Renewables Overtake Coal, But Lag Far Behind Oil And Natural Gas

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Please pay attention to the chart below.  Hard facts, hard numbers, no statistical f*ckery that I can determine.  No far left double talk or obfuscation.

It might be a good idea to take the time to understand* what this chart shows.  Comparison measurements of all energy sources in Quadrillion Btu.  Shown in a 70 year time span, for a good overall comparison.

 

*Demand for oil & gas is simply NOT going to go away any time soon, despite the hue and cry from oil & gas haters with agendas.

 

 

Renewables Overtake Coal, But Lag Far Behind Oil And Natural Gas

Last week the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported something extraordinary. For the first time in 135 years, last year U.S. consumption of renewables surpassed consumption of coal.

 

There are two interrelated reasons for this: The collapse of coal consumption over the past decade, which was fueled by the rise of cheaper alternatives.

I have covered the reasons for coal’s collapse previously. The short version is that legislation to curb carbon emissions was passed about the same time the shale boom and renewable power revolutions created cheaper, cleaner alternatives to coal.

The graphic above shows the surge in renewables that helped collapse coal demand. This surge is better shown by the following graphic, which highlights the three categories of modern renewables that have driven the consumption surge: Wind power, solar power, and biofuels.

 

This milestone was highlighted by the EIA in a recent brief. The brief was based on the EIA’s Monthly Energy Review. Although most of the coverage over this development has focused on the fact that renewables overtook coal, there is another story within the data that is missing.

The Monthly Energy Review highlights all categories of U.S. energy consumption. So, how does the consumption of renewables and coal compare to our consumption of petroleum, natural gas, and nuclear power? The following graphic puts everything in context.

 

What this graphic shows that the previous graphics don’t show is that it was natural gas that took the biggest share of coal’s market. Further, it shows that fossil fuels still dominate our energy consumption. Nuclear power consumption has remained flat for years, and like coal, has been surpassed by renewables.

Last year the U.S. consumed 11.3 quadrillion BTUs (quads) of coal and 11.5 quads of renewables. But we also consumed 36.7 quads of petroleum and 32.1 quads of natural gas. Each of these categories of fossil fuel consumption was greater than our combined consumption of renewables and coal, which provides a broader perspective on our energy consumption.

In total, the U.S. consumed 80.5 quads of fossil fuels, 11.5 quads of renewables, and 8.5 quads of nuclear power. Renewables represented 11.4% of U.S. energy consumption in 2019, versus 8.1% a decade ago.

So, renewables did play an important part in coal’s demise, but they often get most of the credit. In fact, without cheap natural gas from the shale gas boom, U.S. coal consumption would still be substantially higher than U.S. renewable energy consumption.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Please pay attention to the chart below.  Hard facts, hard numbers, no statistical f*ckery that I can determine.  No far left double talk or obfuscation.

It might be a good idea to take the time to understand* what this chart shows.  Comparison measurements of all energy sources in Quadrillion Btu.  Shown in a 70 year time span, for a good overall comparison.

 

*Demand for oil & gas are simply NOT going to go away any time soon, despite the hue and cry from oil & gas haters with agendas.

 

 

Renewables Overtake Coal, But Lag Far Behind Oil And Natural Gas

Last week the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported something extraordinary. For the first time in 135 years, last year U.S. consumption of renewables surpassed consumption of coal.

 

There are two interrelated reasons for this: The collapse of coal consumption over the past decade, which was fueled by the rise of cheaper alternatives.

I have covered the reasons for coal’s collapse previously. The short version is that legislation to curb carbon emissions was passed about the same time the shale boom and renewable power revolutions created cheaper, cleaner alternatives to coal.

The graphic above shows the surge in renewables that helped collapse coal demand. This surge is better shown by the following graphic, which highlights the three categories of modern renewables that have driven the consumption surge: Wind power, solar power, and biofuels.

 

This milestone was highlighted by the EIA in a recent brief. The brief was based on the EIA’s Monthly Energy Review. Although most of the coverage over this development has focused on the fact that renewables overtook coal, there is another story within the data that is missing.

The Monthly Energy Review highlights all categories of U.S. energy consumption. So, how does the consumption of renewables and coal compare to our consumption of petroleum, natural gas, and nuclear power? The following graphic puts everything in context.

