Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/27/2017 in Posts

  1. 29 points
    The irony of the Mueller investigation that was demanded by Democrats because they thought it would show Trump colluded with Russia to win the Presidency is that it has blown up in their faces by exposing in greater detail how Obama and the Deep State attempted first, to throw an election in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton, and second, attempted a coup once Trump was elected via investigations and false claims. Once Trump won the election, the Deep State used their accomplices in the msm to convince the American public that Donald J Trump stole the election with the collaboration of the Russians. In this way they sought to remove him by impeachment. It turns out the Deep State were the ones who were acting as agents of Russia seeking to tear America apart. Consider: John Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, by his own admission, played a key role in instigating the investigation of Trump before the election. In the aftermath of the election Brennan has repeatedly called Trump a traitor on social media and old media. We now know in August 2016 Brennan gave a private briefing to Sen. Harry Reid. Subsequently, Reid sent a letter to the FBI which included info that clearly came from the now infamous dossier, manufactured by ex-British spy Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS contractor. This dossier would later be included in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application that was used to justify investigations into Trump, his campaign, and his family. It now appears very likely Brennan later lied under oath that he did not know who commissioned the dossier. This dossier was originally funded by none other than Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. Since the conclusion of the Mueller report has come out Brennan, probably fearing an investigation into his actions pre/post election, now says he had “bad information”. A more accurate description might be that he was willfully spreading disinformation to bring down a President. James Comey himself described this dossier as “salacious” and “unverified” yet he did not bother to have the FBI attempt to verify the contents of the dossier. This didn't stop Comey from lying 4 times to the FISA court that ex-British spy Steele was the source of an article by “journalist” Isikoff, which was used to corroborate claims in his own dossier. So Comey, in essence, told the FISA court that the Steele dossier had been corroborated by…Steele. Some background: Steele also worked for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. So the only person who had any verifiable evidence of working with the Russians in any capacity is an ex-British spy, contracted to manufacture a false dossier on behalf of Hillary Clinton to smear Trump and later weaponized to impeach Trump after he won the election. Comey lied to the FISA court so he could obtain, as he did, a warrant to spy on Carter Page (Trump staffer) and the Trump family during the election. Moreover, in addition to Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, and former Attorney General Sally Yates were required to sign off on the FISA warrant application. They are either incompetent or were engaged in a conspiracy but regardless, this was a fraud on the FISA court. Bruce Ohr, a senior official at the time at the Justice Department, acted as a middleman between the FBI and Steele. He passed along information from his wife Nellie Ohr, also a Fusion GPS contractor like Steele, with, presumably, unverified and false info regarding Trump and his campaign. The FBI later terminated Steele’s relationship as a confidential informant with them after he revealed this relationship to the press. However, for up to 1.5 years after, Bruce Ohr continued to act as middleman between Steele and the FBI, even after Mueller took over the investigation. Americans should be marching in the streets at this attempted coup but we are so doped with mindless entertainment that we no longer care. We are becoming a system where as long as you don’t challenge the 2 party system you are allowed your freedom to make money and to say whatever you want so long as it doesn't have consequences. Any more details of Mueller's report due to be released by AG Barr are likely to reveal more of the rotted core of the Deep State and their machinations and not, as Democrats think, damaging info about Trump.
  2. 17 points
    We don't really have a two party system in this country. There's only the party of incumbency, then wealthy retirement as "lobbyist" or "consultant". We see Obama on billionaires' yachts and don't blink an eye. Al Gore is worth half a billion from a net worth of 2.5 million when he left office. The Clintons control a $2.5 billion fortune much of it protected by the paper thin veneer of a "foundation" from the tax man. Because when they ran on higher taxes on the rich, they meant thee, not themselves. It's going to take awhile to figure out how Paul Ryan was bought off, but bought off he was. In some ways, the biggest tragedy of 9/11 was that flight 93 couldn't find Congress. Shuffling the deck might have been the best thing for the country. Politicians aren't our friends
  3. 16 points
    President Trump has pretty much done what he promised to do on his campaign trail. That must be the biggest slap in the face to his haters. I'm sure there were many who thought "oh well, he'll never get anything done" Instead, he does every thing he said he would, including keeping oil prices down. I say this honestly, I have been impressed with his effectiveness in politics and his wisdom in keeping the U.S. out of foreign conflict. Especially considering he's met arguably the harshest critics and most political resistance of any American President. I definitely don't always agree with him, but he has been consistent to his promises.
  4. 16 points
    This thread starts with the headline: "Iran downs US drone. No military response" Why is this so startling? The US sends a spy drone to go take a look at what the Iranians are up to (not much of a surprise there), and the Iranians go take a shot at it, get lucky, wing the bird, and down it goes. Again no big surprise - after you get past the shooting part of hitting the bird. Let's remember something: The USA has no business sending spy drones over other countries. If you do that, then don't be surprised that somebody takes umbrage and tries to knock it down. Going back some 50 years, the Russians were infuriated that the US had developed that U-2 high-level spy plane that flew up beyond their air power reach, and could travel over several thousand miles of Soviet territory with impunity. So the Russians knocked themselves out developing an ultra-high-altitude interceptor missile, knocked down Francis Gary Powers, and the rest is history. The US can do it today with the Blackbird SR-71, but nobody much bothers as satellites have made those manned flights obsolete. Today those spy drones, and their cousins the assassination drones, are cheap enough to build and operate and can drop a bomb right through some open window and into the bedroom of any foreigner the US wants to go assassinate, and do it with complete impunity. Now, that prospect is going to make adversaries rather jumpy. You have to expect that the targets are going to do their damnest to knock those birds down. Another good reason not to have a live pilot on board. Nobody is going to start a shooting war over some spy drone. They just send up another one, and the game continues.
  5. 14 points
    The Trump Administration is doing everything possible, and probably too much in some ways. Meanwhile his actions, and that of the entire government are being lied about by almost all of the mainstream media sources. They are guilty for much of the stock market losses and scare mongering going on. It is born out of the same desperation that the motivated the attempts to overthrow him since even before he was nominated and finally the phony attempt at impeachment. These lies are just more of the same.
  6. 14 points
    Have you ever personally seen what it takes to get a barrel of oil out of the ground and into a barrel? I doubt it; correct me if I'm wrong. Do you have any idea of history? With barrels of oil in reserve, we're about right: no less, no more. IMO-2020 takes place January 1, 2020. Do you have any idea what it's going to cost to transport a VLCC full of oil to China after the low-sulfur bans are in place? I didn't think so. Do you have any idea what the Saudis have in reserve? I don't either, but it's a given that it's less than they had five years ago. Occidental has ten billion borrowed at 8% interest--but they're trying to sell property. Continental is doing okay. Hess is also doing okay. Several small players are doing okay. Some are going to go broke, but you know what, it's not their money----it's funny money, from pooled investors, pay your way and find your way. Secretary Perry doesn't have a f****** clue. The Department of Energy is one of the departments he claimed he was going to eliminate when he was campaigning for president. He forgot its name on stage! And now he's head of it! Does that not strike you as ironic? Whether Perry's guess is right or Goldman Sachs has it right is of very little significance: it is what is is. And what it is is a market, with fear and greed moving it, along with surplus and . . . ultimately, shortages. But I'll damn sure guarantee you one thing: the world is NOT currently awash in oil. The world's storage is just about on par. The world's proved up reserves are no longer even verifiable; if they were the Saudi Aramco IPO would be ongoing. In truth, the world doesn't have a clue what the reserves are, and which ones will be used. Most of the articles on Oilprice are meant to scare people, written by someone like you: who hasn't a brain cell's idea of what it's like to go take a risk, bring up a barrel of oil, try to peddle it. It's just bullshit. I don't mind you saying it, but I do want to call it out as bullshit. It's not even provocative.
