Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/26/2019 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
    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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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!
  12. 11 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!
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 11 points
  21. 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:
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 11 points
    Option 3. renewables and FF will co-exist.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 10 points
    Readers here should remember that the US Bankruptcy Courts are NOT what they are in say the UK or Canada. The BK courts exist for the specific purpose, declared by Congressional Statute, of rehabilitation of the Debtor. Usually, this means that the secured creditors get together and agree on a rehabilitation plan, which may (and typically does) result in some haircuts, and the unsecured creditors get a few pennies on the dollar. If there are wage contracts that are onerous, the Court disposes of them. If there are supplier contracts that are onerous, including royalty contracts, the Court disposes of them, also. Bankruptcy Court is designed, not to "fold" a company, but to rehabilitate it - and that process can be brutal on creditors. Just to give you a bit of the flavor of how this works, I glance over to the United Airlines bankruptcy. Now, in its heyday, Xerox was making a ton of money. So some bright young hire from some MBA School suggested that Xerox set up Xerox Leasing, and purchase and finance fancy aircraft from Boeing and lease them to United, so that United could have a straight operating lease, and Xerox could capture the depreciation to offset against other income. Sounded great, the young maverick finance guys at Xerox all got bonuses for their brilliant thinking - and United headed into the ashcan. In the bankruptcy, due to the collapse of air travel after 9/11, United went back to those Xerox guys and said, in effect: "You know those fancy planes you have on lease to us for $200,000 a month? Well, from here on it, you get $50,000 a month. You don't like it, we will fly the planes to that boneyard in Arizona, you can go pick them up any time." Now, what is Xerox going to do with all those planes? There is no market for them. Who is your customer going to be? Air Zanzibar? Air Congo? Those guys don't have any money. You are stuck. You have exactly one customer - United Airlines, and they both cannot pay you that 200K, and have no inclination to pay you. So you eat it and take that 50K, it is still the best deal you can find. Otherwise your planes pay you zero sitting out there in the desert. So Xerox takes the deal, eats the losses, and fires the smart MBA types who dreamed up that folly. And what you learn from this is that the BK Court can whack you in the shorts if you are a creditor, so don't get all carried away with your subordinates' bright ideas, most are folly soon enough. Now, back to the oil patch: How about these Chesapeake guys? Can they pull it off in a Chapter 11? Well, if there is a Battle Plan (known as the Chapter ll Plan of Rehabilitation), and you can float it past the Chapter 11 Trustee and the US Trustee and the BK Court Judge, then you can pull it off because you have cost-shifted some of your debts onto the shoulders of your creditors. It does not stop you from drilling, from pumping, from selling. What it does do is put a halt to your bleeding, to service the old debt. Valving off debt is a specialty of the BK COurts. If you are the creditor, now is the time to start quaking in your boots. Don't ever delude yourself that a bankruptcy petition is the end of the road for any company. As long as there is no Section 363 bid for the assets of the company that the US Trustee is going to support as being in the best interests of the parties before the Courts, it is the creditors, not the Debtor, that will be on the losing end, when the dust settles. That is how it works in the admittedly unique US system.
  29. 10 points
    You seem to think that he meant ‘paid in cash’ as opposed to the barter system. The wall IS going up as we speak and Mexico finally is doing something regarding illegal immigration through their country.
