.

[BLA + 1,666]

 

 

 

                          .

Edited September 30, 2020 by BLA

[Rob Kramer + 696]

Not with nat gas up also. And financial troubles. Probs half that. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Ha ha, we can only hope. Imagine the demand for EV's!

[BLA + 1,666]

22 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Ha ha, we can only hope. Imagine the demand for EV's!

EV demand will take off before that (besides the fact we will never see $70 Brent again, in my opinion,  unless a major war, conflict or attacks beforehand. 

California banning new ICE car sales by 2035.  Just the beginning.

Edited September 25, 2020 by BLA

[BLA + 1,666]

On 9/24/2020 at 1:04 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Ha ha, we can only hope. Imagine the demand for EV's!

Conoco said oil demand will get back to 100 mm bbl/day by end of 2021 and grow from there.

Notice the only ones projecting these numbers are Oil Companies, OPEC Oil States and Investment Banks that want their business.  

Do these players have a plan "B" for when they come to realize they are wrong ?

Edited September 25, 2020 by BLA

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Malek is a very serious fellow who does nothing but look at this sort of thing. He has a point: major companies are discarding projects, slowing down, changing course. Total and BP are moving toward renewables projects very rapidly. Chevron is idling. Exxon has pumped the brakes on Guyana. Suriname needs some time. All work in Namibia is going to take a while. And that's it for new finds. 

When you really consider that the CAPEX on new finds is at $1T deficit, along with the idea of emerging countries trying to go renewables, you can actually go along with Malek's projection, providing you've had a drink or two. 

Imagine the world starting back up again. There's pent-up demand for travel, production, manufacturing. The number of countries that can remotely consider the concept of going full renewables by 2035 is ridiculously small. The number of states in the U.S. that are situated to go renewables is even small. California is the leader only because of Tesla. Texas is much better situated to go renewables and is at a good percentage already. Not only that but it's built on a stable part of the country--the craton--while Ca is built on seismically active parts that came in from the ocean and were sutured together by collision, prone to quake and also burn. 

Anyway, I indeed believe that there will be a substantial crude oil shortage, probably sometime about 2022. I know of some pretty savvy operators who are shooting for that date. Who really believes that the world is going to be stable? For 75 years the U.S. has protected a very primitive, greedy, careless KSA--because we needed the oil. We don't now. They were never fun to be around so what's the point in taking their insults, turning a blind eye to their dismemberments, offering any protection whatsoever. The Emirates saw the writing on the scrolls and signed on with Israel. If the Saudis knew what was good for them they'd do the same thing. Sides are being chosen: China-Iran, for example.

Mr. McKenzie can tell us the number of acres of wind and solar that Ca will need to go renewables. My bet is 5M acres. Multiply that around the world--must be a billion acres. Imagine where all that material is going to come from. Lithium is readily available as a carbonate (spoduline) but getting to it requires a heavy duty mining operation. Harvesting lithium-rich brine is slow. So far, cobalt and nickel are needed. To multiply this nascent industry by a magnitude necessary to get to even 50% renewable energy/EV transport would require trillions of dollars. What about India--poor but wise, populated with 1.5 B people? Take a lot of emerging countries. When lithium doubles in price, and cobalt and nickel and cadmium triple and then become scarce, tell me just how rapidly this new green deal is going to take over. 

My point: don't count old Malek out.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

 

Mr. McKenzie can tell us the number of acres of wind and solar that Ca will need to go renewables. My bet is 5M acres. Multiply that around the world--must be a billion acres. Imagine where all that material is going to come from. Lithium is readily available as a carbonate (spoduline) but getting to it requires a heavy duty mining operation. Harvesting lithium-rich brine is slow. So far, cobalt and nickel are needed. To multiply this nascent industry by a magnitude necessary to get to even 50% renewable energy/EV transport would require trillions of dollars. What about India--poor but wise, populated with 1.5 B people? Take a lot of emerging countries. When lithium doubles in price, and cobalt and nickel and cadmium triple and then become scarce, tell me just how rapidly this new green deal is going to take over. 

My point: don't count old Malek out.

Solar is 12% of CA electricity in 2019. Solar panels keep getting more efficient so 4x the current space combined with putting newer panels on older locations should get us up about 60% solar. Don't forget that we have a lot of roof tops with no panels whatsoever on them. 