  7. 14 points
    I feel like looking at this through an idealistic lens: When a nation adopts dangerous ideas, it's safer for the world to destroy that nation than to let the infection spread. Thus, nations aren't being destabilized to prop up the price of oil. They're being destabilized to prevent violent ideas (Iran) and economically unsound ideas (Venezuela) from infecting other nations. This works partly because it strips dangerous nations of the resources they need to spread their ideas and partly because it makes an example of them. Most of the Middle East is an obvious example of dangerous ideas. They export violence, oppression of women, etc. That's not acceptable. Venezuela is a more subtle case. Their sin was socialism: stripping resources from the producers of society to give it to unproductive people. This is dangerous because, in the long run, it destroys the economy, plunging everyone into destitution. Unfortunately, citizens of developed nations looked at Venezuela's short-term success and thought, "I want free stuff too!" The dangerous idea was spreading. Thus, the safest course of action is to accelerate Venezuela's inevitable demise. If Venezuela doesn't appear successful, then there's no reason to mimic their behavior. There's also the issue of OPEC, which intentionally manipulates markets. If the problem is that governments are manipulating markets, then the solution is to replace those governments. If The People don't like the resulting death, disease, and destruction, then they shouldn't have supported market manipulation. Better to have a few suffer today than to have everyone suffer later. Conveniently, many dangerous nations rely on oil revenues. Increasing oil prices has the short-term effect of enriching these nations, but the long-term effect of destroying them. As they become dependent on oil revenues, high prices allowed unconventional oil producers to invest in R&D, which drove down the cost of unconventional oil, which allows unconventional oil to replace conventional oil from dangerous nations, which eliminates those nations' revenue streams. These dangerous nations are now wholly dependent on oil revenue even as they're being stripped of that revenue. Problem solved. On a more abstract level, the problem is that some people can't manage resources. They consume everything they're given, fall into destitution, and then complain bitterly that it was Someone Else's fault. These people destroy everything they touch. They are dangerous and cannot be allowed to infect others. Thus, they must be made into examples.
  8. 14 points
    In my opinion, Russiagate was a fraud and a hoax. However, I do not view "the Deep State" is a monolithic entity. I believe there are various factions and interests, some more in common with others, and it's never clear in the shadowy netherworld of intelligence and intrigue. What we see on the media are the figureheads and cartoon cutouts - the Ted Lieus, the Adam Schiffs, the Muellers, the Maddows, etc. In my opinion, the Trump election reflects a slight conflict precisely within the 'Deep State' factions. The neoliberal establishment that has long since reigned does not like Trump for various reasons, including likely his geopolitical opinions. The Russiagate narrative served to vilify Russia has the number enemy. Unfortunately, most in the American ruling class were and still are asleep to the fact that the greatest geopolitical rival and threat to the U.S. actually comes from China, not Russia. Former candidates like Mitt Romney are completely oblivious to the geopolitical tectonic shifts that are currently underway that will determine the fate of the 21st century. Russiagate did a whole lot of nothing, but the lasting effect of Russiagate has been online censorship of mostly right-leaning personalities who dare questioned the official media narrative. Social media sites have largely silenced or banned those who did not necessarily tow the main line. Russiagate will soon be in the public memoryhole, but you can bet the censorship tactics of most of the social media corporations will remain intact. Although I do not agree with Trump on most items, he was correct to see China as the true geopolitical rival to the U.S. and his (at least) verbal overtures to woo Russia could be viewed as an attempt to mend ties with Russia. If the U.S. has any hope of trying to stay relevant not just as a superpower but as a country, it will need to realize the reality and court proper alliances on the grand chessboard, especially Russia.
  9. 14 points
    That is a bogus polling company paid by Maduro's regime close to 90 % of Venezuelans want him to go. He is hanging on because of the chief military support based on their asociation with drug cartels and money laundering and widespread corruption
  10. 14 points
    1) Demand for oil plummets due to the economic effects of the threat of triple digit oil prices. 2) Oil and gas production continue to increase, far more than is needed, due to overblown concerns about oil production cutbacks in Iran, Venezuela, etc. 3) Canada gets its act together and an oil pipeline system is put in place to export more oil to U.S. Tar sands production increases due to pressure to pay down fixed costs. 4) U.S. Shale oil pipeline bottlenecks get resolved, and Shale oil production increases dramatically. 5) Iran keeps exporting oil, but on the black market, resulting in incorrect global oil production figures, and OPEC and Russia don't cut back. 6) Oil traders panic about overproduction and drive oil prices over a cliff. If some (or all) of these happen by middle / end of 2019, I could plausibly see $20 oil.
  11. 13 points
    Brushing up on my Oil Kingdom Official-Speak parlance, I think the non-official version of the announcement roughly translates to something like this: Dear world consumers, we have been pushing for $80 to $100 oil prices to prop up our Aramco IPO. But some hawks are pushing for $300 oil - that's crazy talk, as we tend to like having our heads firmly attached to our necks. So we plan to push for weekly increases in oil prices, to see just how far we can go. Next week we'll run the idea of $120 oil up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes. And the week after that, we'll push for $130 oil, because of risk of supply disruptions. And stuff. Risk stuff. We want consumers to be happy with a balance of oil prices somewhere between $80 and $300, depending on what the market will bear, with us creating fear and highlighting risk. Did we mention risk yet? Because oil prices need to increase because of risk. Trust us, we are doing what is best for us. Have a nice day, consumers.
  12. 12 points
    ^ I'm a baby boomer. A lifelong runner. A mountain climber. A biker. And wouldn't you know it, I contracted a bad disease a few years back that left me with only one functioning lung. So, at age seventy-five, I'm in the highest risk category. If this gets really awful, and I present to the ER with say 120 other C-virus victims, I'm going to get triaged to the parking lot. And I'm okay with that. I'm not suicidal and very few people appreciate life more than I, but I think if we come out of this with our same bloated population of elderly people (all that 90 is the new 50 bullshit) and a badly damaged economy, we're in a world of hurt. 90% of Medicare is spent in the last year of a person's life, 25% in the last month. I've had a good run. Most of us have. Yes, protect the economy. Believe it or not, with age comes a modicum of a special kind of wisdom: old people understand the need for a strong economy. Without it there is no future for our children and grandchildren. And that's paramount for most of us.
  13. 12 points
    Should I hazard a guess that some people would prefer China's CCP authoritarianism and EU's Socialism headquartered in Brussels to conquer Capitalism? Thanks but no thanks. CCP has bungled badly with its mishandled coverup and subsequent explosion of Coronavirus. EU budget is now €75 billion in the hole after the UK extracted itself from the EU's Borg collective.