  30. 10 points
    I read the article ‘Millennials Really Do Ruin Everything, And Big Oil Is Next’, by Julianne Geiger, this morning. Apparently, once again, the message is that we must placate this generation in an effort to survive. I refuse to buy this nonsense and I think that it is unhealthy to do so. I found a list of Millennial characteristics on the internet, and present them here: · Narcissistic · Lazy · Coddled · Delusional · Civically and politically disengaged · Focused on materialistic values Apparently, among Millennials, the trend is “more of an emphasis on extrinsic values such as money, fame, image and less emphasis on intrinsic values such as self-acceptance, group affiliation and community. From what I have read, it seems that we, the ‘older generation’ must bow down to these entitled little snits and ‘work with them’ on such issues as flexible work hours, working from home, ‘onboarding’ (a favorite HR buzzword) them once we have actually given them a job, and so forth. Keep in mind that this generation has amassed a mountain of student loan debt. I will not get into the argument that education is too expensive, but these Millennials knew the rules of the student loan game when they decided to play it, they got their degrees, now they do not want to take responsibility for that decision and want the loans forgiven – that is, the American taxpayer to pay for their bad decision making process. These children did not have to attend universities, they had other options such as the military or a trade…but dammit they were entitled to go to university! Now let’s carry that thought further. We, as corporate entities, are now expected to hire these people, who have already shown poor decision making capabilities, who need to be coddled and apparently have no loyalty to anyone except themselves, and now allow them to create their own schedules and possibly work from home to achieve the right ‘work/life balance’. Does anyone else see the opportunity for abuse and the subsequent lack of production? Furthermore, we are supposed to provide ‘premium on-the-job’ training, an ‘easily climbable career ladder’, and ensure that these people are convinced that ‘their job means something’. Let’s just be honest with ourselves, these Millennials have little or nothing to recommend themselves to the work force. They have no work ethic, no loyalty, poor decision making capabilities. They feel entitled to succeed, yet are not willing to put the effort in to make that happen – we are supposed to ensure that they are successful in their job, not them! Would you actually want one of these people running your companies, making executive decisions and spending your money? Apparently, if we do not coddle these kids and make them feel wanted in the corporate workspace, they will simply leave (remember, no loyalty) and provide their wealth of knowledge and experience to a competitor. Do you remember in the ‘old days’ that you were warned that if you kept jumping jobs that it would show up on your resume and that eventually people would refrain from hiring you? I believe that is still in effect today. Granted, these Millennials are now the pond that we must fish in for talent. But there are still many out there, born in that specific period, who maintain a strong work ethic, are loyal, are willing to work to progress and at the end of the day are appreciative of having a job. These are the ‘Millennials’ which we should be looking to nurture and hire. We should not get into the mindset that we are forced to hire and mollycoddle Millennials simply to fill a slot in the organizational chart. Doing so will degrade any company in the long run.
  31. 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.
  32. 10 points
    Recently there have been those responding to comments in the posts 'Total Nonsense in Climate Debate' (Renewables) and 'Visualizing How Much Oil is in an Electric Vehicle (Oil: General) who apparently feel that it is acceptable to insinuate that someone is less than knowledgeable about the issue, mentally challenged concerning the facts, or simply stupid. Others seem to feel that it does not violate literary decorum or simply good manners to say someone is lying. We are better than this! This type of behavior has 'crashed' similar forums as they simply become 'yelling matches' with neither side willing to accept that another viewpoint exists. Many viewpoints are strongly held and are vigorously defended, this is debate and is encouraged on OilPrice.com, but it should be done in a courteous manner. If you feel someone has an error in their logic, point it out. But be prepared to support your argument in a non-aggressive, logical manner. Some of those who post feel it is okay to post reams of supporting documentation, which is their right on the forum but makes it very difficult for others who may be on the sidelines to follow the debate. We need to accept the fact that on a social media forum such as OilPrice that you generally do not know anything about those who are replying to any issue. It could be an expert in the field or it could be some old roughneck having his Miller time at the keyboard. Regardless of who is posting, we should always give them the benefit of the doubt that they have something worthwhile to contribute. If you feel that they may not be at your intellectual level - you are not required to get into a debate with them. There is no excuse for bad manners. Okay, I need to go to the refrigerator and get another Millers Lite....I'm trying to watch my weight.
