it's not clear to me how they were developed because the deeper you go the greater the allowable. When these tables were developed, there were no wells deeper than about 4000 feet but the tables list allowables for much greater depths. That assumes some kind of naturally increasing formation pressure with depth I suppose. However it was done, it's nothing more than an extrapolation and has never been validated by real measurement. Finally, oil allowables only apply to oil in an oil field and do not limit oil based on the volume of associated gas. Maybe the GOR requirement needs to be changed if you want to conserve associated gas but I am sure there woul be a lot of unintended side effects of doing that. The most important thing to operators is making a profit and losing that associated gas is losing part of your profits. It doesn't make sense to me that an operator would forgo an additional 20% revenue stream but there are many that do. Finally, the most important job of the RRC is not to set allowables and never has been, it was to protect the minerals held by non-leased interests from being drained by others. In other words, you DON'T drink my milkshake if you haven't leased my minerals. That is the primary job of the RRC, not to limit production. The only reason to assign allowables was protecting the formation pressure in the entire field and that was simply protecting all mineral interest holders, not limiting production.

Sorry to say, but it sounds like you have little or no concern about wasting natural gas, which is a precious national resource and Texas resource. The greener of us should also be concerned about taking the natural gas out of the ground and turning it into heat and air pollutants.

I agree TRRC should enforce the capture and processing of associated gas. The extradinary growth in Permian exceeded gas takeaway capacity. Did Perry let producers slide prioritizing oil over gas. Maybe. Infrastructure is always playing catchup. Pipelines can cost Billions. Producers are reluctant to commit. Infrastructure goes from bottlenecks to too much capacity. It all works out in the end. Kinder Morgan's new pipeline completed Q4 2019 will transport 2 bcf/day out of Permian. Kinder has started open season to see interest on a second 46" gas pipeline. Its my understanding gathering lines are starting to be constructed. But I vehemently disagree with other statements. . . . shale industry needs to be put on leash . . . slowed down . . . return to stakeholders. . . . OPEC and Russia trying to stabilize prices, why should America not join in." I didn't hear any complaining when operators were making 80% to 100% return IRR PRE 2015. Nobody forced you into the shale business.Nobody forced stakeholders to invest in shale. NOW YOU WANT GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE AN INDUSTRY AND FIX PRICES ? YOU WANT GOVERNMENT TO GUARANTEE SHALE OIL INVESTORS RETURNS. YOU WANT U.S. TO JOIN A CARTEL AND "STABILIZE" PRICES. ALL THIS JUST FOR SHALE INVESTORS NOT ANY OTHER BUSINESSES IN U.S. Please , I wish you success but cowboy up and stop complaining about free enterprise, capitalism, competition and the American way. Amazing how someone can turn a topic like capturing associated gas into government subsidizing all of the shale industry. Where is it in the Constitution that guarantees a God given right that, "Shale Investors Shall Not Loose Money" Good luck

It would be wise if they all got together and formed a new large oil company. As they say, united we rise and divided we fall. It looks like the big oil companies may be waiting to pick them off one by one slowly over time. If they all unite and form a big company then they would be more potential for them to be bought out all at once.

Much, much cheaper to buy these guys at the bankruptcy sale…

I've had dengue before, it sucks big time. Research published today in Nature Microbiology paints a startling new picture of where dengue, the world's fastest-growing mosquito-borne virus, will spread to put more than 6 billion people at risk toward the end of the century. =============================== Seems the article is incorrect, as climate change is supposed to destroy Earth in less than 12 years, unless carbon taxes save the planet.

Good for the UK and Ireland, wish them well. As for the rest of the world with wide open space, deserts or significant mountain ranges, quit preaching to us!

What's really funny with all this complaining about the flaring is the fact that most of the end product ends up being wasted on frivolous uses anyway. For example, electricity used by bitcoin miners is a total loss, nothing of value is produced at all. Look at the statistics on how much energy is consumed in bitcoin mining, it's way more than what's being flared and that's just one use. Next consider the amount of energy consumed by phones and computers that simply are used for gaming or other forms of entertainment with no value produced. Then there are the companies that buy huge amounts of data storage and use applications to mine that data in order to figure out what customers to target with advertising to consume more useless stuff. I get constant emails that I have to delete because they are spam. Surely there could be some outrage about the egregious waste of energy in all those examples which far exceed the energy lost by flaring in the Permian or Bakken. Oh, right, those don't serve the shale hate agenda though.

Then again, if the penalty for bootlegging a pack of smokes is set at a public beheading by sword, it just might dampen the enthusiasm for joining that black market. Just sayin'.

Very silly to 'chain' yourself to an anchor chain. It's way to easy to release the chain brake....Hello seabed!😆

This may be a good start but it won't affect demand. They have to find a way to reduce demand. I'll watch them trying with fascination and unhealthy curiosity.