  14. 12 points
    Anybody else seeing the shale oil ‘house of cards’ collapsing as we speak? Many of us saw this coming, but were continually shouted down by the shale oil cheerleaders. With rig count plummeting and lack of financing, the DUC’s being completed (finally) is the only reason production is still up. Once the DUC backlog is completed it is going to be a whole new ballgame!
  15. 12 points
    Well, here's the math: An "excellent" shale well, as with merely "good" or even "punk," produces the most during the first year. Then fairly rapid decline sets in. That initial production, the IP, basically bankrolls the company that drilled that well. The lifetime production of such a well is based on the trajectory of the IP parabola, and that, in turn, depends on the thickness of the shale layer, how oil-soaked it is, and matters such as porosity of the rock, how easily fractured, and whether or not it is held in place by a pinch-out (a non-porous subterranean barrier). An excellent well with a big IP is usually thought to have a lifetime yield of about 600,000 barrels, which even at $50/barrel (which can't go on forever, can it?) comes to . . . $30,000,000. It costs just as much to drill a mediocre well as an excellent well--about $6,000,000. Many of the wells drilled into Tier-1 rock pay out in the first two years of life. That's one of the reasons EOG is so successful: They have great geologists and engineers working on this and their GPS drilling is second to none. Another reason is because they buy cheaply, drill out a field quickly, and by the time other companies move in, they're on their way to the next great Great. But you're right, every driller is running out of Tier-1 rock, especially in the Permian where "child" wells (infills) are between 20-30% less productive than their "parent" well (the "wildcat" in the tract). This is because of a pressure sink and also due to porosity and the near absence of pinch-outs. Okay, move on to Tier-2 rock, which is frequently thinner shale but sometimes closer to the surface. A pretty good well is projected to produce about half that of a Tier-1. That's still $15,000,000 return for a $6M investment, and again about 50% of that comes with the IP. Something that no one ever mentions is "re-frack," which is going to eventually become--I think--a pretty big deal. Spend $2-3M for re-fracturing a good well and in many cases--especially in the Bakken, where they say 60% of wells are re-frackable--and you wind up with a brand new oil well that is as good as the old one (or better, because completion techniques improve). The thing that is killing most shale drillers is the usual: too much debt. But all this pessimism in the WSJ and elsewhere presupposes that we're never going to improve completion techniques, or discover cheaper ways to fracture rock, or handle the 2:1 water load that comes up with the oil (think reuse and pipelines instead of trucking it to disposal wells). Me? I'm no expert but I think shale oil just saved our asses; instead of escalating a conflict in the Middle East (Iraq comes to mind), we are mostly just imposing economic sanctions on Iran and showing KSA how to run their radar. This is amateur hour when I explain this, but also factual data from someone who loses a lot of sleep about the shale business. I hope this helps, because I don't have a single link to show you and I don't even know where to find one for sure. My only "link" is from putting my money where my mouth is, which probably wasn't the smartest thing I've ever done in my long life. But it has forced me to study like I was back in college, and they say that keeps Alzheimer's at bay.
  16. 12 points
    Yup. It's one of the most amazing political elections in history. He had the entire state apparatus against him. This includes, especially, the media. Even members of his own party. Even more amazing is he survived this coup attempt. If you're an atheist it's enough to make you a believer in some sort of invisible hand. Eric Schmidt is evil. I don't like to throw the word evil around because it's used too often but it applies here. Google was working on Project Dragonfly. It was essentially a censored search engine for China. They would censor whatever words or content the Chinese Communist Party wanted. To their credit some employees leaked this effort and now Google says it won't deploy it. I've no doubt, however, they continue to work on it until things quiet down. Google is also working with the Chinese on AI. This has led General Dunford, Chairman of the JCS, to meet with Google since this technology will benefit the Chinese military, hence, the CCP. Recall that Google decided not to continue working with the Pentagon on Project Maven for fear it could be used to identify targets, for example. Google is so desperate to get back into the Chinese market that they are willing to get into bed with the Chinese. What they don't understand is that China will never let Google in their market so long as it's ruled by the CCP. To stay in power the CCP need to control information. An unfettered search engine is anathema to that goal. They are going to steal everything they can from Google while dangling the prospect of letting them in. When they've got what they want they'll sever ties with Google and continue to keep them out. Just imagine the things Google would have been able to get away with, here and abroad, if Hillary had won.
  17. 12 points
    Really interesting that this is taken seriously. It is again all about the dislike of OPEC. Those Arabs have all the oil, they live in tents, they don't need oil, they should just give it to us for free. OPEC are currently producing close to maximum at the request of the U.S president. So is the current oil price due to manipulation by the U.S. president. Maybe his assets should be frozen. OPEC claim they don't manipulate the price, they try and manage supply. Does America really want an even more unstable oil market. Do they really think that will bring cheaper oil. And where does this confidence to tell OPEC what to do come from, energy independence based on oil shale -really!
  18. 12 points
    I sadly report that the situation in Venezuela continues to collapse into unreal despair and the country sinks ever farther into the abyss. Two Reports have surfaced on the BBC which should give anyone pause. One is on the unfolding effects of continuing electricity outages, with failed appliances (presumably burned out due to low-voltage conditions that typically precede a brown-out) and rotted meat being sold in the markets. One father is seen buying some pure fat, all he can afford for his children. A woman going in for cancer surgery has to find and provide everything for her operation, even the surgical gloves, as the hospitals and doctors have nothing. If she survives, she faces recovery in a house with no fan even, in the stifling heat: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-45868268/venezuela-crisis-hits-food-markets-and-a-morgue?intlink_from_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Ftopics%2Fcg41ylwvwgxt%2Fvenezuela&link_location=live-reporting-map Right with that is another BBC report on young mothers giving up their babies for lack of food. The people literally no longer have anything to eat. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-45879534/venezuela-crisis-mothers-giving-away-babies-children-living-on-streets?intlink_from_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Ftopics%2Fcg41ylwvwgxt%2Fvenezuela&link_location=live-reporting-map It is an entire country in a death rattle. How anyone looking at this chaos can have a reasonable expectation that the oil will once again flow and bring money for reconstruction is baffling.
  19. 12 points
    It is now, after Qatarstrophe.
  20. 11 points
    Let’s see....the world is set up to run on oil. The world is now swimming in CHEAP oil. Yep, guess you’re right, it sure looks like the end of the oil era! You can apply your EUROPEAN Green Deal to Europe if you like, but please leave the rest of us out of it while you freeze in the dark.
  21. 11 points
    Illegal immigration is ILLEGAL. The EU really is turning into the Borg collective. Happy I'm back in the U.S. where it is slightly less Borgy. See 90 second video in this tweet: https://twitter.com/OrtaineDevian/status/1231426342933000192 Quote from EU official to media: "Criticism of migration will become a criminal offense. And media outlets - that also concerns you - that give room to criticism of migration, can be shut down." Hey EU ministers, illegal immigration is ILLEGAL. Illegal immigration sucks, and the EU should feel bad that criticism of it is going to be illegal. Apparently EU ministers are unable to handle legitimate criticism. Will this forum be shut down in the EU because this forum (so far) allows me to criticize illegal immigration? P.S. all the EUphiles here - please feel free to criticize me. I can take it. Illegal immigration is destroying the EU. Illegal immigration is destroying the U.S. Don't like what I said? Let's debate it civilly, instead of making it illegal in the EU to say what I just said.