  33. 10 points
    NBC is generally always out in "left field," granted. This, however, is a good piece and worth watching: https://www.nbcnews.com/leftfield/video/why-is-texas-burning-millions-of-dollars-of-natural-gas-a-day-1436078147715 For almost a century the Great State of Texas and the Texas Railroad Commission has led the way, set the example for the rest of the world to follow with regards to hydrocarbon conservation, the preservation of bottom hole gas pressure to increase reservoir recovery rates and the prevention of oil and natural gas waste. There are statutory laws in Texas written for the sake of conserving our States natural resources. Those laws have been abandoned and the regulatory agency entrusted with imposing those laws, the TRRC, is now out to lunch. For the TRRC it is all now about good paying jobs and the votes they represent. The three Texas Railroad Commissioners are elected officials. Lots of associated gas from shale oil wells meets severance tax exemption standards so lots of this flaring does not even hurt the State financially. Make no mistake about it, this about jobs and the "politics" of using American shale oil as a foreign policy tool. (I am an active oil and gas operator in Texas, with many employees, and am taking a big risk by saying this about the TRRC. What Sitton says in this video is a joke.) The shale oil industry has been touting "drillable locations" in big shale basins for a decade now. Its part of its sales pitch. It is even allowed to book a portion or reserves from undeveloped, imaginary shale oil wells nearby existing wells. Its borrowed money against those proven, undeveloped reserves. All it has to do to make it all legal, and legit, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and with its lenders is turn those proven undeveloped reserves (locations) into proven reserves by actually drilling the wells within 5 years. Those are SEC rules. Even with all that time the shale oil industry, particularly in the Delaware Basin, and the Bakken of North Dakota, still did get not get its act together to gather this associated gas. But it went ahead and drilled the wells anyway and has got nothing left to do with the gas other than burn if off into the air. So it can export its oil to Asia, all on credit/debt. For all the hubbub about "technology" that is going to save the day, and make shale oil profitable (for the first time ever!), only if we give enough time...phfttttt. We can't even keep from wasting its associated gas up a damn flare stack. The American shale oil industry needs to be on a leash. It needs to be slowed down, its debt paid back, a return made to stakeholders and worldwide oil and natural gas prices stabilized. OPEC and Russia are trying to stabilize prices, why should American not join in? With stable oil prices comes stable, long term employment. With stable oil prices comes long term energy security. Gas gathering infrastructure needs to catch up to oil production, even if that means America's oil needs to STAY in America. Producing this expensive crap as fast as possible is not a good plan. Its a bad plan. After 150 years of oil and natural gas production in the United States there is NO excuse for waste. We're better than that. We live in America, not Siberia.
  34. 10 points
    @GeoSciGuy I have a dissenting opinion of the long term sustainability of shale oil in America that is based on a long oily career, lots of research, lots of communication and study with really smart economists, reservoir engineers and brilliant data hounds. Oil well economics is not difficult to understand, you must simply want to understand. It helps, tremendously, to be in the oil business with a check book. I've been labeled a communist before because I don't buy into the shale oil bullshit; a pessimist and a cynic doesn't phase me. One cannot drill the dry holes I've drilled in my career and not be an eternal optimist. CVX and XOM are not knights on shiny white horses; they will struggle with marginally (un) profitable shale oil wells, same as the rest, just make it up on the downstream side. Those two corporations have 3MM acres of very high NRI acreage to drill; the idea that they will want to merge or acquire other troubled corporations in the Permian, with looming debt maturities, low NRI's, drilling commitments and SEC 5 year rules that will most certainly lead to massive reserve impairments... is just more hope. Like higher oil prices, or more "technological breakthroughs." I am a realist and care deeply about my country and its hydrocarbon future. Reserve growth, much like economic growth, based on debt is fake. Its artificial, and therefore unsustainable. My industry needs to start telling the truth about shale economics and about the definition of "technically recoverable, as yet undiscovered, economic at some unknown price" oil reserves and what it will actually cost Americans to recover those reserves. So we can be ready. Our kids deserve that.
  35. 10 points
    I hardly think @Tom Kirkman is rooting for its demise. He is merely stating what he believes to be true. I am constantly telling my teenagers that if they don't study they will get lousy grades. Sometimes I tell them that their study habits are insufficient to get the grade that they want...that they are making bad choices. I do not tell them this because I'm wishing for their demise. I am telling them this because it is a fact and because I want them to change their behavior.
