Leaderboard

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.

Excellent overview. Coronavirus hype biggest political hoax in history ANALYSIS / OPINION: The new coronavirus is real. The response to the coronavirus is hyped. And in time, this hype will be revealed as politically hoaxed. In fact, COVID-19 will go down as one of the political world’s biggest, most shamefully overblown, overhyped, overly and irrationally inflated and outright deceptively flawed responses to a health matter in American history, one that was carried largely on the lips of medical professionals who have no business running a national economy or government. The facts are this: COVID-19 is a real disease that sickens some, proves fatal to others, mostly the elderly — and does nothing to the vast majority. That’s it. That, in a nutshell, is it. Or, in the words of Dan Erickson and Artin Massih, doctors and co-owners of Accelerated Urgent Care in Bakersfield, California: Let’s get the country reopened - and now. “Do we need to still shelter in place? Our answer is emphatically no. Do we need businesses to be shut down? Emphatically no. … [T]he data is showing it’s time to lift,” Erickson said, in a recent interview. He’s right. They’re right. The data to keep America closed and Americans closed in simply doesn’t exist. If truth be told, it’s questionable it ever did. The scientists leading the coronavirus shutdown charge predicted in March that in America, between 100,000 and 250,000 would die. They based those estimates on computer modeling. But at the same time they were basing those estimates on computer modeling, they were acknowledging that computer modeling is inaccurate and errs on the side of hype. “I’ve never seen a model of the diseases I’ve dealt with where the worst-case actually came out,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of President Donald Trump’s White House coronavirus task force, during a CNN interview in March. “They always overshoot.” Catch that? Fauci’s message: Computer models are flawed and inaccurate and always overestimate the problem. But from these faulty overinflated computer figures came all the constitutionally questionable actions by government anyway - from ordering businesses closed to quarantining-slash-house arresting American citizens to doing some quick and pitiful and economically painful income redistribution schemes via stimulus funds’ legislation. Since, about 56,000 have died in America due to coronavirus — or have they? Again, the facts are flimsy. Government ordered hospitals weeks ago to stop performing elective surgeries to make way for the projected numbers of coronavirus patients. So they did. And in so doing, they cut off their revenue streams. So Congress passed legislation giving hospitals billions of dollars to treat coronavirus patients. Conflict of interest? Yikes. Yes. The coronavirus counts, already flawed from computer modeling, were then given another flaw treatment. “[Pennsylvania] removes more than 200 deaths from official coronavirus count as questions mount about reporting process, data accuracy,” The Inquirer reported. Add to that the ever-changing nature of a virus that spreads by air and contact, and honestly, suddenly, even expert Fauci’s best guess is about as good as Joe Neighbor’s best guess. So that leaves common sense, combined with knowledge of past viruses, to guide. But the quote-unquote medical experts refused to go there, refused to acknowledge common sense, refused to compare with past viruses in any way that didn’t hype the coronavirus counts. This virus was different, Americans were told. This virus was far more contagious than anything ever before seen or studied, Americans were told. And any time the case counts dropped off and the numbers proved wrong, well, this was due to the social distancing and quarantining and face-mask wearing that Americans had been doing, by government’s order - Americans were told. It just didn’t make sense. It just doesn’t add up. It just didn’t, and doesn’t, justify the utter shredding of civil rights. And now some in the medical community, thank goodness, are starting to point out the glaring omissions of logic and fact that have plagued this overhyped, overreaching coronavirus crackdown that has stretched on far, far too long. Among some of Erickson’s remarks: “This is immunology — microbiology 101. This is the basis of what we’ve known for years: When you take human beings and you say, ‘Go into your house, clean all your counters, Lysol them down’ … what does it do to our immune system? … Sheltering in place decreases your immune system.” And this: “Any time you have something new in the [medical] community, it sparks fear — and I would have done what Dr. Fauci did … initially. … But you know, looking at theories and models — which is what these folks use — is very different than the way the actual virus presents itself throughout communities.” And this: “Do you think you’re protected from COVID when you wear gloves that transfer disease everywhere? … We wear masks in an acute setting to protect us. [But] we’re not wearing masks. Why is that? Because we understand microbiology. We understand immunology. And we want strong immune systems. I don’t want to hide in my home, develop a weak immune system and then come out and get disease.” And this: “When I’m writing up my death report I’m being pressured to add COVID. Why is that? Why are we being pressured to add COVID? To maybe increase the numbers, and make it look a little bit worse than it is. We’re being pressured in-house to add COVID to the diagnostic list when we think it has nothing to do with the actual cause of death. The actual cause of death was not COVID, but it’s being reported as one of the diseases processes. … COVID didn’t kill them, 25 years of tobacco use killed.” Does it get any clearer than that? Seriously, America. The only reason America is still in shutdown mode is political. Either politicians are too afraid to make any move that might come back to bite them politically or politicians are using this coronavirus to political advantage — to, say, pass gun control laws, like Virginia’s governor, Ralph Northam. Or to, say, float campaign hopes on the current ravaged economy, like former Vice President Joe Biden and oh, all the Democrats facing races. But for the rest of America - the rest of hardworking, freedom-loving America - it’s time to reel in the radically unconstitutional. “If you’re going to dance on someone’s constitutional rights, you better have a good reason - you better have a really good reason, not just a theory,” Erickson said. “The data is showing us it’s time to lift … so if we don’t lift, what is the reason?” That is the key question. As time goes by, the answer will only become more and more evident. The coronavirus may be real — but the hype is hoaxed. Now let’s just hope this is a one-time hoax that doesn’t roll around every time flu season approaches.