Take a look at this: https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/ This image is solar for the whole country, CA is a small sliver of that.

 

Wind is at 10% in CA and that is about maxed. We are running HVDC to Wyoming to double our wind and we might start doing off shore wind as well. 

Hydro and geothermal account for about 22%.

As for storage we need enough batteries to handle daily load shifting. For weekly load shifting we will likely use compressed air and other similar storage. For seasonal shifting we will use green H2 or green meth. And we don't have to produce all of this, we can import some.

There is no lithium shortage. Here again is the lithium portion of the talk:

Battery costs continue to decrease at 50% every three years and note the 69% reduction in investment:

The Eastern US is going to be powered by massive amounts of off shore wind and the same for N. Europe. Southern Europe will get solar via HVDC in N. Africa.

As to the poor countries consider that Australia is going to have massive solar farms exporting electricity via HVDC across SE Asia and will also be exporting cheap green H2. South America and Africa have tremendous solar and wind potential as well. 

Edited September 25, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

I can conceive of one scenario that puts Brent at $190/bbl: Collapse of the value of the US dollar.

[BLA + 1,666]

On 9/24/2020 at 8:27 PM, Gerry Maddoux said:

 

 

My point: don't count old Malek out.

I don't count him out.  He (and you) may be correct. I just respectfully disagree.

I'm sure Malek does nothing but look at these sort of things.  That's not necessarily a good thing.  One can over analyze a market.  Especially when your market is flat lining and nobody cares anymore. 

So .   .   .  

Wind and solar are limited in my opinion. 

Besides, they are not replacing transportation liquid fuels.  They are trying to displace coal and natural gas for the most part. 

I'm not debating Green vs Hydrocarbons.

I'm saying oil demand is getting close to plateauing and subsequent decline.  

EVs will hit an inflection point in 4 to 6 years.  The EVs will be charged by Power Plants.  Those electric power plants will be fueled with Natural Gas by a wide margin.  

New technologies will bring battery costs down further.  Currently $156/kW.

That will be cut in half by 2024. The battery is the major cost in manufacturing EVs.

In the meantime every OPEC Member has announced increasing oil production by 15% to 20% in the coming years.

Libya has started to reopen ports. When BIden is elected Iran and Venezuela sanctions will be removed. These three Oil Economies could add 4 to 6 mm bbl/day in a few years. 

Guyana and Surinam temporary situation.  They want to renegotiate the lousy contract deals they signed. They screwed up. Stand-off.

Brazil has even increased production  during the pandemic and continues to grow.  They are talking increasing today's 2.5mm bbl/day up to 8mm bbl/day.  

Africa is a work in progress. China moving in on all the African oil and mineral countries.  

I know , I know other industries use oil, (Petro chemical , plastics PET, airlines , etc).  .   .   .   and forget about all the green talk (wind, solar, etc)  I'm not arguing for a GREEN UTOPIA like Jay. .   .   .  

* MY POINT IS WHAT HAPPENS IF EVs (Cars, Metro Buses, Delivery Vans, Motorcycles, etc)  REPLACES JUST 10% OF OIL DEMAND ?  (Pre-Pandemic 100mm X 10% = 10mm bbl) WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PRICE OF A BBL OIL ?

Answer: Oil price goes down. 

Also, understand all Asian countries are not buying oil on long-term contracts as in the past.  China (and others) are getting extremely good at playing the producers against one another. Don't like their terms ?They'll go to the next guy.  They are asking (telling) producers they want to use trigger pricing.  They don't wait for the contract price.  They put in a bid for a given volume at a given price whenever the feel fit. 

The Asian countries and India have substantially increased in country storage.   Producers no longer have any leverage.  Ex: China projected to decrease purchases in October/November.  They have plenty of oil.  If Oil drops to $36 bbl . . . . Maybe they decide to beef up their purchases. 

As for 1.5 billion India population, BP analysis said their oil demand will plateau by 2025.  I have no idea how they derived that number ? I don't understand their take. You make a good point about emerging countries.  

It is my belief the major OPEC producers "stranded assets" mindset will take hold.  It may have already started.

More Supply + Declining Demand = Lower Prices

 

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by BLA

[BLA + 1,666]

7 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I can conceive of one scenario that puts Brent at $190/bbl: Collapse of the value of the US dollar.