 

What this graphic shows that the previous graphics don’t show is that it was natural gas that took the biggest share of coal’s market. Further, it shows that fossil fuels still dominate our energy consumption. Nuclear power consumption has remained flat for years, and like coal, has been surpassed by renewables.

Last year the U.S. consumed 11.3 quadrillion BTUs (quads) of coal and 11.5 quads of renewables. But we also consumed 36.7 quads of petroleum and 32.1 quads of natural gas. Each of these categories of fossil fuel consumption was greater than our combined consumption of renewables and coal, which provides a broader perspective on our energy consumption.

In total, the U.S. consumed 80.5 quads of fossil fuels, 11.5 quads of renewables, and 8.5 quads of nuclear power. Renewables represented 11.4% of U.S. energy consumption in 2019, versus 8.1% a decade ago.

So, renewables did play an important part in coal’s demise, but they often get most of the credit. In fact, without cheap natural gas from the shale gas boom, U.S. coal consumption would still be substantially higher than U.S. renewable energy consumption.

 

The decline in gas use between the early 1970's and mid 1980's is interesting. I didn't realise it had slumped I had always assumed gas demand had grown slowly with a big rise in use from the mid 80's with the 'dash for gas'. 

Who was producing less gas? The fall is from about 23 Quads to 18.

If demand wasn't falling then the gap was filled by Coal and Nuclear. 

 

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

9 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Please pay attention to the chart below.  Hard facts, hard numbers, no statistical f*ckery that I can determine.  No far left double talk or obfuscation.

It might be a good idea to take the time to understand* what this chart shows.  Comparison measurements of all energy sources in Quadrillion Btu.  Shown in a 70 year time span, for a good overall comparison.

 

*Demand for oil & gas is simply NOT going to go away any time soon, despite the hue and cry from oil & gas haters with agendas.

 

 

Renewables Overtake Coal, But Lag Far Behind Oil And Natural Gas

 

So 2006 was Peak Oil for the US!

Peak NG will be soon.

Edited June 1, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Marcin2 + 725]

The question is how sustainable is this energy mix ?

Consumption of 7 billion barrels of crude oil and equivalent o 6 billion barrels of natural gas is unsustainable in long-term like 15-20 years.

US makes use of depressed natural gas prices, on average 4-6 times lower than global market prices.

At the same time prices of WTI and Canadian heavy oil are also depressed.

At global market prices US economy cannot continue with such a high hydrocarbons consumption.

In electricity generation US should develop nuclear power.

And try to increase economy of ICE vehicles.

 

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

51 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

 

And try to increase economy of ICE vehicles.

 

 

You mean like a BEV?

Edited June 1, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

Even if renewables were 100% of all of electricity, the trugh is that electricity is just 1/5 of all energy consumption

A good chunk of natural gas is used for heating spaces more than power generation, and i think the only way to replace that is switching the industries that currently use Oil, like transport fuel to use nat gas a cheaper feedstock, imo using natural gas for burning it is kinda ¿wasteful? 

For space heating and air conditioner instad of using electricity or hydrogen made from electricity what about using district heating and cooling, with a boiling water reactor, you take the powerplant and remove the building in the back, all of the annoying Steam turbine and alternator and you are left behind with a enormous water heater. 

Whats more, instead of just using to heat water couple it with steam fired heat pumps, so the city connected to it can have both, hot water and cold water for drinking and for cooling in summer

shika-2 was built in 3 years for 1780U$D/KWe, so imagine if we cut up the powerhouse and built it for  600U$D/KW of thermal power. 

A Single Boiling Water Reactor can make like 4.95 Gigawatts in thermal power, and they have been built in under 3.5 years, without the powerhouse it could be done in like 2 years at worst, with a single ABWR used only for heating and cooling you can give HVAC, cold and hot water to 3 million houses in America, Canada or Australia 

It wouldn't use much space once you remove the powerhouse and only leave the giant boiler.

Edited August 8, 2020 by Sebastian Meana

[Rob Kramer + 696]

On 6/1/2020 at 5:34 PM, Marcin2 said:

The question is how sustainable is this energy mix ?

Consumption of 7 billion barrels of crude oil and equivalent o 6 billion barrels of natural gas is unsustainable in long-term like 15-20 years.

US makes use of depressed natural gas prices, on average 4-6 times lower than global market prices.

At the same time prices of WTI and Canadian heavy oil are also depressed.

At global market prices US economy cannot continue with such a high hydrocarbons consumption.

In electricity generation US should develop nuclear power.