  22. 11 points
    An upbeat success story about Natural Gas. For some reason, the media complains lately that Natural Gas is a reliable, cheap and abundant competitor to wind and solar - which are unreliable, expensive, and require backup systems for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Seems to me that Natural Gas being reliable, cheap and abundant is a GOOD thing, not something to complain about. Natural gas is crushing wind and solar power ... Meanwhile, the United States continues to reduce its carbon emissions into the atmosphere at a faster pace than virtually every other country in the world. This is because natural gas is not just cheap. It is one of the cleanest ways to produce scalable and dependable electric power for a nation of 320 million people. We don't need brownouts in America as we saw in California, and natural gas is an excellent way to make sure the lights don't go out. It would be hard to find anything NOT to like about this great American success story: energy independence, reliable and inexhaustible supply, low prices, reduced power of the Middle East, Russia, and other OPEC nations, and cleaner air than at any time in at least a century. Yet liberal environmentalists are grousing about this good news. A recent Bloomberg news story exclaims in its headline: "Cheap Gas Imperils Climate Fight by Undercutting Wind and Solar Power." "Gas is such a bargain that it's being viewed less as a bridge fossil fuel driving the world away from dirtier coal toward a clean-energy future," the story tells us, "and more as a hurdle that could slow the trip down. Some forecasters are predicting prices will stay low for years, making it tough for states, cities, and utilities to achieve their goals of being zero-carbon in power production by 2050 or earlier." Ravina Advani, head of renewable energy at BNP Paribus, complained: "The fact that there's an abundance of it makes the move to complete decarbonization much harder … Gas is a tough competitor. It's reliable, and it's cheap." And that is bad news, why, exactly? It's like saying a cure for the coronavirus is bad for hospitals and doctors. Maybe it is high time we admit we have found for now the great energy source of the next few decades and celebrate that America is endowed with a vital resource that is abundant and affordable — just like our best-in-the-world farmland. The Left talks about eradicating "poverty," but "energy poverty" is a primary source of deprivation around the world. Now, there is an obvious solution: Natural gas could easily be the primary source of power production for the world as a whole, slashing costs for the poor everywhere on the planet from sub-Saharan Africa to Bangladesh. Instead, politicians and government bureaucrats around the world are trying to force-feed the world expensive, unreliable, and unscalable wind and solar power. The African Development Bank, for example, is only financing "green energy" projects, not coal or natural gas. It is substituting a cheap form of clean energy for a costly "green" alternative. Why? ... ... It's time to get smart about energy and climate change and throw asunder taxpayer subsidies doled out to all forms of energy production. Let the market, not politicians and environmental groups, choose the safest and most reliable and affordable energy source. Everyone is making a big bet on battery-operated cars and trucks. But who is to say that trucks and buses fueled with natural gas won't be the wave of the future? No one knows what makes the most sense and where the future will lead us. Nuclear power has great promise. But for now, the markets are shouting out for natural gas on a grander scale. Fifteen years ago, no one would have thought we would have a superabundance of this wonder-fuel today. But we do. No one is more surprised than politicians. Why do we let them keep betting the farm on the wrong horse?
  23. 11 points
    MbS is a little boy who never was told no. Putin probably told him that it wasn't feasible for them to turn down production in Siberia, and he didn't take it well and three a hissy fit. The point is patience: with time, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will go bankrupt. People are telling him that, as best they can. When you have a guy like that in charge of about 50% of the world's oil, you get messes like this. Again, this isn't Putin's doing. This is on MbS. He is a child. I doubt he lives to be an old man. With his foolish act he has harmed some very important people very badly.
  24. 11 points
    Guys, The OPEC members are national oil companies, the Russian firms are also essentially national oil companies. That said, cuts can be mandated by the government. The companies in the US are independent from the government. If the government tried to impose a cut, not only would it be ignored, it would be illegal (price fixing). You are trying to compare apples to oranges.
  25. 11 points
    Utter Claptrap Clickbait BS. Have you heard of The Flu? Every year 300,000 to 600,000 DIE, dead, tits-up from the flu. About 60,000 - 80,000 people died in the U.S. last year from the Flu. A billion people at least get the flu each year. Yet people keep flying. It's hilarious to me how much people freak out when one of these novel viruses comes out. The Ebola scare was the best. SARS was fun as well. The U.S. media acts like the world is coming to an end because a few hundred or thousand people catch a novel virus and a few (dozen?) die. People buy duct tape and plastic.... Yet Every Single year 60,000-80,000 Americans die all around you from the Flu and nobody gives it a second thought. Your neighbors go in the front door of the hospital upright, come out of the basement in a black body bag at the rate of 450 people every day (450 because the flu is a Winter Sport... it happens over about 6 months). The word NOVEL is the key. It's new, so freak out! Oil prices will collapse, world travel will stop, people will stop going to work, sure.... Why? Because it's not the old way 600,000 people per year die from a virus... It's a NOVEL Way that a few hundred or even a few thousand people will die. HIDE YOUR CHILDREN!!! P.S. I look at the Flu Vaccine every year (and I get one). They are anywhere from 10-20% effective. If your car was 10-20% effective you would sue the car maker and there would be federal hearings. But, somehow the flu vaccine industry can make garbage and get free advertising scaring everyone into getting a shot, that doesn't work. I get one because my doctor gives it to me for free, but they are basically a placebo. Good Luck... hope you survive this CoronaVirus Scourge! If a Coronavirus became a worldwide "plague" and killed 100,000 people a year it would still only be 1/6th as bad as the flu. If it went crazy and killed 2 million people a year by year 3 it wouldn't even make the news anymore. People would just get used to it. "They" all die of something and "I" will never die. Human nature. Governments are happy to let people be afraid of nothing (like ebola) in order to scare up a hundred billion in spending, but something that's actually endemic like Flu is considered "under control" because everyone get's a placebo shot that makes them feel like it can't affect them. If coronavirus gets truly bad the "scare tactics" will be replaced with "nothing to worry about" tactics and a fairly useless shot to make you feel immune.
  26. 11 points
    People will blame each and every catastrophe or change in recent weather patterns on climate change...whether there is any scientific evidence or not. If you can’t identify the cause, just blame it on climate change! It is then politically incorrect to argue with you.
  27. 11 points
    P.S. getting used to the cold weather again here in the U.S. Been a couple decades. Wearing bright colors because it is deer hunting season, and I want hunters to be able to see me when I'm walking around. My family shot 4 deer on opening day of deer season. Going to be eating venison all winter. I've been labelled locally as "borderline hyperactive" which sounds about right, except for the 'borderline' part. Fun to be adventuring again, and totally enjoying the freedom to freely speak my mind again without the very real threat of being arrested or worse - just for saying words.
