Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/04/2019 in all areas

  1. 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.
  2. 7 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!
  3. 7 points
    I see shale oil just hitting it's stride but that's just my personal experience with 19 wells in the Wolfcamp. I don't believe it's DUCs being completed that is the reason for production increasing while rig count is dropping. As I stated on another thread, my two operators have drilled and completed 7 new wells this year. XTO has drilled 12 and completed all of them since spring of 2018. They built infrastructure to support both storage and water disposal. They have about 45,000 bbl of tank storage for oil and the same for water. They have SWD disposal pipelines that have the capacity of 12,000 bbl/day which amounts to about 4000 bbl/day of oil production. So the limitation for them isn't wells, it's infrastructure to support their drilled and producing capacity. On the old leases that XTO has inherited from XOM, they have many wells under one lease so you can't see from public data how any single well is doing. Here is a clip of XTO's production in October for their Phantom Wolfcamp field. Oil/Condensate (Whole Barrels) Gas/Casinghead Gas - MCF Lease Type District RRC Identifier Field Name Lease Name Gas Well ID Lease Total Commingle Permit No. On Hand Beginning of Month Production Disposition On Hand End of Month Formation Production Disposition Volume Code Volume Code Oil 08 48218 PHANTOM (WOLFCAMP) HURLEY 56-18 1,521 128,229 128,738 00 984 674,472 629,639 03 28 08 44,833 04 Gas 04 FLARE Oil 08 48520 PHANTOM (WOLFCAMP) HALEY-GARLAND ALLOCATION 8 479 2,860 2,214 00 1,125 4,948 1,938 03 3,010 04 Gas 04 FLARE Oil 08 48657 PHANTOM (WOLFCAMP) ST. LUCIA 76 2833 7648 1,738 145,306 144,287 00 2,066 292,404 271,120 03 691 01 21,284 04 Gas 04 Vented/Flared Oil 08 50025 PHANTOM (WOLFCAMP) ST KITTS 76 2833 7648 156 15,446 15,309 00 220 33,722 31,267 03 73 01 2,455 04 Gas 04 Vented/Flared Oil 08 50068 PHANTOM (WOLFCAMP) ST JOHN 76 2734 7648 5,017 307,960 307,128 00 4,378 540,496 509,871 03 1,471 01 30,625 04 Gas 04 Vented/Flared Oil 08 51942 PHANTOM (WOLFCAMP) KATE 33-40 1,305 9,993 10,209 00 1,089 36,480 35,663 03 817 04 Three of the leases produce over 100,000 barrels per month. Mine is Hurley and we are on track for 1mmbbl of production this year on those 12 wells. The latest wells are all 1000bbl/day producers, I see that from the royalty checks and also I pulled the IP reports for them. These wells are all on the west half of the section. I suspect that the other two large producers are on one or two sections and managed the same way. It's likely that the smaller producers are only a single well and they plan to expand them the same way they did on mine. We had a single well from 2016 to 2018 and then they went into the big development build out. XTO is in it for the long run and their disposal contracts run 10 years they told us. I believe they intend to maintain this level of production for that 10 year span which is good for me. Keep in mind, they have mostly been drlling the Wolfcamp, some of the wells are in the Bone Springs but they don't break the production out that way for whatever technical reason. The Bone Springs wells produce more gas and less oil. My independent operator has built his own water disposal facility and so makes money on that by taking water from other producers. He gets to keep the skim oil and he makes several hundred barrels per day off skim oil. XTO gets paid for skim oil in it's agreement with it's disposal facility whch they then pay to us. There is a lot of money being made out there on services and infrastructure so this is not a fiasco, it's a real business that produces real jobs and if you ask me, it's just as viable as Amazon or Google which like them or not, are here to stay in our lifetimes. Here is the plat map for my section with all 12 wells shown. This is the plat for the 31h so it's the unlabeled line. I believe 30 and 31h are child wells of 1h and 2h and they are both better producers than the parent wells are. XTO seems to be following a pattern of producing only one of the parent/child wells at a time. I don't know how advisable it is to not produce one well while the other is producing but that is what they are doing. I think going forward this year I will be able to get a better insight into what the rotation is but for 2019 it's hard to tell because they have been drilling and completing new wells and bringing too many wells on line to fully discern their production patterns. I just know that they don't produce all the wells every month because they can't support the volumes.