And try to increase economy of ICE vehicles.

 

 

Consumerism drives fuel use. End of the day the consumer is further than ever from the raw materials being consumed. As fuels are cheap this is allowed . As prices for fuels rise so does the product price and less is consumed and emissions will drop. It's the real reason we have so many problems but the greenies want to point the finger at the sellers of energy because if you point the finger at consumers your quickly unpopular.  Now your helping social causes by being a consumer....that's easier to swallow than being the root of the issue! Ewww indont want to be seen on social media in the same shirt twice! Lol 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

On 6/1/2020 at 6:20 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

You mean like a BEV?

Didnt you see Tom's affordable energy chart above? At best were currently in hybrid with the ff as the real range . And the electricity is a bolt on. 

[Marcin2 + 725]

23 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

Consumerism drives fuel use. End of the day the consumer is further than ever from the raw materials being consumed. As fuels are cheap this is allowed . As prices for fuels rise so does the product price and less is consumed and emissions will drop. It's the real reason we have so many problems but the greenies want to point the finger at the sellers of energy because if you point the finger at consumers your quickly unpopular.  Now your helping social causes by being a consumer....that's easier to swallow than being the root of the issue! Ewww indont want to be seen on social media in the same shirt twice! Lol 

It is about supply of natural gas and crude oil at depressed prices.

It artificially increases US demand for hydrocarbons by a large number.

Not many people in US understand that America is not Qatar. US is too large to conduct Qatari hydrocarbons consumption policies.

It can be actually calculated, data are available how large is this surplus consumption.

US is like Russia or Canada or Saudi Arabia in consumption patterns, 1.6 billion tons of hydrocarbons per 320 million people, 5 tons per capita.

For starters US should go down to 3-3.5 tons per capita: more nuclear and coal in electricity generation, better home insulation, better ICE efficiency in transport.

It is only 460-640 million tons of saved hydrocarbons usage a year, but it still makes a difference. 
Taxation of natural gas consumption would be a good 1 step.

Germany , Japan somehow can do it, it is also available to US.

Edited August 9, 2020 by Marcin2
Typo

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

6 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

It is about supply of natural gas and crude oil at depressed prices.

It artificially increases US demand for hydrocarbons by a large number.

Not many people in US understand that America is not Qatar. US is too large to conduct Qatari hydrocarbons consumption policies.

It can be actually calculated, data are available how large is this surplus consumption.

US is like Russia or Canada or Saudi Arabia in consumption patterns, 1.6 billion tons of hydrocarbons per 320 million people, 5 tons per capita.

For starters US should go down to 3-3.5 tons per capita: more nuclear and coal in electricity generation, better home insulation, better ICE efficiency in transport.

It is only 460-640 million tons of hydrocarbons a year, but it still makes a difference. 
Taxation of natural gas consumption would be a good 1 step.

Germany , Japan somehow can do it, it is also available to US.

You've fallen into the same trap all the pseudo intellectuals have, assuming immediately that the nearly 20 million bbls per day the US supposedly consumes is actually consumed here. Something like 8 million bbls per day of refined goods are exported. Plastic resins produced here are shipped all over the world, more pseudo "consumption" for lazy statisticians to make spurious claims about. But yeah, digging into details and facts are hard, easier to say Bill Gates is worth X and you're worth Y, so on average you're a billionaire, congrats! 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

4 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

It is about supply of natural gas and crude oil at depressed prices.

It artificially increases US demand for hydrocarbons by a large number.

Not many people in US understand that America is not Qatar. US is too large to conduct Qatari hydrocarbons consumption policies.

It can be actually calculated, data are available how large is this surplus consumption.

US is like Russia or Canada or Saudi Arabia in consumption patterns, 1.6 billion tons of hydrocarbons per 320 million people, 5 tons per capita.

For starters US should go down to 3-3.5 tons per capita: more nuclear and coal in electricity generation, better home insulation, better ICE efficiency in transport.

It is only 460-640 million tons of saved hydrocarbons usage a year, but it still makes a difference. 
Taxation of natural gas consumption would be a good 1 step.

Germany , Japan somehow can do it, it is also available to US.

What your saying is carbon tax and it's a load of crap. My fuel used to get to and from work doesnt change with a tax. My home heat needs in winter doesnt change with a tax . So making people poor by imposing a tax so high as to change their spending just saps happiness out of the country. Canada has carbon tax on fuel and nat gas let's see how popular it is after fuels are expensive (covid tax). What's Canadas' carbon (not that it's a problem) emissions per square foot of land vs Germany and Japan....

[Mohan Sunkavalli + 1]

 

9 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

You've fallen into the same trap all the pseudo intellectuals have, assuming immediately that the nearly 20 million bbls per day the US supposedly consumes is actually consumed here. Something like 8 million bbls per day of refined goods are exported. Plastic resins produced here are shipped all over the world, more pseudo "consumption" for lazy statisticians to make spurious claims about. But yeah, digging into details and facts are hard, easier to say Bill Gates is worth X and you're worth Y, so on average you're a billionaire, congrats! 

So how does the above statement square with below stats from EIA? 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/use-of-oil.php 

Which part of transportation/industial/residential/commerical/electric consumption is actually exported out of the country?  I suppose a bit of industrial consumption is converted to plastics, etc.. and exported out, but 8 Mb/d worth?  

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm

From another detailed stats page on EIA site for the last week, total refined goods net export is around 3 mbd (~5.2 - 2.2).  Total crude oil + refined product import is 8.2 Mb/d, and export is about 8.1 Mb/d.  I'm just not seeing 8 Mb/d refined product export anywhere? Do you have better sources than EIA that shows 8 Mb/d refined product export? 

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Mohan Sunkavalli
doubled image

[Marcin2 + 725]

13 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

What your saying is carbon tax and it's a load of crap. My fuel used to get to and from work doesnt change with a tax. My home heat needs in winter doesnt change with a tax . So making people poor by imposing a tax so high as to change their spending just saps happiness out of the country. Canada has carbon tax on fuel and nat gas let's see how popular it is after fuels are expensive (covid tax). What's Canadas' carbon (not that it's a problem) emissions per square foot of land vs Germany and Japan....

I am against  Carbon taxes, I mean making all US consumers pay at least 70% of global market prices for natural gas, not 30% as it is at present.

I mean long term slow changes towards conservation of hydrocarbons over 40 years. To go down from 5 to 3-3.5 ton s of consumption of crude oil equivalent per capita in 40 years.

Your next car could have better fuel efficiency lets say 40 miles per gallon.

With tax credits you would insulate your home and buy more efficient heating systems in 15 years.

The change will inevitably come No matter what you would do now.

I am afraid that US hydrocarbons addiction will lead to WW3.

US needs to keep high military budget in order to secure all the worlds oil.

So add 500 billion dollars to your oil bill. 36 dollars to every barrel consumed. It is vicious circle and  short term thinking.

With current economic growth in developing world price of oil will again skyrocket in 5 years to over 100 USD per bbl.

US would need to change consumption habits in the future, it is better to start now , not when oil hits 200 USD.

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Marcin2
Typo

[JoMack + 549]

14 million bbls on transportation shown above.  That's a lot of crude oil for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.  We're currently producing 10.1 million bbls p/d.  So why are we talking export?  Why?  Because we do not have the refinery capacity for sweet crude.  So, we'll still export since U.S. Energy Independence is a myth.  The oil and gas industry has just had another shock wave that will last years.  Who wants to invest in oil and gas with this last major bust souring any new exploration for at least 2 years or more.  In January over 600 rigs were running.  Now 176.  So, how do you get the equivalent 14MBPD from renewables?  You don't.  LNG is definitely better for emissions but EVs take hours to charge.  Who wants to be stuck in Bismarck, ND in the middle of winter when the charge sizzles because the temp has dropped to 10 degrees below 0.  

BTW,  carbon taxes happen in states and countries who can't run a pretzel stand and believe that a miracle will occur where they can fill up on grass.  They eventually run out of taxpayers, pretzels and the grass isn't coming up in their area, ever.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

7 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

I am against  Carbon taxes, I mean making all US consumers pay at least 70% of global market prices for natural gas, not 30% as it is at present.

I mean long term slow changes towards conservation of hydrocarbons over 40 years. To go down from 5 to 3-3.5 ton s of consumption of crude oil equivalent per capita in 40 years.

Your next car could have better fuel efficiency lets say 40 miles per gallon.

With tax credits you would insulate your home and buy more efficient heating systems in 15 years.

The change will inevitably come No matter what you would do now.

I am afraid that US hydrocarbons addiction will lead to WW3.

US needs to keep high military budget in order to secure all the worlds oil.