Chris, I like your confidence but how is the world going to get moving again? About the only way I see that happening is if this virus is "seasonal" and goes into a silent pout on its own or the hydroxychloroquine turns out to be a silver bullet. IOW, I'm not at all sure that most people have peaked over the hill to see what lies ahead, post-coronavirus. I can't imagine restaurants, bars, barber shops, the DMV, people-to-people contact places opening up to business as usual until there's some assurance those people will survive the experience. Not to try to dampen your enthusiasm but I think we skipped right through the recession part and are now, very likely, in a depression. With depression era unemployment numbers (likely will reach 20-25%). I think the stock market will bottom out again, only much lower this time, probably to a Dow of 12,500--about where it was before the crash of 2008. What we are going through is going to take a few years to recover from as we're going to come out of it with the largest national debt ever imaginable by the drunkest of men. Inflation has to run rampant. About the only thing that can save the oil business right now is a massive infrastructure project across America, and a complete ban of across-the-water oil, at the same time putting a cap on prices at or about $60. I just don't see any other way out at this point--too much has occurred, too much demand destruction, too much debt-making and destruction, too much storage all across the world. We have reached a stage of oil warfare. Compare it: we were in medical or viral or call it what you will warfare with China since SARS, but let it go. We let this go, let our entire United States petroleum business go, we're looking at hostage prices.

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

Source: AP Photo/Ted S. Warren The last few weeks have provided plenty of support for the political positions traditionally espoused by conservatives. Some of the evidence is so painfully obvious it's hard to believe there could be any dispute about it. And yet, disputes there are. In fact, the divisions in this country seem deeper than ever. As we approach the November election and beyond, it is vital that we understand the lessons current events teach us about what we're facing in our future. Here's a short and (very) incomplete list: 1. Our governments are shockingly weak. COVID-19 has revealed that the twin pillars of some city and state governments are hypocrisy and cowardice. Rules put in place to prevent the spread of the virus were strictly enforced when the would-be violators were Orthodox Jews and other worshippers, small-business owners and skateboarders. Ill and elderly people died alone, their loved ones forbidden from visiting them in hospitals and long-term care facilities. These sacrifices, we were told, were necessary to keep the public safe. But when the George Floyd protests exploded into the streets across the country, the narrative changed. "Social justice" became an exception to the infection rules, as if the virus would somehow distinguish between irate Black Lives Matter activists and frolicking beachgoers. Worse, the riots, arson, violence and secessionist colonies in major cities were allowed to take place with virtually no interference from law enforcement -- often at the express directive of city government. Statues and monuments were vandalized or torn down. Buildings were burned. Businesses were destroyed. People were harassed, assaulted, raped, shot and killed. All of this was done with impunity and under the watchful eye of governments that did nothing, for fear of being called "racist." The clear message is that rules are only enforced against the law-abiding, but the government will let you do whatever you like if it is afraid of you. 2. Never give up your Second Amendment rights. Is it not obvious now? The Second Amendment was not written to enshrine hunting as a protected constitutional right; it was written so citizens could protect themselves from oppressive government. Or, in our case, perhaps, weak and feckless government that allows criminals free reign. The chaos in Seattle, Portland, New York City and Washington, D.C., drove the point home that private citizens are on their own and can expect neither government nor law enforcement to help protect their lives and property. That will double when police are "defunded." 3. The media is relentlessly biased and deceitful. As exhibit A of the above, St. Louis attorneys Mark and Patty McCloskey made national news earlier this week when they confronted a group of protesters on their property in a heated exchange. The McCloskeys were armed, and the press was quick to cast them as the wrongdoers overreacting to "peaceful protesters." (As if we haven't watched riots and arson for the past three weeks characterized by the press as "protests.") Mark McCloskey and his attorney had to point out that the protesters had trespassed on private property, breaking down a wrought-iron gate to obtain access to their home, and that some of the protesters were armed and threatened the McCloskeys with violence. 4. No one can survive the ideological purity tests that are being administered to justify tearing down statues and monuments. And, in truth, they're not meant to. The attacks started with Confederate soldiers but quickly moved to the Founding Fathers (Washington and Jefferson), to presidents (Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ulysses S. Grant) and even to Jesus Christ and his mother. The battle is really one to tear down Western civilization -- democracy, capitalism and Judeo-Christian values -- and replace it with a Marxist state. If you don't think this is their goal, you're not listening to them. 5. Ah, Marxism! The only example of perfect diversity. No matter where it has been tried, or by whom, Marxist regimes have failed spectacularly. Whether installed by whites (Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe in the old Soviet Union), Asians (China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, North Korea), Hispanics (Venezuela, Cuba, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru) or Blacks (Angola, Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia), Marxism invariably promises equality and utopia, and equally invariably results in government oppression, corruption, starvation, torture, imprisonment and death on a massive scale. 6. The highest praise for Marxism comes from those who have never lived under it. History shows that academics and the press in free countries (as opposed to those in the Marxist countries themselves) continue to praise and tout Marxist regimes, even when they are aware of their brutality. True of The New York Times in the 1930s. True of the New York Times today. 7. Yes, it can happen here. Historian Crane Brinton noted in his classic work "Anatomy of a Revolution" that the American Revolution was the only one of the four major upheavals he addressed that did not have a "Reign of Terror." But for all their criticism of the Founding Fathers, today'srevolutionaries seem to have a greater penchant for bloodshed, as we've seen with the antifa movement, violence in the lawless "occupied" zones, signs that say things such as "Murder Andy Ngo" (an independent journalist), the trending #FrenchRevolution hashtag on Twitter, a guillotine in front of Jeff Bezos' home and an enraged Ivy League student threatening to stab anyone who defends the universal importance of all lives. 8. It isn't about President Donald Trump. Those seeking to destroy the United States were committed to that objective before Trump was elected. They'll be just as committed when he's gone. Trump is obnoxious to them because he doesn't fear them or seek to mollify them like so many other politicians. They want a weak president who will capitulate to them as so many mayors and governors have done. We can't give them that.

The governments everywhere are flailing because they were acting like headless chickens when the virus hit was confirmed. It was obvious that it would hit. They planned badly, The US did badly as well. Flying blind without tests because of CDC and FDA power games, which you can also interpret as deliberate sabotage. The WHO acted as a Chinese mouthpiece and its efforts in coordinating vaccine and treatment development are thus suspect. They may be just as well making sure that there is no vaccine or treatment to pass trials. It is typical for example of the NIH and FDA to structure trials and experiments by selecting patients for trial that can't react to a low cost treatment in order to keep away competition from a new patented drug. There is no reason for any European nation to support the WHO and collaborate with it. Its actions as a CCP sycophant disqualify it from any degree of trust. They know better than that. Trump was suckered into the lockdown guidelines. It was a mistake. He is trying to get out of it without having to admit that he was taken in by the establishment - aka "the swamp" - in their role as CCP shills and paid saboteurs and political enemies.

To set the stage, I do not have a medical background, I am an engineer. Furthermore, I am just like everybody else as I to am forced to rely on questionable media sources for my information. That said, there seems to be little, or no, consensus between the various medical association, various doctors, or various politicians, regarding the present lethality of the corona virus, the level of infection, or the effectiveness of any treatment proposed. There also seems to be dissension among the ‘experts’ as to the necessity, or effectiveness, of these draconian lockdown measures. Everyone does seem to agree that the prevention measures presently in place are destroying economies and driving the world to the brink of a depression. For Americans, the trampling of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is of grave concern. This whole corona virus issue reminds me of the climate change debate where we are willing to bet our livelihood and way of life on science which does not have the blessing of the entire scientific community and has hatched cheerleaders on both sides of the debate that rarely, if ever, actually understand the science supporting what they are cheering about. In regards to the corona virus issue, and the climate change debate, it appears that the blind are leading the blind.

Readers might note that "Dumping" is a specific set of events in which surplus product is sold at prices below that commanded in the home country for the same product. Occasionally, Dumping is taken to mean selling at below the cost of production. There is no hard evidence - yet - that the KSA is selling that crude for less than equal-quality crude is internally sold. It is a bit of an abstract, as I assume that the production of petroleum goods inside KSA is all controlled by the State, and thus pricing ladders are artificial. That said, is there evidence that the oil itself has not already been sold to oil traders? Can traders "dump"? Probably not. I do not see any plausible way for anti-dumping laws to apply to the sale of Saudi oil at fire-sale pricing. Yo9u have this cheap oil everywhere, the world is awash in it. I would not put much stock into anything that Rick Perry says, he is a notorious dimwit. Can the Trump Administration impose import quotas? Yes, it can, and there is precedent for this. Readers are invited to review the combination of tariffs and quotas on construction lumber from Canada into the USA (a perennial sore point, for many decades, between them). Will Trump do that? My guess: no. The US economy benefits immensely from ultra-cheap oil. The users of oil products pay less, thus having more funds to spend on "something else." Or, as in the case of the air carriers, they can offer lower fares, once the hedging contracts run out. All that, cumulatively, puts more cash into individual pockets, be that corporations or individuals. More cash ultimately results in more spending, and greater levels of economic activity. OK, that is not so pleasant for the domestic oil industry, but it is what it is.

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.

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.

Do others, reacting to fear, hype and flawed computer models have a right to close your business, take your job, ruin your livelihood and trample on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