  36. 10 points
    I don't know what it cost but I am guessing $60m to develop my section. XTO inherited a very old lease signed by my grandmother and her siblings back in 1950. That lease gave us 1/8th but allowed the operator to hold the entire 640 acre section with only one producing well when these wells could only drain about 40 acres. It was a short-sighted and bad lease and now we are stuck with it. The deep rights were separated and the top lease was sold back in the 70s. Humble was the original developer and XTO was the eventual holder of the deep rights. XTO drilled a well back in 2016 before the strippers finally failed to produce enough to hold the lease. We kept pushing the stripper operator to prove paying quantities and they did it by cheating into 2016 but XTO got the new well in during a one month period because it was so easy to get crews back then. They started telling us in 2014 that they wanted to drill 25 wells on our section and I just couldn't fathom that because the operators for the other two sections we owned didn't have anything like that in mind. So they permitted a bunch of wells and sat on them until last spring and then they went in whole hog. XTO drilled and completed 7 wells during March through December of 2018 and brought them on line at the beginning of this year. The January production was 93,000 bbl oil and 383,000 mcf gas. Even at 1/8 our monthly check is mid six figures which exceeds the checks we have gotten from our section with a modern lease where we get 25% and cost free royalty with payment for any flared gas. We currently have two wells on that section. The two other sections were developed by BHP and a small independent. We have done well with the independent but sold the BHP section altogether because it was Minerals Classified which isn't worth owning and it was encumbered by one of the old leases held by strippers for years. BHP ended up selling out and nothing has been developed there since we sold it at the end of 2016. Color me impressed by what XTO has done. They have the infrastructure built to support about 120,000 bbl/mo and have permitted more wells that can be drilled to keep the production rate up for several years. After that, who knows but for now, they will be making $5-7m/mo gross with 12.5% removed for royalty and about 7.5% tax on gas and 4.5% on oil. So figure it out for yourselves, a lot of the acreage in the Permian was held by old stripper leases and isn't encumbered by 25% royalties. To the extent those sites are in the good pay zones, the operators will make good returns.
  37. 10 points
    Guaido is not a USA puppet... He was chosen by the duly elected Venezuelan Parliament... He was subsequently "officially" recognized as the TRUE Venezuelan President by over 70 nations so far........ ps: it is PENTAGON not "pentagone" pps: if the USA actually wanted to end the Maduro regime by force, it would take about 3 minutes work by a Seal Team. ppps: if the USA actually wanted to destroy the Venezuelan Military, it would take about 2 minutes via a "shock and awe" attack via missiles far more sophisticated than S300's could counter. pppps: but the USA isn't interested in interfering in Venezuela other than boycotting it...
  38. 9 points
    What is holding up the purchase of more nat-gas in the USA is the stubborn (and silly) unwillingness of various States to allow the construction of gas pipelines across their territories. So you end up with the bizarre, anomalous situation of the City of Boston unable to get sufficient gas supplies because New York will not let a new pipeline be built across its State to bring gas from Pennsylvania to the markets in and around Boston. The result of this ridiculous situation is that Boston's gas supplier has to buy liquefied product shipped in from "Europe," which is really Russian gas. So the LNG is drawn from Russia, shipped to England, there the paperwork gets massaged, and the ship sails from there all the way across the Atlantic to Boston, and the people there have to pay the inflated prices to get their heating fuel. Instead of building a short length across NY from Pennsylvania, the NY portion being perhaps 50 miles of pipe. Meanwhile, up in Vermont, the anti-fuel activists have been able to persuade the Legislature to block the construction of any natural-gas pipelines of any sort to anywhere from anywhere, so even a short spur line to a factory or municipal installation is blocked. Instead, those plants either have to take their gas deliveries by tanker truck, or go to wood fuel. It is about as stupid as you can get. If those pipelines to the big metro areas ever got finished, and that is not a lot of work, the demand for gas inside the USA would increase quite a bit. So, the trading positions are all a function of the time horizon.