So add 500 billion dollars to your oil bill. 36 dollars to every barrel consumed. It is vicious circle and  short term thinking.

With current economic growth in developing world price of oil will again skyrocket in 5 years to over 100 USD per bbl.

US would need to change consumption habits in the future, it is better to start now , not when oil hits 200 USD.

 

Theres no way to do that without taxing or squashing the economy.  When the price of energy rises the cost of goods rise and economy stalls. Same if you keep increasing tax ... what your saying is energy is going to get damagingly expensive.  Well the diligent are prepared for that or aren't wasting their money currently and have a rainy day fund or an affordable lifestyle and will be fine... it's too social ist to try and stabilize everything for foolish people not to have hard times. Better to teach responsibility than saftey nets in my opinion.  

[Prometheus1354 + 178]

On 6/1/2020 at 2:53 AM, NickW said:

The decline in gas use between the early 1970's and mid 1980's is interesting. I didn't realise it had slumped I had always assumed gas demand had grown slowly with a big rise in use from the mid 80's with the 'dash for gas'. 

Who was producing less gas? The fall is from about 23 Quads to 18.

If demand wasn't falling then the gap was filled by Coal and Nuclear. 

 

 

In the early 70's here in the US (at least) the Nuclear Energy 'Boom'  was on.  Plants were being built at a rapid clip.  Here in the Sacramento region our Electric supplier (SMUD) built a Nuclear Energy plant (Rancho Seco) which turned out to be an expensive boondoggle.  

The failure at Three Mile Island was ostensibly the Death Knell for Nuc power here in the US.  Much like all things the Left foam at the mouth over, Nuclear power is vilified without merit.  Yes, there were bad apples, much as there are in All sectors unfortunately. 

Another factor I believe that lead too the problems which occurred. Timing. The country, hell most of the world was in the midst of a significant economic downturn.  This lead (certainly here in Sac) to ill equipped and in some cases grossly negligent contractors being awarded work they had no business doing in these projects.  Money was extremely tight and LOW Bid won. No matter the qualifications or lack there of.  

As for the decline in Nat Gas production, many of the big drilling companies just weren't active for a variety of reasons. Some political, some financial. A lack of pipeline capacity hurt, even today the Northeast region doesn't have near enough pipeline capacity. Sadly, some of this parochial and bad policy especially across New England. Which Still keeps Nat Gas Out of the equation for homeowners as a choice over heating oil.

[Mark Potochnik + 8]

The price of renewables are falling 20% per year. It is a force that fossil fools can not stand forever. Just like the coal sector was rising then started collapsing. A wave of EVs is just starting to hit. A big wave of grid batteries is just starting to hit. Solar panel sales are growing. Almost everything can be electrified.

A convergence of lower cost solar, lower cost batteries and lower cost EVs are an unstoppable force. Batteries starting to replace peaker plants. EVs replacing ICE cars.

It always starts with a trickle then grows exponentially. Sales if ICE cars have peaked. New EVs are just starting to grow. New renewable energy is far outpacing new fossil fuel usage.

When falling renewable energy prices cross the line it becomes a death spiral.

I love your blind confidence. By the time you wake up it's too late.

Remember Tesla market cap is now greater than all the oil companies.

I've been watching this for a long time.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

On 8/17/2020 at 7:01 AM, Mark Potochnik said:

 

I love your blind confidence. By the time you wake up it's too late.

Remember Tesla market cap is now greater than all the oil companies.

I've been watching this for a long time.

Ok you buy tesla and I'll buy oil and gas companies (most of them can rise 300-500% by end of next year) and let's trace investment??? . I'm 100% positive tesla can NOT grow 500% . What's it trade 50x earnings? Oil and gas can be had at 3x . Tsx average is 14.7 last time I researched.  Isnt there an article about chinese tesla sales dropping 25%? 

[Boat + 1,323]

On 8/9/2020 at 2:06 PM, Ward Smith said:

You've fallen into the same trap all the pseudo intellectuals have, assuming immediately that the nearly 20 million bbls per day the US supposedly consumes is actually consumed here. Something like 8 million bbls per day of refined goods are exported. Plastic resins produced here are shipped all over the world, more pseudo "consumption" for lazy statisticians to make spurious claims about. But yeah, digging into details and facts are hard, easier to say Bill Gates is worth X and you're worth Y, so on average you're a billionaire, congrats! 