There are really 2 separate issues for conventional and unconventional shale fields. Most conventional fields are quite old, and have been using waterfloods for decades to keep the reservoirs pressurized and fluids moving. In a waterflood, you inject high pressure water on 1 end of the field and expect to recuperate that water + oil + gas on another end of the field. By continuously injecting water, you keep things moving underground through the rock pores. Now, if you shut in wells, you also need to stop injecting water, because the reservoir can only take so much. Once you stop injecting water, everything stops moving underground, the rock can swell, effectively closing the pores making impossible to restart the reservoir... or the oil can stick to the rock rather than flow through the water... there are many mechanics that would simply cause the oil to get trapped underground if we shut in these old conventional fields, and would take billions of dollars to get them restarted. So it's just not worth, better to produce the field at a loss for a few months than lose it forever. I would argue that unconventional shale fields are a lot easier to shut in and restart but in many cases there is a huge cost associated with that. Once a shale well is producing, if you shut it in for some time, sand will slowly accumulate in the horizontal effectively clogging the well off completely and there is nothing you can do to get this well back online without incurring huge costs by getting a crew out on location to clean out the well and bring it back online. So again engineers need to carefully evaluate the economics in this scenario to make sure that shutting in a well wouldnt end of causing more economic damage than just keeping the well online even through it is currently uneconomic. all this is to say... turning wells on and off isnt just a simple ordeal... you can turn them off for a couple hours, maybe a day, and not cause long term damage but shutting in some wells for a long period of time is essentially abandoning the asset.

. DONE .

Watching the news in Malaysia this morning I saw where the rioters in the US were pulling down the statues of Confederate veterans, defacing historic sites (including the Lincoln Memorial), and demanding that US miliary installations named after Confederate Generals be renamed. In other news, British protesters and rioters were pulling down statues, defacing others (including those of Winston Churchil) and demanding institutions named after Cecil Rhodes be renamed. Slavery was a horrible institution, most agree on that.,But it needs to be seen in the historical context it existed in. Furthermore, almost every society, at some point, kept slaves (including South America, Africa and the Middle East). Slavery was NEVER a solely ‘white’ institution. The George Floyd/police brutality/racism narrative has now been highjacked. I have never owned slaves and neither have my ancestors. By the same token, no black alive today, in the US or UK, has ever been a slave in either the UK or the US. I refuse to buy into the white guilt or white privilege trip - I have neither. I am seeing ‘black entitlement’, which is unearned. I am to the point where I don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone who loots, burns down residences or beats people up for no reason. This is aggrevated robbery, arson and assault. I hope these people are arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I am sick of these people trying to rewrite history because they are ‘offended’. These rioters are entitled idiots have lost the plot and are doing more damage to their ‘cause’ than the Floyd murder created. I have zero respect for these rioters and will not shed a tear when they get what they deserve...regardless of their skin color.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

(My comment 1 of 2) Simple timeline for you to consider. Your mileage may vary. 1) War on drugs (unwinnable) 2) War on terror (unwinnable) 3) War on Global Warming ( *sigh* ) 4) War on Panic-demic (unwinnable) Each of these items in the timeline has a very specific thing in common: "voluntarily" giving up rights and freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security. See how that works? Also, I refuse to apologize for being a pain in the butt about my views.

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.

Let me explain it straight to you. Germany will receive 110 billion 3 billion of the cheapest Russian gas directly without intermediaries. They will use up some of this NG and with their Energewendie policy of abandoning coal and nuclear power over the next several years gas consumption will increase. What they do not consume, they will distribute to Central and Eastern Europe with additional excess margin of an intermediary and also as the largest gas hub in Europe. They will consolidate without war with economic means what they were striving for and triggered for World War I and World War II - the plan of the so-called Mitteleuropa, i.e. Central European economies and vasal-countries cooperating with Germany as sub-suppliers of rich Germany. They will cash the entire Central Europe on margin, so. they will earn easy money even without having a material product. In the end, they will be the only customer that pays Russia the entire fee for 110 billion m3 so lets say some USD 30 billion $. What will Russia do with this money - the same thing like always so in exchange for the commodities sold to germany , they will buy industrial machinery, cars, trucks, or everything that the German industry has in excess and is looking for a market. With all due respect, anyone who thinks that it is not in the German core national interest is really very stupid, so let everyone cry on Twitter with chicks because everyone would try to make such a golden deal as if they only had the opportunity to do so. The USA finally decided that Germany was their main partner in Europe and needed Germany on its side and also at least a little more neutral Russia in the conflict with China, so the end of the whole battle was obvious.