  39. 9 points
    Way back when I was at University where I was a math major, my class used a classroom shared with some 500+ level economics group. We shared that room because even by the 250 level subject I was in at the time there were few students but we needed a Lot of chalkboard, and so did the Masters level economics students. One day we went to the classroom to see the prior occupants had filled every chalkboard with lots of maths attempting to prove something about supply and demand. The details are too far in the past for me to remember specifics. Our professor was getting ready to erase the boards when he said, "Hold on, let's see what they were doing here". We then proceeded to examine their logic and find the progression right up to the point where their prof clearly just gave up. The math at our level was relatively trivial and we saw several mistakes and wrong turns in the process. Our teacher said, "I'm no economist, but it seems like he was trying to get 'here' but didn't know how to", while pointing at a graph that wasn't really supported by the equations. Naturally he "solved" the problem with a little note in a corner of a chalkboard, saying something like, "cheers from the advanced calculus and numerical analysis class 251" or whatever we were called then. I found the whole exercise far more stimulating than our class that followed, because for a change I got to see math applied and not just math for maths sake. Next semester I found that prof and asked if there was a class I could take from him. He recommended a 499 level class and I was quite surprised to find I was the only one in it. I later learned he was just using me as an unpaid graduate assistant, which wasn't too bad since I was still a Freshman. I was in 200 level classes from all the Advanced Placement courses I'd taken in high school. He gave me all these special assignments, which mostly involved me doing the math be wasn't comfortable with and writing computer code to tie everything together. Again and again he brought me things to "prove" a contention he'd already decided on, rather than following the data where it led. Nowadays I'd call that "climate science", but I digress. He told me he could guarantee me a PhD in economics in record time if I'd just change my major. By then I'd lost interest because I could tell his fundamental viewpoint and that of the rest of economics was fundamentally flawed. They were looking at everything wrong. Money = Debt and nothing else. "Money" is created into existence only when a bank loans it out, their ability to "create" the money only limited by their "assets". Initial assets are created by the Central Bank when it "purchases" debt from the sovereign government and "creates" notes. This video gives a concise picture of how it works. There are others but this one is simplest. Given that what everyone calls money (but which I call currency to keep things straight) is really just debt piled on debt, the next question is, "How does this apply to our reality?" If you start to visualize "the moneylenders" as this cabal of unscrupulous folk bound and determined to separate everyone from their hard earned possessions and commodities, you won't be far off the mark. Blaming it on "Jews" is simplistic and wrong but there are certainly some who claim to be from that tribe involved. If you just think about very smart people with little morality that's closer. If you believe the folks who are the public face of the Fed are actually in charge you've missed the boat. Elsewhere I posted The credit theory of money and I mistakenly attributed the publish date in 1914, when it was really May 1913. This date is important because the Federal Reserve was created 7 months later by some sketchy means while most of Congress was on Christmas vacation. I won't get into that here but can document it if you're interested. Why economics gets everything wrong is because, in my opinion, they aren't good at math and oversimplified the equations. For simplicity we say Supply and Demand and that's part of it, but the chasing of tails occurs with "elasticity" and other fixes to try and explain away what prices did contrary to the theory. It's better to think of everything as a lossy transmission line (current=currency) and the losses are due to interest (it's all debt remember) and inefficiency. The "work" getting done, i.e. economic activity corresponds to the usual machines consuming "watts" at the end of those power lines. Electrical engineers easily stay on top of all the inputs and outputs in their utility systems including real time trading with other utilities to soak up or provide additional power as needed. Not a perfect mental model but closer to reality than what economists currently spout. Finally, I've mentioned Ray Dalio here before, and I strongly recommend giving him a listen or read. Also simple but clearly done. Cheers @Marcin, @Papillon, @Tom Kirkman, @DayTrader. Hopefully we can have an intelligent discussion here about these things and I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.
  40. 9 points
    I am not surprised at all. Think about it. Although KSA may have an impressive military machine on paper, with all the latest gadgets, they are not well trained and have never been tested. To go up against the Iranian military, which has been tested in the Iran-Iraq war and many proxy wars in the area, alone, with no outside support would be a bloodbath for KSA and would lead to the fall of the house of Saud. This being the case, a cease fire in Yemen and a call to bring Iran to heel by the international community is the only card left to play.