I have been commenting for years about no need for most of our FF imports. Heck we’re net FF US independent. All those imports throw pollution in US air to make a buck selling to Mexico, Columbia, Brazil etc. 

[Boat + 1,323]

Who has these refineries we don’t need? The Saudi, Venezuela, BP and other foreign countries. Get rid of this unneeded mess and I bet healthcare costs go down where these refineries exist.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

On 8/18/2020 at 7:38 PM, Rob Kramer said:

Ok you buy tesla and I'll buy oil and gas companies (most of them can rise 300-500% by end of next year) and let's trace investment??? . I'm 100% positive tesla can NOT grow 500% . What's it trade 50x earnings? Oil and gas can be had at 3x . Tsx average is 14.7 last time I researched.  Isnt there an article about chinese tesla sales dropping 25%? 

Here is the SP Oil Index over the past 10 years. Can you spot the trend? Now the situation is getting worse for oil by the day. Investment sentiment is undergoing a drastic shift to ESG investing and any rise in the price of oil will just increase the speed of transition to EV.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

And for edification note the strong correlation between oil stock price and the price of oil. For "most of them can rise 300-500% by the end of next year" would require a correlated rise in the price of oil by about the same amount. So you are predicting the price of oil to be $135 to $225 by the end of next year. That's very funny.

 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Here is the SP Oil Index over the past 10 years. Can you spot the trend? Now the situation is getting worse for oil by the day. Investment sentiment is undergoing a drastic shift to ESG investing and any rise in the price of oil will just increase the speed of transition to EV.

 

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And for edification note the strong correlation between oil stock price and the price of oil. For "most of them can rise 300-500% by the end of next year" would require a correlated rise in the price of oil by about the same amount. So you are predicting the price of oil to be $135 to $225 by the end of next year. That's very funny.

 

135$ by year end 2021 is very possible.  

Situation seems to be getting BETTER by the day. 

My companies can return 5-8% to shareholders at current prices. At 135$ WOWZA . Anywho hope you can afford your dream one day (tesla + panels?). Mines already in hand.  Actually I smashed my face open on it yesterday lol lake erie 6 foot waves 160hp/750lb kawasaki.... just lucky to have all my teeth still! Haha. Helmet on order for next year! 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

 

135$ by year end 2021 is very possible.  

Situation seems to be getting BETTER by the day. 

My companies can return 5-8% to shareholders at current prices. At 135$ WOWZA . Anywho hope you can afford your dream one day (tesla + panels?). Mines already in hand.  Actually I smashed my face open on it yesterday lol lake erie 6 foot waves 160hp/750lb kawasaki.... just lucky to have all my teeth still! Haha. Helmet on order for next year! 

Sounds like you are building a evidentiary basis for explaining why your predictions came out wrong.  May I suggest a prudent investor and market operator would have purchased the helmet before smashing your face open?

[Rob Kramer + 696]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Sounds like you are building a evidentiary basis for explaining why your predictions came out wrong.  May I suggest a prudent investor and market operator would have purchased the helmet before smashing your face open?

For the stocks . Timing is everything. So covid is the temporary down needed for the bull cycle. Despite your ideas of the future today is demaning 19M barrels of oil products(US estimate). The companies will have sufficient cash flow to buy back shares so despite low investment from funds or public there will be higher volume of purchases. As for the riding yes saftey first but I was chasing danger and being too eager. In the market I practiced saftey first to be ok pre and post covid or whatever now is. Market caps have fallen more than oil prices. So available return per enterprise value or market cap isnt the equal to oil price rising.  Example is oil company A is worth 1B EV at 40$ oil and clears 10$/B at 50$/B they clear 18ish$ so almost 2x more for 20% price rise. If they clear 100M or 180M is a large difference over x period of time. Now youd have to find management that rewards shareholders and isnt wasteful and hasnt put holes in the ship (debt) that need plugging first but it's an example that shows how stocks get coiled up. Painted pony.to hit 19c went to 81c then fell to 47 then was bought by CNX for 69c. It was 3$ recently in the past and 14$ peak. They produced the most and had highest reserves at the 3$ mark . But had cheapest wells and capex at 40c . 300% rise sounds crazy but that what today's market caps are poised for many have already doubled from lows. Something worth buying a helmet for . I'm all Canadian companies so mabey us to cad market isnt aligned Canadian oil companies may have been more beaten down so this may not be true in the US market . Hopefully that helps clarify oil companies positions.