  28. 11 points
    After researching Polar bears, this professor concluded that their populations were actually thriving, counter to what previous scientist have said. The polar bear has been a poster child for global warming alarmist, their plight analogous to so many other species if the global warming crisis isn't abated. So, when a scientist's comes out with evidence contrary to that narrative, the thing to do would be to peer review the research and confirm its validity, right? Nope, these days that professor is fired, their academic credentials discredited, and their research is ignored. Climate alarmists rely on broken and politicised pseudo-science. Evidence to the contrary is completely ignored or treated as hostile. Only the most extreme consequences are endorsed as it fits the sensationalism of the alarmist narrative better. Speak out against that narrative, with credible research, and you're fired. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/ If this kind of thing isn't a red flag to people in the alarmist camp, then what is? To be 100% clear, I'm not suggesting the research of this scientist negates all other research done by other scientist in the field. I just think it's incredible that taking a opposing stance to what is popular means you should be fired. Science is about being skeptical and challenging ideas. If healthy skepticism and reviews aren't encouraged, then it's all unsubstantiated drivel.
  29. 11 points
    Still, tribute needs to be paid to Aubrey McClendon and Tom Ward. Mr. George Mitchell made fracking for natural gas a reality down in the Barnett Shale, but it was Aubrey who latched onto the concept and developed the Haynesville Field. Remember, before those two events, the United States was screaming, our presidents saying that we were going to run out of natural gas. Aubrey was a gun-loving gunslinger who overpaid for minerals more than I do, and that's saying something. God bless him, he didn't realize the magnitude of what he'd wrought until it was too late. Everyone was used to conventional wells. He saw these gigantic numbers and swung a deal with the board so he could take a pretty good percentage of each well. By the time he realized the rapid decline curve, it was too late. He would still have been alright if he hadn't played the stock market so hard. Anyway, while the history of fracking is long (creek water jazzed with napalm pumped into a well in the old Kanas Hugoton Field), it was Mr. Mitchell who discovered the sickness, McClendon who created an epidemic, and people have had fracking fever ever since. Chesapeake would likely have survived if Aubrey had . . . he was so charismatic he could not only get gas out of a rock, blood out of a turnip, but money from the tightest-fisted Wall Street banker. Looking backward, it seems like they were drunken fools. However, during a precarious time in history, the frackers--especially those at Chesapeake--made us secure in the knowledge that domestic natural gas was in abundance. And God bless them for that.
  30. 11 points
    Copying this delicious comment in full. Great overview of the story so far. https://np.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/d98t4d/asking_for_it/ Let me break this down from a fundamental standpoint. Joe Biden, the former Vice President of the United States has just been caught extorting Ukraine to keep his son out of trouble. His son, Hunter Biden, who was kicked out of the Navy in 2014 for cocaine violations and arrests, is not a man of integrity. This is the same man that cheated on his wife, with his dead brothers widow. Just a few weeks after his Navy discharge, and also in 2014, despite having absolutely no experience, Hunter gets a 600k per year job (that’s 50k per MONTH!) on the Board of a Ukraine energy firm. This despite having no experience in the the energy sector and not knowing how to speak a word of the languages used in Ukraine. After a short period of time, Ukraine has had enough of him. They appoint a prosecutor to go after him for alleged crimes and do what prosecutors do. This doesn’t sit well with Joe Biden. Not at all. Joe Biden, while still Vice President, calls Ukraine and tells them that if the Prosecutor is not fired immediately, the United States will not be sending them the 1 BILLION dollars in aid that we normally send them. Now think about that? This is YOUR tax dollars that he’s using as leverage to stop a criminal investigation on his son. That’s a huge problem. Of course Ukraine immediately fires the prosecutor because they desperately need the aid that the United States provides. Also, Ukraine has to rehire New prosecutor (get ready for this) that Biden himself has to approve. Is this not Crazy! Now fast forward to present time. President Trump during a recent phone call speaks to the new Ukraine President congratulating him on his win. During the conversation President Trump mentions Biden. Alleging that he has possibly committed a crime. The Ukraine President says that he is aware and has been wanting to talk with President Trump about that. How does President Trump know about this? Because Biden is very stupid and talks about doing exactly just that during a recorded video. It’s in the video that President Trump tweeted out personally on his Twitter feed yesterday. Now of course before President Trump tweeted this, Biden when questioned about it, played dumb. He also lied and said he has never spoken to his son about any of his son’s out of country business adventures. He even gets mad at the reporter and starts yelling that he should not be investigated, but that Trump should be. So a “whistleblower” (it was just released that his lawyer, who organize the whistleblower’s statement, donated to Biden’s presidential campaign) goes to the press (The New York Times) and says Trump called the Ukraine President and that he 8 separate times, in a hostile phone call, pressured the Ukraine President into investigating Hunter Biden and Joe Biden for doing the above mentioned. The Ukraine President states that he very much remembers the phone call and that it was a very pleasant phone call and President Trump absolutely did not pressure him or threaten to or deprive his country of anything. He also acknowledged that his government was threatened by Joe Biden by withholding aid if the Biden issue wasn’t dropped. But oddly enough, at least for the first few days, the press didn’t mention the sins of Joe and Hunter. And in the New York Times piece about the “whistleblower”, if you read past the headline, and towards the very end of the story, you’ll see that the The New York Times slips in the fact that the “whistleblower” DOESN’T have any direct knowledge of the phone call and didn’t hear it personally. Seems like a handy piece of information to have upfront, doesn’t it? The person saying this happened never heard it themselves! That’s not a whistleblower, that’s gossip. But what does Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi do with that gossip? She foams at the mouth and calls a press conference saying that she is launching an impeachment inquiry against President Trump. An impeachment inquiry! Over unverified gossip! Does that Sound desperate to you? She accuses President Trump, based on information from said “whistleblower” who never heard any part of the phone conversation, of threatening to withhold military support to Ukraine unless the investigation into the Biden’s is resumed. She is accusing the President of a quid pro quo. Which is EXACTLY what Joe Biden did. The only problem is that no such thing happened with President Trump. She held that press conference, yesterday, BEFORE SHE OR ANYONE ELSE, HAD POSSESSION OR EVEN READ THE DAMN CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT! President Trump approved the White House to release an unedited, Non-redacted transcript of the entire phone conversation. That’s what a victim does, not criminal. And guess what? They did just that today. And again guess what? It’s nothing like what was reported. I read it. It’s not even close. During the conversation President Trump says Joe Biden has recently been bragging about what he did for Hunter and that a lot of people in America are concerned about it. He he wants to find out what happened. Totally within his right as an American President. The (newly elected) Ukraine President tells President Trump on the phone that he’s putting together a cabinet and will be selecting a team to investigate the claim. That’s it, nothing hostile, no mention or allegation at all of President Trump threatening to withholding military aide like the media and Pelosi said. President Trump didn’t keep bringing it up 8 times. Absolutely fake news. Now that the White House released the phone call, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her posse should be embarrassed for jumping the gun with the announcement of an impeachment inquiry. Biden, who even as a former Vice President, can still be impeached (would lose all pension and benefits among other things) should step out of the presidential race and await his fate. This is actual political corruption. Criminal political corruption. Not just an ethics violation. And it absolutely should be dealt with at the highest level of our courts. So did President Trump have a right to ask Ukraine to help look into a possible matter of corruption involving them and Vice President Joe Biden? Absolutely. Treaty 106-16 is a document signed and passed in 1999 that allows for Ukraine to cooperate with mutual legal assistance on any matters with the United States. FUN FACT: Joe Biden was even in that Congress. Shhh. Don’t tell the democrats.
  31. 11 points
    If Trump wins re-election it will be very bad for the “deep state” whether that deep state be monolithic, systemic or isolated. Think of it thusly, remember when Obozo told Medvedev, “After my election I have more flexibility”? Trump will be in the same boat as Obozo was. Termed out, beholden to almost no one with the added bonus of spoiling for a fight. Has anyone forgotten his vindictiveness? Heads are going to roll on this. Now, it won’t reach to his imminence Obozo (calm yourself hope and change acolytes) Folks like him in “democratic societies” rarely ever get their deserved comeuppance. In third worlds he’d meet a sure and violent end. But it will reach to very high levels. In the periphery Sillary will take a hit. The Clinton Machine no longer has the power it once did and thus her and Slick Willy’s absolute protection, once a forgone conclusion, are now imperiled. Others like Brennan, Comey and perhaps Susan Rice will pay. They won’t betray Obozo as the true puppet master on the deal and thus it will be their pound of flesh that is paid. Let’s call them necessary sacrifices. Unfortunately still, so many American Voters can’t see the real picture here. What has been done by the folks who hatched this Russian Collusion malarkey can’t be undone. The damage to our Republic can’t be undone. It doesn’t matter whether you love or hate Trump, this episode represents the truth about where we are as a nation. Some in our country have become so overwhelmingly partisan that they don’t give a damn about respecting the law and the peaceful transfer of power which is the hallmark of our country. I’m fighting mad about it and everyone else should be as well. I’d be equally angry if Bush Jr. had done this to Obozo. This mess shouldn’t offend your sensibilities in terms of your politics or party ideology. It should offend your sense of Freedom, Right and Wrong, party be damned.
  32. 11 points
    These are your suppositions not supported by any sort of data and it's a narrative I've often seen used to rationalize Hillary's loss and disparage people who voted for Trump. The poorest people in the US are black and Hispanic. They also vote overwhelmingly Democratic. These are facts. Poorer people are more likely to be the 'automatons' who support politicians promising them free things as the Democratic Party does rather than using these mythical leadership skills you speak of to acquire them through effort. The reality is most people in this world, regardless of political belief, are worker bees. As it should be. This doesn't mean they are unthinking automatons. Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians makes for a bad organization.
  33. 11 points
  34. 11 points
    The rabbit hole goes deep. They never thought Hillary would lose. Here's just one of the many reasons why I use DuckDuckGo for my research searches rather than Google:
  35. 11 points
    We need a grassroots, bipartisan groundswell for term limits. Otherwise, in my opinion, we are doomed. The Swamp controls everything. Unfortunately, half the population has Trump Derangement Syndrome, and aren't willing to focus on anything else.
  36. 11 points
    Yes, in my opinion, this will have trickle-down global consequences. Clearly, since I have a minority opinion on this entire issue, many others will disagree. And I'm fine with others disagreeing. This is a difficult rabbit hole to go down, it's not pretty.
  37. 11 points
    Option 3. renewables and FF will co-exist.
  38. 11 points
    @Mike Shellman While you're right in agreeing with Tom about independent U.S. producers having a bankruptcy-prone business model, you are overly pessimistic and cynical about the extent of our reserves and the role America is playing in the industry. These independent producers took large risks to actually develop shale reserves when all the majors spent time developing deep-sea offshore reserves. Crude oil prices above $100 per barrel allowed these independents to be creative and gave them plenty of room to experiment with new techniques. On the other hand, the crash in crude oil prices forced them to maximize efficiency, spurring more innovation. While many of these companies remained unprofitable through both the boom and the bust, you can't say that they all operated irresponsive to price. Even if you disapprove of every fiscal decision made by every independent, you have to applaud their engineering prowess and technological contributions to the industry. With oil prices significantly up from February 2016 lows, Chevron and Exxon are increasingly focused on developing upstream shale oil, especially in the Permian Basin. The Permian was the only shale oil basin that continued to thrive throughout the oil price crash, as the previously favored Bakken and Eagle Ford shales became too expensive to operate. Today, the Bakken and Eagle Ford are making a comeback, as well as other the other many basins in Texas and Oklahoma. I'm personally optimistic about East Texas and Louisiana, as the Haynesville and Austin Chalk are relatively untapped. Acreage in the Permian is now at a premium, and we are starting to see independents cash out on their Permian assets in favor of other plays with much cheaper acreage. Chevron and Exxon have the benefit of being capable of operating at a much larger scale than any independent, which further cuts down on costs per barrel. If our shale resources are truly going to run out in 5 to 8 years, would the acreage in the Permian remain to be so expensive? Would we really be building pipelines from the Permian to Texas's gulf coast if our shale resources were going to run dry in 5 to 8 years? Of course not! Those pipelines will be in use for decades once they're built. Everyone needs to realize just how heavily stacked are the Delaware and Midland sub-basins (The Wolfcamp A is just one layer), not to mention the thickness of each layer. If anything, the insolvency of many U.S. independents will allow for consolidation through M&A, if not only land swaps. The town of Pecos, Texas was luckily considered an opportunity zone under the new tax bill, and it's located in the heart of the Permian Basin. You'll be damn sure money will continue pouring in to reduce and defer the capital gains earnings of many. With today's investor sentiment, people are fearful of the prospect of another oil glut, getting fatigued by the money-losing independents, and, in some cases, divesting their shares in oil for the sake of being green. With money so tight and investors demanding returns, oil companies are under a lot of pressure to reduce capital expenditures. To further cut costs by scaling upwards, what if Chevron and Exxon did what Barrick Gold and Newmont Mining are doing in Nevada? A Permian Joint Venture would allow for both longer laterals and shared infrastructure across the entire region. Other companies could be allowed to pool in their assets for a stake. Maybe base the headquarters of this joint venture in Pecos and trade it publicly? As for Donald Trump, his cutting of taxes & regulations, opening up of federal lands & waters for lease-sale, and sanctions on Venezuela & Iran has helped America's oil industry greatly. There are many factors contributing to why WTI is nearly $10 less than Brent, and one of those reasons is pipeline bottlenecks. If we had all the necessary infrastructure to send all of our Permian and Eagle Ford shale oil to the Texas coast for refining and/or exporting, we wouldn't have to discount it as much to make up for trucking and rail transportation costs. Global supply plays an important role as well, and OPEC is using leverage where they can. OPEC knows that they can't compete with us on drilling for light oil but can compete with us on drilling for heavy oil. Much of the production OPEC cut was heavy oil, giving them higher margins on heavy oil while suppressing our margins on light oil. We should be getting our heavy oil from Canada, but the Keystone XL, TransMountain, and Line 3 pipelines are all being held up by communist lawyers on both sides of the 49th parallel. (Maybe Alberta can build a pipeline through Saskatchewan and Manitoba to the Hudson Bay, potentially the town of Churchill?) As someone who follows news on WorldOil and Hart Energy, I have faith that technology in geophysics, data science, and sub-sea/onshore engineering will continue to make oil exploration and production more cost effective and efficient.
  39. 11 points
    I share your opinion, Tom, and I have 50 years of experience writing checks to be IN the oil and natural gas business. I understand well economics. Does THIS... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-12/in-private-talks-opec-is-said-to-warn-wall-street-on-nopec sound like America is a swing oil producer in the world, that shale oil can "dominate" the rest of the world with cheap oil exports? This is proof positive that if it were not for OPEC + production cuts the US shale oil industry would be facing $80B of debt maturities in the next 20 months with $40 oil prices. It would not survive that. OPEC knows it is helping the United States shale oil industry by propping up oil prices. Why, do you suppose, it is willing to do that? Because it is afraid of Trump, or US repercussions? Phfttttttttt. It can out produce America in a heartbeat, and make 300 times the money the shale oil industry can. IT IS GIVING AMERICA JUST ENOUGH ROPE TO DEPLETE ITSELF INTO OBLIVION, AS FAST AS IT CAN, so that in another 5=8 years it will be back in the driver seat selling oil to America for whatever it wants. Does the Bloomberg article above sound the US has control over world oil markets? That we are about to become energy independent? If American shale oil is so tough, why isn't Trump asking IT to raise production and lower oil prices? America's energy policies are leading us all down a bad road. We are being led by the stupid.
  40. 11 points
    A good opportunity for Europe to get rid of the US bases. World War II is over, the Cold war is over. I's time to end this military presence from an other age.
  41. 11 points
    Readers may wish to ponder one irreducible truth: the price of oil is not a function of any of the factors described in your Seeking Alpha article, or any "fundamentals" or "technical analysis." The price of oil is a number that clears traders seeking to sell futures contracts and those seeking to buy futures contracts. And those guys are driven by only two factors: their personal greed, and their jittery fears. Greed and Fear run the commodities markets. We delude ourselves by thinking that some fancy technical or fundamental analysis is going to give a day trader, or a contracts trader, some special leg up in a market run on emotions. It is a special fantasy. The next delusion is that participants can somehow out-guess the market. Unless you are strong on psychology - and even not then - you cannot guess the reactions of men exposed to fear. The "market" is the collective of thousands of these guys, all about to make a buck in their zero-sum trading game, out to gore the next fellow, and scared to death that the trade is made in the wrong direction and they are on the cusp of losing their shirt and putting their family into the bankruptcy court. Now, I grant you that, if enough of these guys are holding onto some fantasies of "oil reserves levels" and "production numbers," then their collective can push the market. So, what are those current factors? Iran production will report, officially, significant drops. In reality, Iran will be selling to their favored customers the usual amounts, all sneaked past some US blockade, which will be predictably very porous. The real issue will be, how much cash does Iran have to put on the table to sell their blackballed oil? There is a Number out there that will entice even the most stalwart US supporter into buying loads of Iranian crude - there always is. Will it be twenty bucks? Thirty bucks? Forty bucks? Will the Ayatollah knuckle under to his arch-enemy The Donald to save his country forty bucks? Who knows. I don't. These are imponderables. But the issue for this little debate is that the Ayatollah will be out there doing cargo deliveries along with the rest of them. The official number show dramatic declines, and if you couple that with the "promises" of KSA to up the pumping to meet the shortfall, then the markets are going to be flooded. Meanwhile, the refineries will be shutting down for their usual maintenance times, and will be not taking cargoes. So where is all that oil going to end up? Floating storage, anyone? Trader arbitrages, anyone? The Canada trade mess is ending, the Canadians have pretty much capitulated to reality, The Donald gets to crow (although the depressed Canadian Dollar keeps real US trade gains to basically nothing), and life on the Border continues, albeit a bit rockier with the aggressive acts of the green-shirted Border Patrol (which is a different department from the Customs Officers stations and the Federal Entry Inspection Stations, I point out). The cross-border trade will continue, although cross-Border tourism is taking a hefty hit. The Mexicans have capitulated on internal wages, requiring some substantial portion of their auto workers to make a minimum wage more approaching US factory wages (albeit not US or Canadian union auto wages). So the huge gains of Mexico in auto supply to the USA are likely to be trimmed a tad. Will the US continue to import Canadian rail crude? Probably. Will Mexico export crude and import gas? Probably. Are markets being fundamentally disrupted? Does not look like it. What will the traders do? They will continue to try to screw each other over, and some will succeed, most will fail. The market will continue to be a sinkhole for speculator cash. I see the world ending up, paradoxically, awash in oil, the Trump embargo on Iran actually increasing world supplies, lots of bootlegging, India buying discounted Iranian crude, and the futures prices collapsing. How far? Total guess. Could be fifty bucks, could go lower. There is going to be a lot of oil out there. Fear will hit.
  42. 11 points
    Bill, I cannot speak to your individual investments and nothing I say should be taken as investment advice. You raise some interesting points. Let's look at Trump's background. He grows up in Queens, but is a problem child and his parents send him off to military school to try to instill some discipline. That failed. He has these problems with American women so settles on imports from East Central Europe for his series of wives. He seems to have this history of sleeping with prostitutes and apparently the KGB did a secret pee-pee tape of him in Prague with Russian or Czech prostitutes, that part is unclear. In his business career he has to deal with two groups: local politicians (and their bureaucrats) and bankers. Politicians tend to be not very bright and are easily enough persuaded b y some grandiose building scheme that looks good on paper. Bankers, especially New York bankers, are definitely not bright, they are historically drawn from the "C"-student ranks. You can convince New York bankers to float some scheme if your pro-forma income statements show this big income stream from rents. Trump has built an entire career on using "other peoples' money" and leaving them with the debts to go clean up. He is quite skilled in the street smarts of outdoing bankers. And that is it. Trump has no sense of the noble; he does not go to art exhibits, nor to the symphony hall, nor outside to enjoy nature, his idea of a grand time is to build yet another gaudy building. So when you go elect him as President then don't be surprised that he talks about building The Wall and wants to go intern Muslims. Hey, why not Muslims, he is already interning Mexicans. Trump thus has this Darth Vader personality with the same tiger instincts, so when you elect him he talks about having the power of the Dark Side of the Force, when confronting anyone and everyone from Kim Son Un to Angela Merkel to Justin Trudeau. Now, who wants to go sit in that Cabinet? Other captains of the Evil Empire, people like Steve Mnuchin, the pig who stole over $400 million for himself by foreclosing on ordinary working people using fabricated papers, in the most massive orchestrated theft on the face of the planet, using Far West Federal bank as his vehicle. Mnuchin, true to the Boss' form, marries a blondie actress twenty years his junior in a million-dollar wedding, with The Donald in attendance of course, I think that one was down at Mar-a-Largo, I lose track. So you have this Builder who cons bankers surrounding himself with crooks and scam artists, all of whom have these immature relationships with women. And you put these people in charge in Washington and expect mature, reasoned governmental decisions? You might as well go recruit meth addicts from West Virginia and crackheads from Baltimore and get the same result. No, there is no Grand Plan. No, there are no geniuses on board. It is a motley collection of Ship of Fools, along with some very dangerous ideologues and vicious, amoral thieves, and they want to steal for themselves and above all destroy the Clintonites. Everybody else is just so much peripheral cannon fodder.