Replaced by what ? 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Above all excellent points. I have nothing to add except that the world is a very large place, and right now it's powered primarily by NG and oil. Additionally, the OPEC countries are dangerously close to collapsing into bankruptcy, and when that happens primitive people get very desperate and do strange and unpredictable things. 

Summary: I don't expect most of the countries that make up OPEC to remain stable governments. I think they will fall into disarray. And that chaos will ensue. I believe Iran will likely attack KSA in some way. I suspect there will be another Israeli war. I think at some point the world wakes up to the fact that a new virus was allowed to go unheralded into the lands far from the Middle Kingdom, and that China will be isolated, dependent upon Iran for oil and willing to give nuclear quid pro quo to Iran. Somewhere in that mess fits Russia. 

I'm not arguing with a single wise thing said by the folks above. I'm just saying that when a person has only one thing to sell in order to survive, and when that one thing becomes near worthless, the person producing it becomes desperate. That is happening very quickly to OPEC. They are going after each other's meat. Right now, KSA is bluster and bully tactics. The minute they are attacked by a seriously smart penetration (Iran), they will fold their tents and whimper like scolded dogs. 

The world is changing very rapidly, in many ways. Switching from fossil fuels to renewables is a major change, and I also think it will happen to some degree. But the best laid plans often go awry. I don't think we'll even be able to recognize our world in five years. And I don't think it will have a solar farm on every hill. For the record, I sell transmission rights across my property to one of the largest farms in America. I don't think much of wind energy. It costs too much to produce a single windmill, the blades deteriorate, they use incredible amounts of rare earth elements and huge amounts of CO2 producing cement, and then they wear out--wind is, onshore, a joke. Contrariwise, I think very highly of solar and believe it to be worthy of extensive use. What I personally have problems with are whole ESS sites with no natural gas backup, because I trust the concept of grid inertia and I don't personally think you can synthetically simulate that on a fail-proof platform. National Grid has failed at this and they are the Gold Standard in renewables, globally, though NextEra is the best here in the U.S. and I don't know of their work with synthetic grid inertia.  

Be fun to watch. Thanks to all who offered their input. I always learn a great deal from you. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, BLA said:

Replaced by what ? 

I have zero understanding of how and why money value fluctuates. I used to think I understood certain basic principles, Including the idea that a massive increase in the money supply causes inflation and can lead to hyperinflation. the value of money appears to me to be a shared fantasy. If the world's currency traders come believe that there are far too many US dollars floating around, the value of the dollar will decrease relative to the value of other currencies.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

On 9/24/2020 at 8:43 AM, BLA said:

Too funny

Maybe it was a typo.  They must have meant $1.90 .   .   .   or .  .  .  Maybe he's getting oil confused with the coming iPhone 5G super cycle ?

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/investing/oil-price-spike-jpmorgan/index.html   

 

JP Morgan printing a report that projects  Brent prices 5 years out is embarrassing. How can one take analyst Christyan Malek seriously. 

Anything to get the investment banking business.  

 

Why not?  Price and supply are manipulated. 

Oil goes through ups and downs, sometimes for seemingly no good reason.  Normally the reason is speculators, and missteps by producers/suppliers. 

The industry, it seems to me, goes great guns during the highs, until they (surprise!) have over capacity to supply.  Add in some juicy headlines and the price goes down down down.  Then the producers cut back on production, but they always do that too much, and they overcut.  Team that together with some juicy headlines and demand seemingly goes through the roof and nobody's ready = sky high prices.

All the while the speculators cash in, up or down.

I don't think the article is about getting back to old production levels and it somehow not being enough; it is more about cutting production way too low and then getting caught with not enough.

Whatever it is, it will be temporary.  So why not say the price could get that high?  In 5 year's time, it may have gone up there and come back down several times.

 

[BLA + 1,666]

20 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Why not?  Price and supply are manipulated. 

Oil goes through ups and downs, sometimes for seemingly no good reason.  Normally the reason is speculators, and missteps by producers/suppliers. 

The industry, it seems to me, goes great guns during the highs, until they (surprise!) have over capacity to supply.  Add in some juicy headlines and the price goes down down down.  Then the producers cut back on production, but they always do that too much, and they overcut.  Team that together with some juicy headlines and demand seemingly goes through the roof and nobody's ready = sky high prices.