  4. 7 points
    I don't think any rational human being would disagree with your sentiment. There are arguments to the vallidity of some of the "science" IMO but the willingness to want to change for the better is an admirable quality. However unless we want economies to collapse due to not having viable alternate energy sources this wont happen overnight. Fossil fuels are here to stay and for a long time based on current technologies and energy supplies. This is perhaps the reality that many environmentalists just don't grasp. If you take California as an example, and a forward thinking state from an environmentalists perspective, they are currently experiencing blackout after blackout because of the massively increased legislation the utilties have to now comply with. i drive a hybrid car, am i helping make a differnce to Co2 emissions? absolutely not! in fact over the lifespan of the car it will probably cost the environment more than an ICE vehicle due to the amount of Co2 it takes to manufacture the battery in the first place. i wonder how many environmentalists know this and thinking they are helping when in fact they are making things worse. Are we all prepared to accept blackouts as the norm and is it a price worth paying? Maybe, time will tell. As for the EU, it has potential but is crippled by political in fighting and bureaucracy. Reform it from the top down and you may just have something! Respectfully
  5. 6 points
    Within the nexus of this "national competition" one casualty has been the US (and Canada) production of canola, which the Chinese now refuse to buy in an effort to place hurt on the US agriculture sector and achieve, by inflicting trade pain, what they cannot achieve at the bargaining table. The boycott and import-refusal of China as relates to US canola has left vast swathes of canola plant in the field with no market, and with those farmers facing financial ruin. One response has been for Trump to declare financial aid, presumably in the form of price-support or production payments. Yet, canola is an interesting plant, and the question arises, are there other uses for it? Let's take a look. Canola is known in the rest of the world as "rapeseed." The plant grows readily, has a stalk by-product, and the pod end contains the canola seed, which is the part that is trans-shipped by bulk freighter to the customer, who then presses the seed to extract the oil. Canola oil is superb for use as a cooking oil and basically all of the output is used for that purpose. The left-over seed material is known in that industry as "meal" and is rich in protein, and typically used for direct feed to livestock. It is a premium feed for that purpose, so the by-product has quite a bit of added value. Keep in mind that some 20 years ago there was no organized market in the USA for canola, and the product was not grown, at least not in anny quantity. The entire market, and its production in the US, is responsive to Chinese demand. Canola is thus a classic "substitute good" for US Midwest farmers, where land typically used for corn or wheat is re-planted with canola, more profitable for the sale to the Chinese. In a sense, the entire market is an artificial one, as there were no natural customers for US canola. World supply came typically from Australia and parts of Europe, especially Eastern Europe, I think Ukraine. But, Chinese demand for better diets and thus more cooking oils exploded the demand for canola, and the US growers eagerly responded. Faced with mountains of unsold, and unsalable, canola seed in the US, the question arises: what can we do with the stuff? And a tantalizing prospect arises. I assume that the pressing operation to manufacture the canola oil is a mundane industrial process and can be readily duplicated. I would doubt that seed-pressing is an occult art, it is likely quite mature technology at this point world-wide. OK, so now we set up seed-pressing inside the USA and we develop this vast lake of canola oil (the meal part being sold to livestock ranches and pig farms, for a nice profit of course). It turns out that canola oil is a great feedstock for the production of diesel fuel, or "bio-diesel." Already there are these installations that take used cooking oil and refine the stuff to create diesel, then used to run local buses.Well, if used oil works, why not fresh oil? The stumbling block to using bio-diesel is that the manufacture of the diesel results in the production of glycerin, a thick fat material that will clog up fuel lines, especially if the temperature drops and the glycerin congeals. So, efforts are directed towards the removal of the glycerin, and to no surprise as some 10% to 20% by weight of the canola oil will result in glycerin in conventional extraction methods, the resale price of glycerin has collapsed, and the material is today treated as a waste product. Can glycerin have a useful "home," become a product with its own value? That is an interesting question: I suspect it can, possibly as a fuel enhancer for stationary power plants or home-heating fireplaces. I postulate that wood log splits can be soaked in the stuff, and it would burn nicely. Possibly wood pellets can be soaked in liquid glycerin and again this would boost the btu output of pellets in direct burning. The glycerin results from converting that canola oil with methyl alcohol, or "methanol," of which there is lots and lots in America available on the cheap, itself manufactured in special methanol plants from corn. The methanol reactions result in the formation of glycerin, and there is currently no industrial pathway for canola conversion without methanol. Yet, interesting research is being don on distilling bio-diesel from canola without the production of glycerin. One approach is the use of dimethyl carbonate as a catalyst, and that protocol apparently dramatically reduces the amount of glycerin as a by-product. Another takes it a step further and adds a preparation consisting of active sodium methoxide catalyst prepared by crystallization, in the form of a finely-ground powder, which has the tantalizing result of producing virtually no glycerin at all. Can either of these reaction pathways be developed into robust industrial processes to fully convert canola oil directly into diesel (or jetfuel)? I bet they can. I bet they will. And once that happens, whoever is in there "first" with gobs of capital to set it up on a seriously large scale will clean up. Why? Because a pure, clean bio-diesel is unbeatable as an engine fuel, and as a heating fuel. There are technical reasons for this which I shall avoid discussing for brevity, but I see this as a real winner. And best of all, it gets the US farmer out from underneath in a great big hurry, and provides far more income than selling the seeds in bulk to the Chinese. Does the USA need China as a customer - for anything? And the answer is No. The USA is quite capable of finding other markets, or planting other crops, or creating new markets and products from its existing stable, and totally excluding the Chinese. What it will impact is the US oil markets, in that it will provide a farm product as direct substitution for a middle distillate. Yet, and again speculating, if the product substitution is directly against imported oil, it does not whack the US shale producers so much as depress US imports of ME or African oils. Either way, I predict that a successful development of the redeployment of canola oil into biodiesel is going to make some entrepreneurs vastly rich, and take market share away from producers and distillers in the US Midwest and Gulf Coast. And that would be an interesting re-alignment.
  6. 6 points
    LOL Look forward not backward. When DUCs drawn down the weak go out of business. The strong continue to drill now. At least half of the shale industry will merge consolidate or file bankruptcy. Shale industry hiring . . Mathematicians and Computer Science grads. Don't need more field engineers. Don't fight it. EMBRACE THE NEW SHALE INDUSTRY. Yesterday Conoco CEO said U.S. will probably increase production about a million barrels a day by end of 2020. U.S. Production up to 12.9 million barrels day week ending Nov 29th
  7. 6 points
    I have a Masters degree in Economics. It does not give me any advantage by itself in the world of trading crude oil. I have a Masters degree in Finance. It has provided me with the tools to lose millions in the stock market. Seems like a waste of time and money on my behalf doesn't it ? By losing millions I learned my most valuable lessons by asking myself " Where does the money go ?" It seems to evaporate. It doesn't. It gets concentrated into the hands of a few. All stocks. All commodities markets are set up for one reason. Options trading. The most lucrative options market in the world is WTI. The most lucrative for the market makers of WTI that is. I have traded options from the short side for decades. The OVX ( Oil Volatilty Index ) is currently 32.2. The volatity index for the S&P is 14.8. This makes a huge difference in the pricing of puts and calls. Today I Sold to Open 2 Jan 58 calls at 1.25 each. Using all the same criteria except replacing the OVX with the VIX into the Black-Scholes calculator gives 52 cents. These options expire in 12 days. The further out in time I go this disparity in pricing becomes even more significant. You'll never see this strategy in a book or on Youtube. I started with 1 WTI contract in Nov 2017. Paid in full. No margin. I now control 8 contracts. All paid in full. I have never met another trader that does what I do. I've run across thousands of traders over the course of my 40 years in finance. Not one. It's almost like it's a closed society. Economics and finance enabled me to know the possibilities. Up until 2 years ago I had clientele. Had some for decades. Once I figured this out I fired them all. Best day of my life.
  8. 6 points
    I like your list. One addendum I would add is executive management experience. It is well known (albeit forgotten in all the hype surrounding Obama) that state governors make better presidents than senators or congressmen, because the skillset is totally different. Someone like Biden can spend a 30 year career in the Senate and never introduce a single piece of legislation, let alone "manage" anything more that a staff of yes men. On the experience side, Trump is completely inexperienced as a politician. Many people like myself see that as a positive, but every professional politician (and they are legion) see that as decidedly negative. Many people like to compare Trump to Reagan, but as you adroitly pointed out, Reagan was most certainly a professional politician by the time he ran for President. Eisenhower was merely a general and obviously an outsider to politics as Trump is. However, with his pedigree (winning WWII helps), no one dared subject him to the kind of attacks Trump experiences daily. Furthermore it was quite frankly a better time then. Newspapers and the three networks employed actual journalists who had professional standards, not pitch men pretending to be journalists.
  9. 5 points
    Good day everybody, I thought I'd save you all a little time here and if you wish you can focus the seemingly non stop national competition to this thread. I was under the impression personally that neither system was perfect by any means, but it rather seems the 'whataboutism' is almost constant from both sides. It appears to rather prove my point beforehand that an understandable national pride that we all have inherently is prone to taking over and indeed blinker users here from their nation's own domestic problems, to a point they will defend literally anything done, whether historically or in the modern era, with disregard to its negative aspects, as long as it appears their own nation is 'better' or 'not as bad' as the other. Joking aside, I feel it may tidy up the forum somewhat also. Please feel free to mention any trade war news, impeachment news. economic or growth details and comparisons, President Trump news, Emperor Xi news, future global projections, anything at all connected to either country, as almost every thread seems to end up in this way anyway from what I can see. This is not intended as an insult particularly, I am genuinely very interested by certain users' views on these topics, I simply aim for the conversation to be in and evolve from one place. To clarify, I obviously am not expecting an answer to the title of the piece, that is intended as pure sarcasm, and I obviously appreciate that with some regard the future of the planet may be affected by some of these matters, but I do wish simply to gather all opinion here. And no Mr Regan, this suggestion is not an impication or wish from myself to be a moderator. It is simply that - a suggestion sir. Respectfully to you all, Papillon.
  10. 5 points
    Nope. Nonsense. I'll believe it when I see it. It would be amazing to see independently verified details of Aramco's finances and oil reserves. And I am not talking about bribed third party "auditors" spouting off Aramco's party line hooey. I am talking about actual, verified, independent facts that can be examined, poked, prodded, and questioned. Since Aramco basically cannot comply with Western norms for transparency, the trading of Aramco stocks will remain far away New York and London stock exchanges.
  11. 5 points
    @Papillon If my old fellow service man DT (by the way DT thanks for your service) has paid you respect I can only further apologise for feeling you out, it must have seemed strange to be randomly barraged from some person you have never heard of, you did well, I had no reason whatsoever for jumping on your case, you sir will be well respected here. DT and I have campaigned in various theatres, I was his spotter during various covert operations, never one to grab the limelight as a spotter, I always left DT to take the credit, I'm sure he will be first to admit we were and still are a team, DT was always a good wordsmith but he wasn't very good at numbers hence why we maid such a good team, this is now evident in his trading. Many nights were spend listening to his stories over the comms, but when it came down to business he always got confirmation. I saw you are half English, where is the other half, Scotland maybe, that would be good for DT moving ahead, anyway don't apologise for your English or understanding of it, your English is better than mine, but Im Scottish, so best not go there, even though the sasanachs don't realise we are speaking their own mother tongue from centuries ago, but we cut them slack. Okay Rambled On to quote the best band in History, even DT and Im sure @Rob Plant will also agree, he better he wrote it. Cheers and great weekend to you Sir and all my friends on OP.......
  12. 5 points
    People do not seem to realize that the root cause of the production problems associated with shale oil is the extremely low permeability or the ability for the rock to flow. There is only so much that you can do to mitigate this issue. Let’s take a simplistic historical view. First a well is drilled vertically through a tight shale formation. This yields a certain surface area for hydrocarbons to enter the wellbore, which in turn gives a certain production rate for that surface area and permeability. The rate is uneconomical. How do we increase the permeability of the reservoir rock matrix? We can’t, so we must adjust the surface area. We now drill a lateral through the reservoir. Surface area of the wellbore increases and production goes up - for awhile. The near wellbore oil is recovered ‘easily’, but as the oil further from the wellbore is being recovered, the tortuous path between the shale grains becomes longer, friction becomes greater and it becomes more difficult for the oil to reach the wellbore. Eventually the production rate becomes uneconomical. We need even more surface area, so we hydraulically fracture the formation. Once again, more surface area yields higher production - until it doesn’t for exactly the same reasons described above. At some point the money runs out and you can neither increase the length of the laterals OR increase the number of stages in the frac program. Okay, let’s just drill and frac a multitude of wells in the same area. This will yield a huge increase in the wellbore surface area (remember, you can’t really change the permeability of the actual reservoir rock) and production should skyrocket, and it does, right up to the point that it doesn’t and the parent/sibling well issue raises it’s ugly head. At the end of the day, the shale oil boom will bust simply because you can not alter the deep reservoir permeability AND you’ve run out of money trying to do so. That’s it in a nutshell. Over to you Jabbar...
  13. 5 points
    The Permian gained 2 million bpd last year. 2018 well decline is 1 million bpd in just 7 months. The Tier 2 & 3 acerage not only produces 1/3 to 1/2 less EUR it also declines at nearly twice the rate. So that treadmill just got steeper and you just barfed your protein bar. There is no way this goes on more than another 6 months. DUC's fill/plug a few holes but it's fingers in the dike. We're going to peak around 13 mbpd probably December and then it will start the decline and it won't be slow. So it grew roughly 8 mbpd over 10 years, it will decline 8 mbpd in 5 years or 1.6 mbpd a year. So this time next year we will be at 11.5 mbpd. I think it won't get to 13 mbpd, probably 12.6 mbpd. Right now 85% of new production goes to replacing legacy decline. In the Permian. Tier 1 acerage is gone. You can tell by 2018 decline rates which look to come in at 80 - 90%. Gone in 1 year. No more new oil wells because oil price has to double or triple or maybe more to justify the expense. The Wolfcamp #'s I see above have to be Tier 1. As far as refracking, I hear that only works in the Bakken and on only the best wells. Not much there. I'm not the only one who thinks the worm has turned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhc6vyxVsDs
  14. 5 points
    @Papillon in all reality I was honestly having a jesting dig, I was called Pompous once on here by the most pompous person on the planet, I believe. I was just testing your water. Welcome to the forum, Im sure you will be a great addition. respectfully James
  15. 5 points
    Please read my comments in the Tom Kirkman thread about trade war with China. But fortunately we do not have to argue about it, to prove this or other way, win/loose etc. Time will tell, Trump is wisely manouvering with the deal right into spring of 2021, after winning second term. By this moment the numbers will tell the truth about the trade war (for some like me they already told their story, but longer time series will give satisfying answer for the rest of the pack).
  16. 5 points
  17. 5 points
    I was trying to see the situation through the Trump lenses, his problems and goals. His major task is to win 2020 election, all other tasks are secondary. You are right to REALLY solve conflict with China, Trump needs co-operation with Europe, but who says any US politician really wants to solve US problems. It is not their primary task, primary one is ...................................................... yes, no suprise here, to win next election.
  18. 4 points
    Please don't confuse overall shale performance with specific performance from specific companies.. I don't think anybody can disagree that a significant amount of companies and financiers did some pretty stupid stuff betting on the price of oil. But I believe that some companies have figured it out and are making money from shale. Some people seem to think that the past overall performance is the future for all companies in shale. Just take a look at break evens for the different companies they are all over the place. I still sale 1960's designed Heater Treaters to a few companies trying to make it in the shale plays, those companies won't make it. They are dying a slow death while other companies are using larger modular equipment that greatly reduces overall equipment costs. (Not a good trend for the company I work for by the way) This is just one technological advance that is lowering the cost to produce from a shale well. Others are: 1) VRU's capturing flare gas to add to revenue. 2) New rigs drill faster with A/C motor controls, move faster between wells with ability to walk, and can handle exceptions faster such as stuck casing ETC., Longer tool life because of improved Load on Bit ability. to just name a few. 3) Longer tool life from materials science. Such as Carbide slurries brazed in Vacuum furnaces. Some of the technological advances are not new technology but they are being applied either differently or more widespread than the past. Jay Johnson Jay
  19. 4 points
    As US GDP continues to drift lower in the 4th quarter US refinery run rates continue to be depressed. In this discussion I will present data from November 2018 to be compared to November of 2019. Using EIA's refinery inputs starting 11/09/2018 every week in Nov 2019 had a lower total as compared to Nov 2018 totals. US GDP growth in the 4th quarter of 2018 was 3.1%. US GDP growth rate in the 4th quarter of 2019 is currently being estimated at 2.0%. This slowdown in the economy is even more prevalent in domestic crude demand by US refineries. For the month of Nov 2018 the refinery run rate averaged 17.082 mbd. For Nov 2019 the refinery run rate dropped 711 kbd. This is 4.16% decline for Nov 2019 as compared to Nov 2018. This is almost 5 million less barrels of oil per week. This figure by itself indicates the US is already in a recession, but US crude exports are part of the equation also. US crude exports rose from an average of 2.416 mbd to 3.069 mbd. An increase of 653 kbd. Using 2018 November demand total of 17.082 + 2.416 = 19.498 mbd to compare d to November 2019's total of 16.371 + 3.069 = 19.444 mbd or a decline of 58 kbd. A decline of .3%. On November 30,2018 US crude inventories were 443 million barrels. On November 29,2019 US crude inventories were 447 million barrels. Using the price of WTI on each week-ending date by EIA I attained an average monthly price of ( $60.19 + 56.46 + 50.42 + 50.93 )÷4 = $54.50 for Nov 2018. The price for Nov 2019 was calculated as follows: ( $57.24 + 57.72 + 57.77 + 55.17 ) ÷ 4 = 56.98. WTI's current price is $59.18. That is 8.56% higher than Nov 2018 average price of $54.50 when supply and demand was almost identical to now.
  20. 4 points
    All economies are based on trust and belief. Destroy the trust/belief, and the economy fails.
  21. 4 points
    Kathleen Wynne spent 17 years as premier of Ontario doing exactly that, and she ended up totally wrecking the manufacturing sector of the province. Finally, in the last election, the Wynne Liberals went down to a stupendous, crashing defeat, from a majority party of 124 seats to only 5, a disaster enough to wipe the Liberals off the map as even a third-party, and now without official standing in the Opposition. Has it sunk in with the Liberals that theirs was a failed path? Nope. The Trudeau Liberals at the Federal level simply continue on the same catastrophic path, and the result is there for all to see: a collapsed business sector. For Canadians, that seems to be OK. They collectively seem to want to get out of all manufacturing, even food processing, in favour of "services." The result: even the Campbell Soup cannery in SW Ontario has closed down, even the soup guys couldn't hack it, so Canada's tomato crop is history, left to rot in the fields, no market for the stuff. Just brilliant. "Legislate what business can do?" There is not much of that business left to go legislate. OK, Suncor is still around, and that Husky refinery in Edmonton. Get past that, and what do you have? The CN?
  22. 4 points
    Duc's are like regular wells. Not all of them come in gushers. By my math you need to drill 4 or 5 wells to find that 600,000 barrel EUR well. That's why frackers can't make money. At the beginning of the year they were completing 0 Duc's. Last month they did 225 and it's going up fast. My guess is next month they'll do 300 and 500 a month by spring. 20% of 7500 is somewhere around 1850 Tier 1 wells. By the summer they're gone.
  23. 4 points
    More DUCs are being completed than wells being drilled apparently, I would hope the tightening of financing should get rid of non serious players (there were loads a few years ago) leaving smart experienced and streamlined companies who know how to operate. I think production will grow much slower than some people have claimed and that is overall a good thing for the industry. If OPEC also plays ball we could see oil prices gradually increase next year without the risk of another crazy boom in shale the latter could be controlled by borrowing costs and the fact that companies might have to start drilling much more tier 2 and 3 wells (if I understand the meaning correctly). I'm hoping that they have to start targeting formations that are deeper and take longer to drill, drilling 10,000ft laterals in 3 days is pretty gruesome, less pay for the same amount of work. I did notice this year that we started drilling some much deeper wells for some clients which were over 12,000ft vertical depth far deeper than the usual ~7000ft deep wells we drilled the previous year. I'm cautiously optimistic for next year...fingers crossed!
  24. 4 points
    I'm not convinced about the not stealing part. In fact my old ASIC company had designed communications chips and cores currently standard in roughly all the world. Everyone who didn't buy the chips just licensed the cores. Except a well known Chinese company suddenly came out with their "own" design. Except it wasn't their own, they had just run with a design we'd used for a test boat (the wafers are called boats). The test code was supposed to have been protected, then destroyed, clearly it wasn't. Now there was a bug in our design, which was why we'd run the tests in the first place. We knew they'd stolen from us because they had exactly the same bug. Their production systems needed glue logic to compensate. Innovation is still innovation and I don't care how much a company like IBM spends, they're constantly out-innovated by smaller, more nimble competitors, who spend considerably less.
  25. 4 points
    I would have to disagree with that statement, under the Obama administration racial tensions are higher than they have been in years, and even black people that have been watching will tell you that he did absolutely nothing for them. I do believe the only thing he did was make it easier for Muslims to be here, pointedly things like them being excluded from the regulations of the ACA. That was pure favoritism there, I will say it again, either a law applies to everyone, or it doesn't apply at all. Why should anyone be expected to obey a law when someone else is exempted? Kind of like the no kid left behind strategy( I know that was Bush), why should the school districts that are performing be expected to follow the law and the ones that just can't get it together get exemptions and keep right on being a mess? That was the start of really being able to see that the law only applies to certain people, but not everyone. Like how it seems to apply to everyone with the exception of the Demo's in congress right now? I live around the Houston area and the school is such a stupid mess that the state finally came in and took over the schools, the board has no say now in HISD policies and such. What a waste, but there was so much of a power struggle from within that they couldn't get anything positive done for the students. But they did manage to give out raises for themselves, kinda funny how that worked.
  26. 4 points
    @Tom Kirkman I have a great respect for you and all other great persons that are commenting here at oilprice.com (bar a few trolls, I must admit). All of you probably noticed that I speak a different language, language of many quantitative and qualitative metrics that I present to show you my points. They are unfortunately all needed to understand the nature of US, China economies, and the effects of the current conflict (trade and technology area). It is about 30 different indicators you need to follow (although the major 10-15 are most important) and understand their mutual interdependencies, plus a little bit of knowledge about geography of resources of all kinds on the globe, plus a little bit of knowledge about historical trends in global economy, that are emulated at present, advanced degree in finance is a good addition. I did not mean to disparage the Fox media discourse, but unfortunately most of it is rubbish, these journalists have no idea what they are writing about. Example: Two China Firms Miss $526 Million Bond Payments as Woes Grow Tom the stream of thoughts that comes in 20second through my mind when I read sth you linked. China the second largest bond market in the world. I do not remember the exact number, but remember from one McKinsey presentation that bank credit is about 25 trillion, and bond market was 3 times lower, so bond market is about 5-10 trillion USD. I do not remember the rate of default at Chinese bond market, but remember that bank credit default rate in China is in line with global standards, and take this number as an indicator of magnitude for bonds. So below 1% rate of default similar to A US bonds. At 9 trillion market it is 90 billion USD a year, so till such defaults appear more often than 180 times a year it is not important. Summary: This piece was irrelevant (like 90% you read about China at Bloomberg).
  27. 4 points
  28. 4 points
    @Rasmus Jorgensen I will first go a little bit off topic to back my premise that Trump is by some metrics the best US President since at least Eisenhower. Donald Trump is the first really succesful person turned politician and not professional politician turned US President. I think business experience is a very good background for becoming politician. List of US presidents, professional politicians are also divided into experienced and inexperienced at the moment of election: Trump - succesful businessman turned politician Obama - professional politician (inexperienced) Bush Junior - princeling from Bush Dynasty, professional politician (inexperienced), with short business career, Clinton - professional politician (experienced) Bush senior - princeling from Bush Dynasty, professional politician (experienced), short business career, Ronald Reagan - actor that became professional politician (experienced), Jimmy Carter - professional politician (experienced) Ford - professional politician (experienced) Nixon - professional politician (experienced) Johnson - professional politician (experienced) Kennedy - princeling from Kennedy Dynasty, professional politician (inexperienced) Eisenhower - military commander turned politician
  29. 4 points
    True & fair enough. Accepted and fair enough.
  30. 4 points
    I have not stated in any sense sir whatsoever that her stating taking care of the planet is wrong. It is a reference to earlier aspects of the discussion of her apparently doing what she does 'independently'. The fact that you have just said 'I'm not sure she pretends to know' suggests to me you would agree with me sir. To certain users she does what she does alone, and I assume that would include writing speeches? How may I ask would you write on certain topics if you 'don't even pretend to know' the topic? My guess would be with help, and so by definition, not 'independently'. With respect it is precisely the question at hand, that being the people 'behind' the girl. If you view my comments in their entirety sir you will note I have actually done nothing but defend this girl and her intentions.
  31. 4 points
    Payne interviewed Peter Morici who was in agreement even though his other writing aptly demonstrates Peter is no fan of Trump (nor conservative principles). I believe trade war secondary was the entire thrust of the article linked. Did you not read it because you saw a scary black man who happens to work for Fox Business (not to be confused with Fox News)? I'm not against what you said, if you read my post to @Papillon you'll see I said I was in general agreement with you. My point here was to encourage you to create a new thread, where hopefully your good thoughts won't be swamped among over 100 posts, many of them completely irrelevant. For instance delving into the Fed from a legitimate viewpoint would be a breath of fresh air.
  32. 3 points
    I am just a biased Western stereotypical type person. So please educate me on which part of the thousand years old society runs the reeducation/forced labor camps and force harvests organs from "convicts"? Would that be the Daoism or Confucianism portion of this wonderful society? Please keep the response simple... I am a Southern Bubba Western stereotype.
  33. 3 points
    Ok, so with regard to China, the argument from what I assume are Dems here and from what I just read is ''ooh well China is still ahead / Trump accomplishing nothing''. Even if this were true, it sounds like the argument is ''ooh this seems a bit hard, let's not bother''. Trust me, it pains me to say this lol, but I'm pretty sure this is not an ethic that America was built on. I don't understand the Trump bashing to a point that I assume you agree with what he's doing, but as the results are maybe not there yet, you see it as an opportunity to criticise. Honestly this is just weird to me. Would you rather he didn't bother at all (like Dems didn't)? Would you rather your country was raped for a few more decades? Or am I wrong and you don't agree with what he's doing at all? (which wouldn't surprise me just because of who he is). Bare in mind no other president addressed this. You know this yes? Same with North Korea. The argument I just read above was literally ''haha they still have nuclear weapons''. Think about that for a moment. This is a fat evil maniac who right now is starving the majority of his own people, and if you travel outside Pyongyang and not on their fixed tours, you will see people in fields on their hands and knees clawing at grass and roots to eat. Is this an issue to you? No, of course it isn't, you are too busy saying ''haha'' to Trump. I do not understand it. You relish that this guy still has weapons as you can then, apparently with some sort of point, criticise Trump. Think about that. I do not understand honestly how you people do not realise that the TDS runs so deep that whatever this guy does, you will attack him. Yes he says dumb shit, yes he loves his twitter, blah blah. So what if he does?? Look at what the guy is trying to accomplish rather than mindlessly attack. Look at Libya. He had a campaign about bringing your guys home. The second he says we are pulling out, ''oh it's outrageous, he has blood on his hands''. If he kept guys there ''oh well he's gone back on his promises''. Do you not see this guys, that whatever he does he will be criticised? I'm not having a pop. If you don't like him, fine, I really don't care, but this 'whatever he does is wrong' shit is astounding to me honestly. Another example. Let's say the nutter in NK used these weapons and nuked some country to pieces. What would your reaction be? I'm guessing ''well Trump should have got them off him / well Trump's talks failed''. On the other hand, if Trump got NK to hand over every single one, what would you say? I'm guessing ''oh well Trump is clearly only friends with dictators''. This logic is insane to me seriously. Enthalpic this ain't at you, it's more to Boat because of what I just read. We've obviously had some Trump banter let's say in the past, but do you see my point? He has even made reference to ''haha, people are getting over the wall''. Well how many do you think there would be illegally getting in without a wall? I'm going to take a wild guess and say a lot more, but that's just me. If you don't like the guy, fine. Like I say, I couldn't care less. I don't live there and deep down I don't give a shit in all honesty how much you guys pay for stuff. Sorry. But this mindless attacking is so bizarre to me, because there are so many times where Trump could have 2 choices, and they are polar opposites, and Dems would attack, guaranteed, whichever he chose. It's nuts to me, and that is the definition of TDS.
  34. 3 points
    TROUBLE AT MIGHTY EXXONMOBIL: Record Number Of Shale Wells While Permian Oil Production Remains Flat November 5, 2019 – There’s trouble brewing in the U.S. largest oil company while most investors remain in the dark. ExxonMobil added a record number of wells in the Permian during the first three quarters of 2019, only to see the company’s oil production plateau. This is the BIG PROBLEM facing ExxonMobil and other oil companies trying to outrun the industry’s KILLER annual decline rate.
  35. 3 points
    If nominated candidate does not support continuing "carried interest" no money from Wallstreet for Dems. No money = No win. " Carried Interest" is the tax loophole that allows Hedge funds , Private Equity Firms and Investment Bank employees defer paying income taxes indefinitely. For example : Mitt Romney majority of his pay is a shared interest in Bain Capitals incident funds. He gets shares. He pays no income taxes on that pay until he cashed out those shares, and only on the capital gain taxes attributed . That's how he amassed $400 million net worth. Then he divides the $400 million between his sons in a living trust. Again no income taxes. When ever he passes those shares pass to his sons at the present value not the value when he was given those. Mitt pays very little tax on his $400 million. Congressman Levin put up a carried interest bill in 2008. Defeated. Again after Obama election when Dems controlled House, Senate and Whitehouse. Obama killed it. When Obama started his own Foundation (Why should Clinton make all that money) the first in line were all the Hedge Funds (Blackrock, etc) Two of the Dem contenders , Deval Patrick (Bain Capital) and Styer (Farrallon) and Joe Biden so Hunter all benefited from "carried interest". it would be interesting to see if Joe Biden was an employee of any of the hedgefunds his sons set up. If yes, he directly benefited from Ukraine and China . Love to see the clients whom had money managed by Hunters Rosemont firm. More than Chinese investors. ? Democratic voters and debate moderators should have their "acid test" for nomination be, " will you do away with the largest income tax loophole "carried interest"
  36. 3 points
    @Tom Kirkman are you trolling me LOL? 'British' just means relating to GB or the UK. Great Britain or the United Kingdom is a 'sovereign state' and we are a collection of countries within that. There is not a 'British' language, it is called English as we are the majority of the UK, clearly the more superior country and it's our language. Ask James, he knows. (It's all 'English' but with different accents). I don't actually like being called British or having to put it as my nationality on a form or whatever. I am proud to be English as I expect Scots, Welsh and Irish to be. When you call me 'British' it's true enough but it's like being lumped in with the whole UK. That is never a good thing. Again, ask James. Americans seem to quite commonly call us all just Brits but despite our small size there are huge differences within small distances, especially the accents, but more importantly the fact you can be going from one country to another. To clarify mate, personally I don't consider 'British' a nationality really because GB is simply an island. There is no country 'Britain' to me, as it's a collection of 4 countries, so by definition there is no nationality 'British'. It doesn't really make sense to me. Also, simply because England is not the whole of Britain surely answers your question? That's why there is a difference between English and British. - - - - - * On a passport it says 'GB and Northern Ireland' so yeah you could say it's a 'British' passport, but that's just to make certain things easier for us all (for example having 4 different passports just for our island would be ridiculous). I'm still English and will always put England as my place of birth wherever I can, as I'd expect a Scotsman, Welshman or Irishman to for their respective countries. * @Jan van Eck it's like me calling you 'Beneluxian' ... it's true, but do you like it? There is a simple rule you all need to remember. When we are potentially shit at something, but want to win as many gold medals as we can at the olympics, then we are Great Britain. When we are good at something, like football, the rest of you can f**k off and we are England again.
  37. 3 points
    I agree but with respect sir you seem to wish to argue and disagree with everybody here, whatever the topic, and seeing as we have already established some of your alleged yet infamous wisdom stems from the likes of Facebook and tabloid trash, your comprehension, logic and indeed 'sound foundations' in many areas appears rather questionable, primarily from your sources, which I generally find laughable sir. If you wish to discuss 'nonsense' and its definition with me sir it is rather ironic, is it not? If a comment 'appears not to make sense' to yourself, there is a possibility that YOU have misread it, though from what I know of you I would guess you have not even considered this sir I'm afraid to say. Instead you insist the 'poster gets a chance to show what they are talking about'. Again sir, from Mr Facebook, this is somewhat odd and ironic.
  38. 3 points
    Cards upfront on the table - both I and Plastic Blue Bottle are Canadian - although we were made somewhere else originally. Your observations provide some really fascinating insight into cultural bias and viewpoint differences. If you would ask the average Canadian whether they consider the CBC to be “leftist” they would probably give you a rather quizzical look. It’s a bit like asking you to consider that the right to free speech enshrined in your constitution is a really a “leftist” and radical ideology (it was at the time!!!). So no, both I and Plastic Blue Bottle, reject the notion that we are societally left leaning since we consider it NORMAL. Just as you consider the shenanigans that pass for government in your fair country to be NORMAL. And I think we can both agree that stacked up against a dictatorship, we both look like an uncontrolled herd of buffaloes because they consider totalitarianism NORMAL. In Canada, our biggest problem is how to ride the "tiger" and maintain some sense of identity in the face of the US's overwhelming culture. This leads to both envy and resentment which unfortunately plays out in the media and in the social platform bots. When we bash Trump it is because we try to imagine him as the leader of our country and nearly have a conniption fit in the process! There are a number of reasons why we believe that the Canadian approach to life is better than the American: 1) Ok fine, I was just kidding - trying to get a rise out of you. But we really do resent the way the US has played hard and fast with our economy. It starts for me with the Avril Arrow and goes on from there to cars, aeronautics, forestry, steel, beef/pigs, water and most recently the successful strategy to land lock our oil and gas resources. However, the thread discussion about China/US relations indicates to me that there is sort of proxy war being fought through economics. Whereas with Canada/US relations, we like each other but… (and there is always a but) it always feels like the US is patting us on the head and saying things like "Ok, you can play in the sandbox but don't touch any of the big toys". We get it, but it's really annoying. We are a proud and diverse nation and, I think, have done a rather good job of dealing with our neighbor to the south with whom we share the longest undefended border in the world and who happens to be the biggest power in the world (for now… bwaaaahahahahaha…). Also while I am on my rant, Plastic Blue Bottle says that he wishes Americans would stop making fun of "eh". We don't all say it! And finally in keeping with our great Canadian tradition – sorry if this offends anyone, eh!
  39. 3 points
    Hunter Biden started a Hedge fund called Rosemont. He goes to China with daddy and gets China Bank to give $1.5 billion to Rosount to manage. As a partner in the firm he would get paid off the management fees . The management fees get paid by transferring a percentage of a clients gains (shares) to Hunter. Say Hunter earns and gets $1 million transferred to his name. He pays no income tax. He earns a return compounded each year until he with draws some . . . . even at that it's a lower capital gains tax , not income tax rate. If the Congressman Levin bill passed Hunter would pay income tax on the $1 million the year he received it , like most Americans do. Don't confuse individual investments with Hedge fund managers, Private Equity Managers or Investment Bankers. The 1% get this loophole, not the average American. "Carried Interest" has nothing to do with individual investing, employee stock awards, or startup stock. This has everything to do with money managers taking their earned income as part of the return they made for their client thus not classifying it as income (when it is). . . . And not paying any income tax. That money stays in fund and grows compounded yearly at full value Never Paying Income Tax.
  40. 3 points
    Frankly, if the US wants to beat or compete with China or Africa in manufacturing it needs immigration and no minimum wage.
  41. 3 points
    I'm telling you in 6 months. By next summer we will have left the age of abundance and returned to the age of scarcity. All of it is lining up. The production cuts just announced by OPEC and Russia. The demise of the shale oil revolution, more like the retirement party for oil. The Aramco IPO. President Trump and his impeachment. 2020 will be like 1968. Tumultuous. OPEC is down like 4 or 5 mbpd from their peak. People think they can just turn it on. Well like 2008 they'll be proven wrong. Sure they're will be other shale plays. But once conventional oil starts declining, the end of the oil age is nigh. You can replace conventional oil with unconventional because it's so front loaded, but once you peak, production goes from straight up to straight down. President Trump will be the peak oil president. The US China trade war has been preparation for this moment. When the shale oil starts evaporating, America will then want the oil that had been going to China. Then you will have the battle of the petrodollar and the petroyuan. Then the Battle of Armageddon. Over what's left of the cheap oil.
  42. 3 points
    Well you quote eia data so go off their numbers .... they do have the most info (I realize not ALL info). In different areas theres different DUC count. Think last time a thread like this was up it was Anadarko with a drop of 72 in the month and 740 DUC count of the eia 7500 ... all off memory so verify online if you like. So 10 months and I did some napkin math and found it started at 1.4 duc drop per rig over a month and accelerated to 1.6 ... but I was looking over more eia data and found it's closer to 2 ducs per rig over a month or higher . Reason my math was off was because I didnt count the change in duc builds before the rigs were gone so my difference was off. Looks to me like half the shale areas have 6 months and the other half a year or bit more before decline. But as production grows so does decline so it just gets harder and makes the fall that much worse . My question to you Jabbar is what do you call (your definition) of shale collapse (or lack there of). You say its laughable so are you saying no decline over 5 years or some decline (how much?) With consolidation. Are you saying with consolidation the big fish will pick up the capex torch of the bankrupt company they consume? The reason I ask is because during consolidation people are gonna say see its dropping like we said and your gonna say see its consolidation like I said.... I see shale growth for 6 months and then more or less a repeat of 2015 area production drop (during a year) ... probably a price spike and some sort of return to drilling probably to resume the previous high. I dont see a USA with say 65$ wti or higher and people not wanting to frack . Anyways that's my minds eye on the situation.
  43. 3 points
    Good post. I've said this same thing numerous times on the forum. That "documentary" is worth watching in entirety. It's a little crazy (conspiracy theories etc.) at points put also has some excellent food for thought. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbvCxMfcKv4 Also watch The Corporation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y888wVY5hzw
  44. 3 points
    Thankyou sir. I have also throughout the threads discovered and enjoyed a lot of your posts and sense of humor (or should that be humoUr?) and sarcasm. I could tell you were English in an instant and am half English myself. If I may, would it be at all possible to contact via the messenger feature with regard to trading at all sir? I am assuming you are both friends for you to talk in this way? I meant no offence in my post, it was intended as a little banter back and forth too in all honesty as I'm sure Mr Regan's was, which he then confirmed. It just seemed to come out of nowhere in fairness and I was a little taken aback as it were. He seems a pleasant enough fellow.
  45. 3 points
    Good observation. Niggling point, DUCs will likely only get reduced in number, but will not go away completely within the forseeable future.
  46. 3 points
    Picture of R&D spending by countries and regions, from Global Innovation Index 2019. Most of R&D (about 75%) globally is funded by business. Area of each circle shows the amount of spending. November 24
  47. 3 points
    Agreed entirely. Any argument I've seen in favor of AGW has been horribly - and very obviously - flawed. The most damning evidence is that the models don't work. Scott Adams summarized their behavior brilliantly: The simple fact of the matter is that until they're consistently producing models that predict future climate, they have nothing. As of right now, they have nothing. Digging deeper into the "science", I discovered stunning incompetence. I've lost the link, but the most interesting example was a computer scientist who worked for a climate agency noting that their programming skills were non-existent. Simple errors in the code (E.g. off-by-one errors, which are covered in CS 101) led to such results as the hockey stick graph. My own discussions with climate "scientists" revealed that while they understood fundamental phenomena, they were remarkably bad at understanding systems. E.g. they consistently failed to account for all possible inputs to a system (Modeling 101), choosing instead to fixate on their pet phenomenon. When it comes to system modeling, they have no idea what they're doing - and they're doing a lot of it. The "science" was so sloppy I became suspicious and dug into the politics of it. The screeching environmentalists at the bottom are fearful pawns who don't know any better. The people formulating these ideas and feeding them to the pawns are making a killing. This, in my opinion, is the most likely explanation for why climate "science" continues to be funded. To summarize, I started with an open mind, continually stumbled into sloppy work, eventually became suspicious of the motivations behind that work, and discovered that there is, in fact, a financial motive for funding bad science. The climate "science" community has exhausted my patience for incompetence and zealotry. IMHO, climate "scientists" are frauds. As with any other fraud, their claims should be ignored until they produce extraordinary, independently verified evidence.
  48. 3 points
    Tom said it best though, the war really is over and we did win. Getting disentangled through judicial means can get messy, and no one wants the government telling companies that they have to leave China, so the tariffs have done the job splendidly by themselves. I want to see nothing more that complete disengagement form the China economy, I know we'll never get completely free, but as much as possible. And are you so sure that Trump is not wise? I really do believe he has been setting the Demo's up for the fall, and they are so EAGER to prosecute him that we all know they are more than willing to jump at even the slightest minuscule chance to do so.... If they get stuck in Washington next year because of an impeachment trial, they won't be able to go out on the campaign trail, and all of them are up for re-election.....
  49. 3 points
    Yes of course it does sir. My point was I said I was HAPPY TO BE PROVEN WRONG, so am not sure, as always, why you felt the need to add 'is this opinion?' with your rather pathetic trademark attitude. May I suggest you actually read what others say rather than trying to reply with some immature quip beforehand? Also, for around the fourth time, your reading of MSM and Facebook, and dare I say age, speaks volumes. Make that for the fifth time as that link is her Facebook page. It seems somewhat of an addiction sir. If anyone wants answers from you, you present them Facebook as if it is a fountain of pure knowledge. May I suggest some fresh air? I asked you to answer his question and to attempt to pull yourself away from social media. You replied you have addressed his question with a link to Facebook. This is called irony sir. It wasn't even my self that made reference to opinions and knowledge, it was the users Enthalpic and Zhong Lu. Therefore I feel you do not tend to even read who said what, you simply wish to try and argue? Let me be the first to enlighten you that that will be a rather fruitless endeavour on your behalf sir. That is a fact and not an opinion.
  50. 3 points
    No sir, with rapidly lessening respect, they are quotes that I have literally just told you I am happy to be proven wrong to see if you remember? It was not very long ago sir. Maybe you need to read the end of the first quote again? Perhaps you could ignore ronwagn's 'handler' comment and answer his actual question then, or anybody's for that matter, rather than this constant 'holier than thou' attitude I notice with everyone here? That is of course assuming you can pull yourself away from teenager's facebook pages and MSM long enough. (OPINION)