  43. 11 points
    Oil prices, as I have maintained, have started to fall. How low can they go? Well that is not easy to answer. Nor should we ignore the fact that we might see oil prices rising once again. But the question is how sustainable will it be? Please read my latest to find answers to some of these questions. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Dont-Take-Higher-Oil-Prices-For-Granted.html
  44. 11 points
    It was reported yesterday by CNN that Khalid al Falih, Oil minister of Saudi Arabia, said "Two years ago we pulled supply. I think in the near future there will be time to release supply," Al-Falih said. "It's likely that it will happen in the second half of this year. We've had intensive discussions [with Russian energy Minister Alexander Novak], and I think we're aligned on that," . Apparently most observers accept this statement with an attitude of "Of course - no problem". But is a bit more thought and critical questioning needed to understand the consequences of such an action? Let us examine these consequences. It may turn out that the Saudi's and Russia's increasing production is more complicated than they imagine. In fact, since oil can only be produced if you have an empty receiving vessel awaiting delivery of oil, neither country can produce more oil without enticing potential customers to provide a means for receiving such additional oil. Currently we know of no empty tankers at anchor outside either the Saudi or Russian loading ports that are awaiting acceptance of their nomination for a cargo of oil. So how do they accomplish this promised increase in production? The only control lever that Russia and the Saudis possess is the pricing lever. There is no lever, no on/off switch, to force the customer to accept an increase in production. So, in order to entice additional vessels to enter the loading port, ready to receive cargo, the producers must offer a price advantage. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that for the Saudis and Russia to fulfill their promise to increase production they must become more price aggressive. Since demand is currently being readily supplied, and the Saudi/Russian wish to increase production will not increase that demand, the only way that the Saudis and Russia can increase production is to cut the price below that of another producer so that that producer's oil is displaced from the market. In other words, the actions of 2014 are about to be repeated. A similar price decline is possible. One would have thought that the Saudis would have learned from the 2014 experience. But that was Al Naimi. This is Al Falih. Neither minister can put ten gallons of oil in a five gallon bucket. Al Naimi thought that he could regain market share by undercutting the shale oil price. He did not gain market share from doing this, he only lost revenue, as did the entire industry. What suggests that Al Falih will fare any differently? He will not. If OPEC tries, this year, to regain the 1.8 million barrels a day of market share that they conceded to others two years ago, prices will likely return to the $30's. If you lived through the 2014/15 time period, you will recall that, initially, when the price dropped from $110/B to $90/B the industry was sure that this "low" price would soon be reversed. When the price dropped to the $80's, the idea of a quick recovery persisted. When the price keep falling and reached $70, even al Naimi assured the industry that the price would go no lower. He was wrong. The fall continued into the $20's. In spite of the falling prices, the talk of "recovery" did not subside. First it was believed that a "V" shaped price recovery would occur. Then, as time marched on and prices did not recover, the industry shifted to the expectation of a "U-shaped" recovery. When it became obvious that it was more likely an "L-shaped" profile, OPEC gave up. They quit trying to maintain market share through price cutting and conceded 1.8 million barrels a day of the market to non-OPEC. By removing the downward price pressure of trying to maintain market share, the speculative trading community was able to restore the higher prices through persistent demand for and accumulation of the "long" side of the futures market. This same trading community had the usual knee-jerk reaction to the Saudi/Russian announcement of planning to regain markets. The futures price dropped. But will the drop persist? If the marginal producers, the Saudis and the Russians, follow through with their expressed intention of pushing back into the already-satisfied market, the drop in price will continue through the pressure of liquidation of the long side of the futures contracts, while the buyers of real oil take advantage of the producers' price war. A repeat of 2014/15 seems quite likely. For those of you who've become convinced that inventory levels dictate the price, I might point out that the figures for US total stocks, the only numbers reflecting the current time period, show inventories now at essentially the same level as they were at this time in 2015. The price then was comparable to the current level. By early 2016, nine months later, the price had halved and US oil stocks had increased by 100 million barrels. If you believe that surplus inventories at that time contributed to the price drop, then do you similarly believe that inventory levels will again place downward pressure on prices? Will the price drop by 50% again? This is an important time for the oil industry. The developing events remind us again that without an understanding of how prices are actually formed - the pricing mechanism - the industry is left with a random, hit or miss system of oil prices. Good luck!
  45. 11 points
    "Saudi Arabia “will work with major producers and consumers within and outside OPEC to limit the impact of any supply shortages,” a Saudi energy ministry official said on Wednesday, according to state news agency SPA." It does my ole heart good to see how the Saudis care about the world's needs. So selfless. So generous. Excuse me while I wipe a tear.
  46. 10 points
    Business as usual, 2004. The USA was importing 16 million bbls per day and barely producing 4 mbbl / day. We were deep in the throes of Hubbert's Peak and financial types were straining to figure out what the new opium needed to be to entice our enemies to continue providing oil to us for pieces of paper we simply printed. 16 years later, we've blown a massive hole in that 16 mbbl per day import stream mainly because of light, tight oil. And those from foreign countries who used to export to the US are complaining that we aren't still importing! Whether or not the US exported oil, the gap in demand is there. Question: Where is it written that the USA should beggar its own people to enhance profits for foreign countries, many of whom despise the US?
  47. 10 points
    This is exactly the type of scenarios that the Climate Panic crowd deliberately ignore. I really do get annoyed with the obtuseness of those who demand to magically convert the entire world to so-called "renewable" energy while they ignore the simple fact that these "renewable" energy systems require backup hydrocarbon energy systems. Double the cost, having both hydrocarbon systems and "renewable" energy systems. Germany’s overdose of renewable energy Germany now generates over 35% of its yearly electricity consumption from wind and solar sources. Over 30 000 wind turbines have been built, with a total installed capacity of nearly 60 GW. Germany now has approximately 1.7 million solar power (photovoltaic) installations, with an installed capacity of 46 GW. This looks very impressive. Unfortunately, most of the time the actual amount of electricity produced is only a fraction of the installed capacity. Worse, on “bad days” it can fall to nearly zero. In 2016 for example there were 52 nights with essentially no wind blowing in the country. No Sun, no wind. Even taking “better days” into account, the average electricity output of wind and solar energy installations in Germany amounts to only about 17% of the installed capacity. The obvious lesson is: if you want a stable, secure electricity supply, then you will need reserve, or backup sources of electricity which can be activated on more or less short notice to fill the gaps between electricity demand and the fluctuating output from wind and solar sources. The more wind and solar energy a nation decides to generate, the more backup capacity it will require. On “bad days” these backup sources must be able to supply up to 100% of the nation’s electricity demand. On “good days” (or during “good hours”) the backup sources will be used less, or even turned off, so that their capacity utilization will also be poor. Not very good economics. ...
  48. 10 points
    Does anyone else feel that this whole corona virus thing is being blown out of proportion?
  49. 10 points
    Just because a magazine sticks her on their front cover for a month doesn't mean the Western world has chosen her. She has been exploited by the very people who should be protecting her which is abhorrent IMO. The 2 things are very different. Climate activists see a young girl who isn't scared to voice her opinions on a subject she is misinformed on as their poster girl. That's exploitative and just plain wrong. The Western world, from what I have seen, rightly thinks she is the victim of this whole thing and genuinely feels sorry for her. The people behind this are to blame, not Western society.
  50. 10 points
    Just for the Record: 1. You are assuredly not an asshole. If I want to find assholes, I head over to Wall Street. Lots around over there. 2. You are most definitely not a communist. I would be hard pressed to come up with a more Capitalist guy. 3. You are assuredly not "ignorant." You know whereof you speak. ------I read your posts with great care. Personally, I find I learn quite a bit from them. Cheers.