All the while the speculators cash in, up or down.

I don't think the article is about getting back to old production levels and it somehow not being enough; it is more about cutting production way too low and then getting caught with not enough.

Whatever it is, it will be temporary.  So why not say the price could get that high?  In 5 year's time, it may have gone up there and come back down several times.

 

I think the curtain has been pulled back on the wizard and the market sees OPEC is not the powerful controlling cartel we were lead to believe.

* Technology has increased the volume of obtainable oil, while reducing the cost of production.  Both conventional and Fracking.

* Technology has increased our ability to more accurately track (1) production , (2)loadings/destination/unloading and (3) storage inventory

* Technology has allowed for more efficient marketing and trading also reducing price

* Technology (EVs , etc) have/will reduce demand or tempered growth. 

How many time have you heard " It's different this time" and it turns out to not be so.

This time , "It is different"

Things changed

The money that speculators make on the fringe is a tiny tiny fraction of the dollar volume of oil transaction. You sound like recent statements by the Saudi Oil Minister blaming the drop in oil prices on "speculators".  It's just an excuse.  The scary thing is the Head of the largest oil producer in the world just might believe that.  Clueless.

Edited September 26, 2020 by BLA

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 minutes ago, BLA said:

I think the curtain has been pulled back on the wizard and the market sees OPEC is not the powerful controlling cartel we were lead to believe.

* Technology has increased the volume of obtainable oil, while reducing the cost of production.  Both conventional and Fracking.

* Technology has increased our ability to more accurately track (1) production , (2)loadings/destination/unloading and (3) storage inventory

* Technology has allowed for more efficient marketing and trading also reducing price

* Technology (EVs , etc) have reduced demand or tempered growth. 

How many time have you heard " It's different this time" and it turns out to not be do.

This time , "It is different"

Things changed

Nah.  The board gets shuffled, weak players get forced out.  Players that are shut out of the game don't count much for global supply, so production capacity is said to decrease.  That amounts to more control in fewer hands, hands which either bungle it by seeming stupidity, or by design.

Speculators drive the price up and down, same as always (with a little help from a headline or two, and sometimes a war or two).

It is not different.

Remember, we're only talking about prices.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

12 minutes ago, BLA said:

I think the curtain has been pulled back on the wizard and the market sees OPEC is not the powerful controlling cartel we were lead to believe.

* Technology has increased the volume of obtainable oil, while reducing the cost of production.  Both conventional and Fracking.

* Technology has increased our ability to more accurately track (1) production , (2)loadings/destination/unloading and (3) storage inventory

* Technology has allowed for more efficient marketing and trading also reducing price

* Technology (EVs , etc) have reduced demand or tempered growth. 

How many time have you heard " It's different this time" and it turns out to not be do.

This time , "It is different"

Things changed

Your scenarios and technological advances would and probably do work for Gold (as an example) too.  Yet Gold gets driven up and down for the same reasons I mentioned in my other comment.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/06/20190624-uk.html

This represents just under two times the total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production during 2018. Even ensuring the annual supply of electric vehicles only, from 2035 as pledged, will require the UK to annually import the equivalent of the entire annual cobalt needs of European industry.

Challenges of using “green energy” to power electric cars: If wind farms are chosen to generate the power for the projected two billion cars at UK average usage, this requires the equivalent of a further years’ worth of total global copper supply and 10 years’ worth of global neodymium and dysprosium production to build the windfarms.

Solar power is also problematic: it is also resource hungry; all the photovoltaic systems currently on the market are reliant on one or more raw materials classed as “critical” or “near critical” by the EU and/ or US Department of Energy (high purity silicon, indium, tellurium, gallium) because of their natural scarcity or their recovery as minor-by-products of other commodities. With a capacity factor of only ~10%, the UK would require ~72GW of photovoltaic input to fuel the EV fleet; over five times the current installed capacity. If CdTe-type photovoltaic power is used, that would consume over thirty years of current annual tellurium supply.

Not my research ^ all from article.  I have no idea how much mined vs used materials there actually is.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Rob Kramer

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Agree. Oil always over- and under-shoots. I think it is perfectly logical that we're going to see a temporary oil shortage on a global scale and the price will shoot up. Will it stay up? Well, no. This time it's different in many ways, EV's and renewables are coming on strong. But some other things have crept in too. For example, we have never before had a presidential candidate willing to damage domestic oil production to acquire the Oval Office. 

About 75% of the Delaware sub-basin of the Greater Permian Basin is  smack in the middle of government land. For the last several years the state of New Mexico has pocketed >$1B/yr, which has gone into their special fund that can be accessed only to the tune of about 4% a year. That has grown wealth for NM, which is a very liberal state and also a poor state, so it can use the money. But Mr. Biden has gone on record that he will ban fracking on U.S. government lands, which would damage NM to the tune of, well, about $1B a year plus another billion in lost commerce. And that's just astronomical. Further, the far left will hold him to his pledge. 

It so happens that of the 13 mbo/d that the U.S. was producing prior to the Great Crash, roughly 5 million was coming from the Delaware. Three million was from old stripper wells--most of which are lost. So, U.S. production could perhaps come back to 10 mbo/d. 

Ironically, the governor of NM is a liberal woman who is hungry for a national post--maybe a cabinet position--and she will throw NM oil production under the bus in a heartbeat. From a global perspective, if Mr. Biden wins, about 50% of America's oil production goes bye-bye. In other words, 5% of the world's oil supply would disappear. Ponder that "difference." A self-inflicted shot to the foot. And for what?

For the purpose of explaining my earlier post, 5% would probably precipitate that spike that Mr. Malek alluded to. And there are other scenarios out there that are even more striking. In a time when all the polls suggest a Biden victory, this particular one glares out like a Halloween pumpkin.  

Edited September 25, 2020 by Gerry Maddoux

[Rob Kramer + 696]

My argument is oil takes time to get . (Only shale doesnt aka 6 months) Guyana took 13 years? ..... Tesla is from 2003 and builds 400k cars. Per year. Even if batteries go to zero in cost all the buildable electric cars are at mabey 1M per year right now mabey 2 next year. Even 4 the next year. Of 90M sold per year it's a drop in the bucket.  At 1.2B cars that ar on the road. Over the next 3 years 7m EV / 1.2B cars is nothing. Libya can add 300k barrels over next 2 years . Mabey 400-500k. Iran already selling oil illegally.  But say add another 1M barrels per day . If covid clears  were talking USA oil down 3.4M barrels /d. And pent up flying and travel . I'm not calling for a crazy spike because if gas is high this winter forward the high oil would be like crack for shale drillers. They could drill with FCF.

Edit : so the physical has to catch up in any case first to clear the glut and remove over production (hence oil dragging at 40$) next after more demand and a recognized shortage prices will rise then the oil will have to catch up . If this is 2021 H2 - 2022 H2 theres really going to be the same physical cars on the road even at 100% EV sales that's maximum 10% gasoline demand and gas is 25% demand of oil? So 2.5% of demand down? This is all off the top of me head so dont quote me on it lol. 

Edited September 25, 2020 by Rob Kramer

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

^

Well, a Biden win is going to be cause for a lot of glee for OPEC, because with the loss of our 5 mbo/d from the Delaware Basin, they can once again manipulate the market the same way they've done it for the last 3/4 of a century. 

I mean, this is not a maybe anything. If Joe Biden wins, the AOC Squad will hold him to his campaign pledge to "ban fracking on governmental lands," which in NM would just destroy the economics. The very sweetest spot of the Delaware are on governmental land. 

Give it some leeway. Say it will only knock 4 mbo/d off U.S. oil production. That's still massive. 

Even without a Biden win, we're looking down the barrel of a substantial oil shortage in 2022. Couldn't LNG fill that void? No, of course not. Not without shale oil drilling, because that's where the pop-off gas comes from. The pure dry gas basins contribute a pittance compared to the NG coming out of the Permian Basin as giveaway gas. 

(Attribution: An article to this point was penned by a good writer on OP.com. It was on my mind but then I read the article. I should have pointed this out first and foremost.)

Edited September 25, 2020 by Gerry Maddoux

[Rob Kramer + 696]

^ exactly  4M barrels over 2 years lost  (or 70% of) vs maximum EV penetration so 100% 90M electric vehicles sold  eliminating 2.5M/B of gasoline.  

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

^

Well, a Biden win is going to be cause for a lot of glee for OPEC, because with the loss of our 5 mbo/d from the Delaware Basin, they can once again manipulate the market the same way they've done it for the last 3/4 of a century. 

I mean, this is not a maybe anything. If Joe Biden wins, the AOC Squad will hold him to his campaign pledge to "ban fracking on governmental lands," which in NM would just destroy the economics. The very sweetest spot of the Delaware are on governmental land. 

Give it some leeway. Say it will only knock 4 mbo/d off U.S. oil production. That's still massive. 

Even without a Biden win, we're looking down the barrel of a substantial oil shortage in 2022. Couldn't LNG fill that void? No, of course not. Not without shale oil drilling, because that'w where the pop-off gas comes from. The pure dry gas basins contribute a pittance compared to the NG coming out of the Permian Basin as giveaway gas. 

Okay, but now figure the opposite scenario, if Trump wins, which is most likely because I said so.  LOL!

[Rob Kramer + 696]

10 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Okay, but now figure the opposite scenario, if Trump wins, which is most likely because I said so.  LOL!

Then Iran and Venezuela probably get some heat for oil trades. Demand crawls back and production stabilizes at best . Still leading to a shortage . Then a recovery in production end 2023 11.5 b/d ish is all I can see. Probably help the Americas recession recovery.  That's my idea of the future anyway.

Stabilizes at best = 9.8Mb/d 2021. 

Edited September 25, 2020 by Rob Kramer

[BLA + 1,666]

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

^

Well, a Biden win is going to be cause for a lot of glee for OPEC, because with the loss of our 5 mbo/d from the Delaware Basin, they can once again manipulate the market the same way they've done it for the last 3/4 of a century. 

I mean, this is not a maybe anything. If Joe Biden wins, the AOC Squad will hold him to his campaign pledge to "ban fracking on governmental lands," which in NM would just destroy the economics. The very sweetest spot of the Delaware are on governmental land. 

Give it some leeway. Say it will only knock 4 mbo/d off U.S. oil production. That's still massive. 

Even without a Biden win, we're looking down the barrel of a substantial oil shortage in 2022. Couldn't LNG fill that void? No, of course not. Not without shale oil drilling, because that's where the pop-off gas comes from. The pure dry gas basins contribute a pittance compared to the NG coming out of the Permian Basin as giveaway gas. 

(Attribution: An article to this point was penned by a good writer on OP.com. It was on my mind but then I read the article. I should have pointed this out first and foremost.)

Obama was against oil during his campaign to win votes.  Changed tune once elected.  Same with Hillary. I suspect same with Joe.

Same with Wallstreet.  Obama beats up on Wallstreet to get elected.  Wallstreet doesn't mind.  Glad to help. . . . .  But don't you dare take away their "carried interest" income tax loophole. That's sacred to them. 

Notice nobody has asked BIden if he will repeal carried interest.

THE QUESTION IS will Bernie and AOC be calling the shots and get a bill on BIden's desk banning fracking on federal lands .  Who's in charge ? 

If BIden wins Bernie and AOC will have a lot to do with it.  BUT Joe will only be there for one term (probably less) therefore is not worried about reelection.

I predict if BIden wins his coalition with the far left falls apart and they go after like a pack of wolves.  Just like they have with Trump.

Other topic: In 2017/2018 it is estimated Joe and Jill BIden were paid over $20 million for speaking fees (aka bribes). Anyone know who Joe now owes favors to ?

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by BLA

[Rob Kramer + 696]

1 minute ago, BLA said:

Obama was against oil during his campaign to win votes.  Changed tune once elected.  Same with Hillary.

Same with walls treat.  Obama beats up on Wallstreet to get elected.  Wallstreet doesn't mind.  Glad to help. . . . .  But don't you dare take away take away their "carried interest" income tax loophole.

Notice nobody has asked BIden if he will repeal carried interest.

THE QUESTION IS will Bernie and AOC be calling the shots and get a bill on BIden's desk banning Fracking on federal lands .  Who's in charge ? 

 

#Iranian oil exports jump to nearly 1.5 million barrels per day in September - RTRS cites tanker trackers.

NOC has already reached about 300,000 b/d.

there ... guess oil comes online as we speak haha . So I guess well have to see if we clear glut with these barrels . I see USA 10Mb/ year end and heading lower over 2021.