  41. 9 points
    I think that it has to do more with the desired national policy than anything else. Can the President mandate that companies do not do business with North Korea or Iran? Of course he can. If it is felt that China is detrimental to US economic security he could also invoke that priviledge. This is not socialism, it is more of a national security issue. Furthermore, if your adversary does not 'play by the rules' (the Politburo could easily decree that Chinese companies are banned from doing business in the US) or skirts the intent of WTO rules, why should you handcuff yourself to 'fair play'? This is the crux of the problem. China expects everyone else to play by the rules while they simply ignore them...giving them an unfair advantage. Other examples would be the Nine Line Map/freedom of navigation/ownership of the South China Sea and adherence to environmental norms.
  42. 9 points
    Could you please grow up and act/post like an adult?
  43. 9 points
    your criticism is misplaced. Mr. Trump recognizes that "war" is diplomacy that is being carried on by other means, yet still to achieve the same objective. Trump is not out to slaughter the Iranian population. He is not out even to wreck the Iranian military. He seeks to convince the current Iranian leadership to step down, or in the alternative to have the young Iranians overthrow the old - the ancien regime. Trump understands the concept of proportional response: right now, the Iranians knocked out one unmanned drone, basically a piece of military hardware. Is a proportional response to blast a launch bivouac into obliteration? It would be if there was no personnel there. But his intelligence reports that there are some 150 Iranian soldiers at that site, who would get killed. Trump, quite correctly, finds that a disproportionate response, so does not authorize a strike. He simply bides his time. That is a lot more convincing response than say Bill Clinton who attempts to go bomb the Hindu Kush mountains in some vague attempt to nail Osama bin Laden - an effort that was pathetic and doomed to failure. SO far, whether you like the guy or not, whether you think he is a moron and a buffoon or not, he is proving to be the superior leader. He knows how to keep his cool. Not bombing a populated spot is NOT "failure to follow through." It is careful weighing of the potential gains against the potential losses. Do I personally like Trump? No. But I shall give him full marks were they are deserved. Don't let your emotions color your judgment.
  44. 9 points
    The Tylers over on Zero Hedge do a great job laying out how much oil is in EVs. Visualizing How Much Oil Is In An Electric Vehicle? ... Oil and the EV Future Oil is most known as a source of fuel, but petrochemicals also have many other useful physical properties. In fact, petrochemicals will play a critical role in the mass adoption of electric vehicles by reducing their weight and improving their ranges and efficiency. In According to IHS Chemical, the average car will use 775 lbs of plastic by 2020. Although it seems counterintuitive, petrochemicals derived from oil and natural gas make the major advancements by today’s EVs possible – and the continued use of petrochemicals will mean that both EVS and traditional vehicles will become even lighter, faster, and more efficient.
  45. 9 points
    No, collusion isn’t a crime but it was the nonsense used by the creators of this BS to bring about an investigation which they hoped would would uncover treason. It did not, not even close. If what you assert as true concerning Don Jr and meetings and Trumps stupid words are collusion then why did the investigation return a negative finding on that order. Saying it’s so doesn’t make it true. As you mentioned saying stupid stuff and inexperience aren’t criminal nor is it collusion. Impeachment.....good luck with that. It doesn’t matter what you call it, if you truly think there is no deep state here in the US you aren’t paying enough attention. If you genuinely feel that your lower dollar makes you more competitive I can see why the Trudeau government seems to be an acceptable Canadian failure to many Canadians despite the economic realities there. As to Trump’s diplomacy you are missing the point of Trump and what his voters sent him to the Oval Office to do.
  46. 9 points
    ^ I wholeheartedly, strongly agree. For those who understand my cryptic note about a different forum, I've received a few (you) green texts in the last year or so on this topic. Also, as a moderator here, I was going to mention that this thread was off-topic for this forum, but then I saw it was posted in the "Geopolitics" sub-forum, so it appears to be fine: "The Geopolitics Forum focuses on all global politics. If it's related to oil please create a thread within the Oil General forum."