Mr. Biden is very rapidly getting the United States into an energy bind. He still has time to back up and let things be, but that door is closing rapidly. With the new administration's rhetoric on Saudi Arabia taking on a sour tone, the KSA will be a target for Iran, probably via Yemen, but possibly through a direct hit to the Strait of Hormuz. They're crazy bastards in Iran so it might even be a baby nuke. Presto! Just like that we wouldn't have enough heavy crude to mix in with our light sweet shale basin oil. We'd be in a war but with no real way to provide the aviation fuel to fight it. We need ready, reliable access to Canadian heavy oil . . . for many reasons. First is the strategic location next door. Second is to heal trade relations. Third is to cut Saudi Arabia loose. Venezuela heavy, nah. Mexican heavy, yes--again for the same simple reasons. Mr. Biden has bought into the California Plan: solar and wind energy stored in a lithium-ion battery concourse capable of emitting it over the grid as needed, providing electricity to electric vehicles that during crisis levels can send energy back into the power plant, cutting all ties to fossil fuels. I have yammered on for months about the dangers of such a transition without fossil fuel backup--in the case of California, the many natural gas fired utility plants that can provide backup now and will be valuable for NG to hydrogen in a couple of years. Mr. Biden seems to have sold his soul to the company store, which in this case is the magical wonder-world of the Green New Deal. He refutes that, calling it the "Biden Plan" instead, but it's the same deranged logic. No one really took this seriously--especially in the shale basins--because it was reasoned that he could never get it through a Republican-controlled Senate. Well, so much for that stopgap! With his abrupt cancellation of the Keystone Pipeline and moratorium on lease-letting on federal lands (even though it looks like a compromise), he has let the whole world know that he wants the United States out of the fossil fuels business as quickly as possible, at the same time sticking an eye in the prince's eye, and flipping off Canada too. How smart can you get! Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Biden. Right now the mainstream press is so gushy about your hair-brained ideas that you may get the impression you can do no wrong. But take it from me, you're about to get us in one hell of a jam: 1) raging inflation, 2) very high oil prices, 3) energy-insecurity, 4) a Middle East hellhole. It would be quite a setback for your devoted left to wake up one day and realize that 75% of the country yearned for Mr. Trump and the "good ole days." 😊

Dead on accurate. Presented without my usual long winded comments. DEFIANCE – There are More of Us Than Them In April something was bugging me… a familiarity amid the COVID lock-down status & another time… I couldn’t quite put my finger on it until a dear friend reminded me. Many U.S. states are acting like the early 1980’s and the imposition of Martial law in Poland to target the Solidarity movement. Subsequently I wrote about it on a Twitter thread, because the parallels were really quite remarkable. Sacramento California, peaceful protesters confronted by riot police Both Poland circa 1980 and the U.S. friction in 2020, center around fragile economic issues. Both were an outcome of state control; and the key connection is government targeting control over the workers. In both examples the state took exclusive control of the economic and social state of the citizens, and the courts provided no option for redress. In both examples the state locked down the citizens and would not permit them to interact with each other. In 1981 the government in Poland initiated Martial Law and citizens were forced to communicate underground. In 2020 a considerable number of U.S. state governments locked-down citizens in similar fashion and banned citizen assembly. In 1981 in Poland the communist regime used economic psychological pressure, selecting workers permitted to earn wages. Those workers identified as “essential” to the state. In 2020 many State governors selected workers to earn an income by designating them “essential” to the state. In 1981 in Poland; communication amid the Solidarity Movement was forced underground. In 2020 many oppressive State governors demanded social media remove public content adverse to the interests of the Stay-at-Home confinement orders. Big Tech complied with the authoritarian dictate. In 1981 Polish authorities arrested anyone organizing protests against the authoritarian state. In 2020 numerous authoritarian officials arrested citizens for non-compliance with unilateral dictates. From a New Jersey governor arresting a woman for organizing a protect; to an Idaho mother arrested for allowing her children to play at a park; to a Texas salon owner arrested for operating her business. In 1981 Polish authorities had a program for citizens to report subversive activity against the state. Snitching. In 2020 New York City, LA and numerous state and local officials started programs for citizens to report non-compliant activity against the state. Similar snitching. In both 1981 Poland and 2020 USA we also see media exclusively creating ideological content as propaganda for the interests of the authoritarian state (controlling citizens). Interestingly, as we begin to see the American people saying “enough”, and openly defying the authoritarian state. There’s another parallel that is comparable, enlightening and quite remarkable. Just before the authoritarian state in Poland collapsed there was a rapid movement for the citizens to take to the streets in defiance of state control. I remember watching with great enthusiasm as I saw a very determined pole shout on television: Fast forward more than thirty years later and those glorious voices are prescient. The power of the government comes from the people; or as we say in the U.S. “from the consent of the governed.” Thus the underlying principle behind our defiance. If the people will lead, the politicians are forced to follow: If one person refuses to comply, government can and as we have witnessed arrest them. However, if tens of thousands rebuke these unconstitutional decrees, there isn’t a damn thing government can do to stop it…. and they know it. If one barber shop opens, the owner becomes a target. However, if every barber shop and beauty salon in town opens… there is absolutely nothing the government can do about it. If one restaurant and/or bar opens, the state can target the owner. But if every bar and restaurant in town opens; and if everyone ignores and dispatches the silly dictates of the local, regional or state officials… there isn’t a damned thing they can do about it. The power of the local, regional or state authority comes from the expressed consent of the people. As soon as the majority of people deny that consent, those officials and state authoritarians lose all of their power. Yes, it really is that simple. Go live your best life. You’re worth it. Sacramento, California

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. ...

There is no logical reason for the American voters to wish to reject a second term of Donald Trump (assuming he is the candidate, which is likely, and assuming that his wife does not insist he retire from politics), The USA has effectively a two-party system. The opposition party is the democrats, and they seem incapable of mounting a credible candidate. Wht logical reason would any voter have, to vote for a Democrat candidate, when all they can trot out is some recycled Clintonite? Who needs those people? Nobody. The Chinese have lost all credibility among Ameerican voters. An argument could be made that the corn growers in Iowa might be angry that the market for their crop, and for soybeans, has evaporated, but remember that Mr. Trump can win an election without the delegate votes of Iowa in the Electoral College. The key states are those that "flipped" from Dem to Repub in the last election: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and Iowa. That brought Trump to 303 electoral votes, and you only need 270 to win. Trump can lose Iowa. The Americans are going to separate themselves from China. Nothing that China can do is going to deflect that. Is China going to dismantle the Communist Party, remove itself from Tibet, remove itself from Xingjiang and fre the Uighurs, give up the South China Sea, renounce intentions of seizing Taiwan, and start to behave? No chance. So, why should the Americans (or anyone else) have any truck with that crowd? "Trade War truce?" There isn't going to be any trade, forget about those guys. Will China disintergrate internally without the cash influx from sales to the Americans? Probably. Nobody cares about China any more. China is done.

Nope. BUSTED: Media Uses VA ‘Study’ To Launch Easily Debunked Attack On Hydroxychloroquine Read the ^ article. And here is an analysis of this article: The Department of Veterans Affairs study (Outcomes of hydroxychloroquine usage in United States veterans hospitalized with Covid-19) being pushed by the media right now is not a randomized control study, nor has it been peer reviewed. It is a retroactive analysis. The problem with retrospective analysis is that it relies upon secondary data where researchers have no control over how the data was initially collected, essentially making any conclusions in such research studies biased or incomplete. The VA study being pushed by the media right now only involved 385 patients, of which only 368 males between the ages of 59 and 75 were evaluated. From the study: “…hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, was more likely to be prescribed to patients with more severe disease, as assessed by baseline ventilatory status and metabolic and hematologic parameters. Thus, as expected, increased mortality was observed in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, both with and without azithromycin.” Given the various clinical characteristics of the patients shown in the study, and the fact that differing treatment protocols were given for various underlying morbidities, it is not possible to accurately determine the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine from this retrospective analysis. From the study: “…we cannot rule out the possibility of selection bias or residual confounding.” In other words, the study does not account for variables that influence both dependent and independent variables. In this case, associated variables pertaining to morbidities are not causally related, essentially making the any conclusions about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine unreliable. From the study: “Our findings may also be influenced by the demographic composition of patients in our cohort, the majority of whom were black.” 236 of the patients used in this study were black. The median age for the patients was over 65 years. Correlations regarding mortality pertaining to age and race were not established in the documentation of this retrospective analysis, so the study’s conclusions about treatment efficacy are inadequate. The documentation of this retrospective analysis does not indicate anything about the usage of zinc. Given that the hypothetical anti-viral mechanism of hydroxychloroquine is to open the cellular pathway for zinc, the analysis from the VA is incomplete. Hypothetically, hydroxychloroquine allows zinc to enter cells, inhibiting the replicase enzyme, effectively preventing COVID-19 from replicating. The political left is acting as if this study proves that the treatment touted by President Trump is somehow tantamount to snake oil. Given the weaknesses of the study, those who espouse such an opinion are clearly wrong. As you are reading this, the media is conducting a coordinated effort to promote this particular study to discredit and tarnish the President and his supporters. They are pushing what amounts to a false narrative, and people may very well die because of it. Here is a link to the study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v1.full.pdf ====================================================================== https://twitter.com/ScottFantasy/status/1252786512808292360

As JFK said, the trick is to surround yourself with competent people (paraphrases). Does Trump have an in-depth knowledge of the oil industry? I doubt it. This is similar to him having an in-depth knowledge of military operations or the mining industry. It is ridiculous to assume that he has an in-depth knowledge of each and every industry. That said, he does understand business, and he will have advisors for each segment of industry.

^ 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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

It is now, after Qatarstrophe.

Well, he did tell the whole country he was going to do this. I never doubted him. Then, choosing as Sec. of Interior a Native American woman who has professed hatred for fracking sort of underscored the statement. This is serious. Everyone who thought this was campaign rhetoric can now get nervous. For a while, this will help people like me. Obviously, no individual landowner or royalty owner is going to be hurt by this. However, this is only the beginning. When Ms. Harris becomes President Harris, it's lights out for the batch of us. WTI $100? Nah! I'm thinking more like $150. The Saudis are going to try to corral OPEC. Iran and others won't go along. But as I've said all along, Joe Biden wants high oil prices, even higher gas prices at the pump, all to get his Biden Green New Deal through and enable him to pump trillions of subsidies into renewables.

I've had Frankie on ignore but I can tell by the title he's back to doing the wumaodang's bidding. I've been following the news in Taiwan, they are the ones who released a lot of the most incriminating Biden dirt including full backgrounds on the parties the American media ignored (well let's be honest, the media could not have ignored more if they tried, which they did). Taiwan knows full well Biden will sell them down the river, it was arranged in advance. This means China gets TSMC, which means every single semiconductor you've heard of and a lot you haven't is going to be under their complete control. That is the prize. America can't build a Class 10 Fab overnight and we don't have the support infrastructure for post fab work anymore, thanks to years of neglect. We certainly have the best chip designers in the world, I used to work at one, but everyone went fabless in the 90's and TSMC was the beneficiary.

Jimmy, he is briefed on the oil price. I doubt he has it on his laptop. If the briefer gets it wrong, so does he. I really do not think people realize how much information Trump, or any Head of State, is juggling in their heads at any given time, let alone in these times. To expect Trump to be an expert in, and knowledgable about, each and every industry or issue is irrational.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!