  47. 9 points
    The world has not recognized the fact yet, Tom, but the OPEC meltdown has already begun. So far the Saudi Oil minister has duped the trading world into believing that he unilaterally cut production to boost prices. The fact is that not enough customers showed up to buy his crude for him to meet his already reduced expectations. So he actually reduced production more than he planned, not because he wanted to, but because he had too. When the dummies in the trading world click into this fact (albeit slowly), they will head for the exits. The fact is that US production is pushing its way into the market like a bulldozer. And it will not be denied because the IMO dictated that 2-5 million barrels a day of sour crude WILL be replaced within a year. So read the tea leaves and plan accordingly. Exxon apparently has read the signals accurately and are prepared to prosper accordingly. And if they can actually perform at $15/B you can forget, forever, crude prices above $40/B.
  48. 9 points
    Thanks @Rodent for your astute observations. @cbrasher1 fair enough question if you are new here. Note that over the years I have written literally over 10,000 comments about international O&G, and getting close to 15k comments these days. I have over 15 years in international Oil & Gas, and have dealt with O&G companies and EPCs in 30 countries. I am strongly pro - oil & gas and darn proud of it. My beef with the U.S. Shale Oil industry as a whole is it strikes me as debt trap. Up through last year, the U.S. Shale Oil industry as a whole has LOST MONEY. It has SPENT more than it EARNED. It was financed by easy credit. Google it. While OPEC is trying to pull back production to push prices to around $70-ish range, the coffee-guzzling frantic herd of untamed cats known as U.S. Independent Shale Oil producers are maxing out their credit to go ever deeper into debt, while flooding the world with oil. It causes havoc to global oil & gas. It's not the havoc created that I mind so much (heck, I adore Trump's 'bull in a china shop' upending of the Status Quo) but the endless cycle of debt that U.S. Shale industry as a whole keeps digging itself deeper into. It's not sustainable. Why the heck is U.S. Shale Oil industry continuing to overproduce and sell oil & gas (LNG) overseas at cut rate prices, the oil & gas that would be far better suited for DOMESTIC use. When U.S. Shale Oil production starts declining in a few years (less than 5 years from now) .... then what? Short-sightedness, fueled by easy credit and my old analogy of U.S. Shale Oil industry using new credit cards to make payments on maxxed-out old credit cards is a slow-moving train wreck. From a GLOBAL OIL & GAS perspective, my view is $70 oil [Brent] is currently around the optimum sustainable balance between global oil producers and global oil consumers. U.S. Shale Oil industry has shot itself in the foot by overproducing, and actively driving the price difference between WTI and Brent. Don't blame OPEC if you consider WTI prices to be too low. OPEC had been trying to fix this, and the herd of cats in the U.S. are merrily overproducing with joyful abandon, oblivious to their own self-inflicted foot bullets of OVERPRODUCING USING CREDIT. Clearly, I have a minority opinion, many others do not share my opinion. But hopefully I just gave you some views that you can poke around and perhaps reconsider your own opinion. Time to trot out my oil trusty tag line before I piss off too many gung-ho truuuu believers of the U.S. Energy Independence pipe dream pitched by MSM.... Just my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.
  49. 9 points
    Mariana - the article is straight green propaganda. Take the statement that cost of green energy is now well below the cost of conventional power and its reference to the levelized cost of energy calculations. As has been pointed out time and again the LCOE estimates do not take into account the cost of operating on a grid, so the calculations cannot be used to compare renewable and conventional power (with the big exception of hydro). Even comparing the different types of power in those two broad categories is highly questionable as they tend to have different roles on grids (coal is a mainstay, gas used on demand shoulders and hydro at peak times). A lot also depends on what access to power a grid has.. The LCOE costs are simply a general guide but, to repeat, they cannot be used to compare intermittent and conventional sources. In passing please note that the green projects in the US get substantial Federal/state/local subsidies/legislative aid. These points have all been made many, many times, but there is always someone on the green side who does not get/does not want to accept, the memo.
  50. 9 points
    I wanted to share one comment from another website; it's a story, actually: A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying. Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over." Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA." The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!" The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence."