Zhong Lu

Vote Biden for Higher Oil Prices

Recommended Posts

Trump has been the WORST president for oil prices and oil companies in a generation.  Just look at the results.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt about it ZL.  Trump cares about the economy.  The economy does better with lower oil prices

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Ah, but many of you will do worse.  Though most of you are old and have a nest egg so it probably doesn't matter.  You also get Social Security benefits and Medicare and various other "socialist" benefits from the federal government, which is something I won't get thanks to the giant budget deficits run up by the last three presidents, two of them Republican.  

And given the econ right now, Trump's record on it isn't all that great, yeah? 

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Downvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trump economy may have been the last great economic story for decades.  China Virus, Blue State politicians and Media destroyed a great economy.  Deficits are run up by the House.  Spending bills are required to be initiated by the House.  Perfect example is every Covid spending bill passed in 2020 Pelosi wanted more spending than Trump did; every one.  The most recent aide package is the same; Pelosi wants more and Trump wants less.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Look, I'm a numbers guy.  And 

1.  There was no manufacturing or economic uptick under Trump that exceeded Obama-era rates. I can link you the ISM and durable good orders and various other generally accepted numbers to prove my point. Though given the way some of you argue (cough, Ward Smith, cough) you'd be like "fake news."  In which case: exactly where is the numerical evidence behind your claim that Trump's econ was significantly better then Obama's?

2.  Deficits are run by the House.  Sure.  And guess who controlled the House in the first two years of the Trump presidency? Who controlled the House before the Iraq War? Are you seriously arguing, after 4 years of Trump and 8 years of Bush, that Republicans are any more fiscally responsible than Democrats? 

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Great Response! 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically, Mr. Trump has been absolutely horrible for the oil and gas industry. 

1. He transected the fangs from the EPA, which offered NO oversight of methane emissions--especially venting. This not only gave an exceptionally black eye to the shale industry, but also allowed marginal producers to keep on going, flooding the market with both oil and gas, which eventually led to disaster. 

2. At a time when he could have instructed KSA to turn around 26 VLCC's headed for the Gulf Shore, he didn't. 

3. He has boasted about America being energy-independent while understanding so little of the production costs that his policies merely encouraged an out-of-control system--vis a vis above. In short, his policies amounted to buying a bottle of cheap rum for a falling-down drunk.

4. For a populist president, he certainly wanted to keep on buying tar sands and sour oil from Canada and KSA. The refineries could be one-by-one retooled for "Made in America" light sweet oil. 

5. That said, he certainly looks better than a frack-banning Mr. Biden right now. And since 59% of people polled think Mr. Biden can't last out a term, who wants to be stuck with a throughly dislikable Ms. Harris who leans far to the left? 

5. And the screw will turn, but not because of the election of either Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump, but because the world has pounded the living crap out of every major oil company (e.g., Total, BP, Chevron, Exxon, Shell all down by 50-75%). Soon the market is going to be swamped by "green" energy. The demand for petroleum products will rise, not fall, and companies that normally come up with a rabbit out of the suit pocket will have none . . . save for Exxon's huge Stabroek Block off the coast of Guyana.  

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Trump has been the WORST president for oil prices and oil companies in a generation.  Just look at the results.  

Yes and your beloved China will crash because of high oil prices!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Ironically, Mr. Trump has been absolutely horrible for the oil and gas industry. 

1. He transected the fangs from the EPA, which offered NO oversight of methane emissions--especially venting. This not only gave an exceptionally black eye to the shale industry, but also allowed marginal producers to keep on going, flooding the market with both oil and gas, which eventually led to disaster. 

2. At a time when he could have instructed KSA to turn around 26 VLCC's headed for the Gulf Shore, he didn't. 

3. He has boasted about America being energy-independent while understanding so little of the production costs that his policies merely encouraged an out-of-control system--vis a vis above. In short, his policies amounted to buying a bottle of cheap rum for a falling-down drunk.

4. For a populist president, he certainly wanted to keep on buying tar sands and sour oil from Canada and KSA. The refineries could be one-by-one retooled for "Made in America" light sweet oil. 

5. That said, he certainly looks better than a frack-banning Mr. Biden right now. And since 59% of people polled think Mr. Biden can't last out a term, who wants to be stuck with a throughly dislikable Ms. Harris who leans far to the left? 

5. And the screw will turn, but not because of the election of either Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump, but because the world has pounded the living crap out of every major oil company (e.g., Total, BP, Chevron, Exxon, Shell all down by 50-75%). Soon the market is going to be swamped by "green" energy. The demand for petroleum products will rise, not fall, and companies that normally come up with a rabbit out of the suit pocket will have none . . . save for Exxon's huge Stabroek Block off the coast of Guyana.  

It is not upto the President to force the refineries to be retooled one by one to run mostly on US shale crude. Refineries have done that on their own, from the majors to the independents, they have been expanding and reconfiguring/adding upgrades to process more and more of the US shale crudes.  It takes a lot of money to do these things and most of the companies have done that from the East coast refiners to the Gulf coast refiners.

The so called tsunami of 26 VLCC's laden with Saudi crude did not do much to push down the crude prices as was being hyped in the media and some circles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zhong Lu said:

Ah, but many of you will do worse.  Though most of you are old and have a nest egg so it probably doesn't matter.  You also get Social Security benefits and Medicare and various other "socialist" benefits from the federal government, which is something I won't get thanks to the giant budget deficits run up by the last three presidents, two of them Republican.  

And given the econ right now, Trump's record on it isn't all that great, yeah? 

Oh is China handing out Social Security benefits and Medicare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, just because someone has the name of "Zhong Lu" doesn't necessarily mean the person is Chinese.  

In fact if I WAS Chinese I'd probably call myself "Bob Smith" in these forums.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

10 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Look, just because someone has the name of "Zhong Lu" doesn't necessarily mean the person is Chinese.  

In fact if I WAS Chinese I'd probably call myself "Bob Smith" in these forums.  

Dinsinformation!!! I didnt say you were Chinese, I asked a question if China was offering those benefits.

But if the shoe fits? ......................

Edited by ceo_energemsier
add on
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Ironically, Mr. Trump has been absolutely horrible for the oil and gas industry. 

1. He transected the fangs from the EPA, which offered NO oversight of methane emissions--especially venting. This not only gave an exceptionally black eye to the shale industry, but also allowed marginal producers to keep on going, flooding the market with both oil and gas, which eventually led to disaster. 

2. At a time when he could have instructed KSA to turn around 26 VLCC's headed for the Gulf Shore, he didn't. 

3. He has boasted about America being energy-independent while understanding so little of the production costs that his policies merely encouraged an out-of-control system--vis a vis above. In short, his policies amounted to buying a bottle of cheap rum for a falling-down drunk.

4. For a populist president, he certainly wanted to keep on buying tar sands and sour oil from Canada and KSA. The refineries could be one-by-one retooled for "Made in America" light sweet oil. 

5. That said, he certainly looks better than a frack-banning Mr. Biden right now. And since 59% of people polled think Mr. Biden can't last out a term, who wants to be stuck with a throughly dislikable Ms. Harris who leans far to the left? 

5. And the screw will turn, but not because of the election of either Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump, but because the world has pounded the living crap out of every major oil company (e.g., Total, BP, Chevron, Exxon, Shell all down by 50-75%). Soon the market is going to be swamped by "green" energy. The demand for petroleum products will rise, not fall, and companies that normally come up with a rabbit out of the suit pocket will have none . . . save for Exxon's huge Stabroek Block off the coast of Guyana.  

it has been his aim to revitalize US economy by

- stimulating internal production and national consumption,

- cutting on imports to reduce deficits,

- promote jobs to the residents by pulling outsourced companies back etc etc......

Covid-19 comes in great time to promote a new tribal group i.e. massive number of urban poor, including graduates.......... Bell is chiming, demanding attention to the current developing models and states of economy worldwide..........

Although this hunger game is cruel, it could be enlightening by chance, for good changes to take place. Aligning factors will gather for great causes soon, I hope.............. and warmth sent this Autumn, before the cold sets in...........

2 hours ago, Bob D said:

No doubt about it ZL.  Trump cares about the economy.  The economy does better with lower oil prices

image.png.dfad5b56054fcb94e1ab4a739b4cac74.png

Sometimes..... a few things could just happen to be right......... by chance.........

5 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Trump has been the WORST president for oil prices and oil companies in a generation.  Just look at the results.  

image.png.b54b2046920cee2e08d63d8de93d2e8b.png

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Ironically, Mr. Trump has been absolutely horrible for the oil and gas industry. 

1. He transected the fangs from the EPA, which offered NO oversight of methane emissions--especially venting. This not only gave an exceptionally black eye to the shale industry, but also allowed marginal producers to keep on going, flooding the market with both oil and gas, which eventually led to disaster. 

2. At a time when he could have instructed KSA to turn around 26 VLCC's headed for the Gulf Shore, he didn't. 

3. He has boasted about America being energy-independent while understanding so little of the production costs that his policies merely encouraged an out-of-control system--vis a vis above. In short, his policies amounted to buying a bottle of cheap rum for a falling-down drunk.

4. For a populist president, he certainly wanted to keep on buying tar sands and sour oil from Canada and KSA. The refineries could be one-by-one retooled for "Made in America" light sweet oil. 

5. That said, he certainly looks better than a frack-banning Mr. Biden right now. And since 59% of people polled think Mr. Biden can't last out a term, who wants to be stuck with a throughly dislikable Ms. Harris who leans far to the left? 

5. And the screw will turn, but not because of the election of either Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump, but because the world has pounded the living crap out of every major oil company (e.g., Total, BP, Chevron, Exxon, Shell all down by 50-75%). Soon the market is going to be swamped by "green" energy. The demand for petroleum products will rise, not fall, and companies that normally come up with a rabbit out of the suit pocket will have none . . . save for Exxon's huge Stabroek Block off the coast of Guyana.  

Odd to see you post as much, yet at the same time there is credence to your thought process. Each and everyone person has their own perceptions...Speaking for myself only had not the Saudis crushed the oil price structure this conversation would be mute, have some fun with that, one country develops energy independence and a third world monarchy has the ability to end it..

Lets be clear here, the world is evolving...Oil the sport of KING's.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact remains that the United States produced about 19 MBO/D in 2019 and consumed about 20. Ergo, energy-independent.

However, in 2019 the U.S. imported 9 MBO/D, >50% of which was from Canada. 

In 2019, most of the petroleum products the U.S. exported to Canada were diluents used to get Canadian bitumen running in the pipeline. 

Bitumen is not a great oil: it is heavy, sour, and of low quality. Still, >5 MBO/D of it were used as feedstock for the big Gulf refineries. 

The 2nd most imported oil was from KSA, and it is heavy, sour. 

The production in the United States is for the most part light, sweet. 

This makes no sense!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ceo_energemsier said:

The so called tsunami of 26 VLCC's laden with Saudi crude did not do much to push down the crude prices as was being hyped in the media and some circles.

No? Well, that's news to me. I respect your knowledge on this but I am also aware of the fact that while oil trades as a commodity--thus on supply and demand--emotional lability plays a huge role. "Selling off the boat" sent a strong message. People bought all the storage they could. The Cushing Hub was virtually paralyzed, there for a bit. I would say that the emotional element of those carriers was . . . crippling. But maybe that's because I got hit pretty hard by that sad expiry date, paying what?--$47/bll for takeaway. 

I'm sorry but in my aging mind, that logjam was precipitated by runaway production because Statewide Rule 32 was not enforced, suddenly made much worse by the pandemic slowdown. Then here came the KSA-Russian price war and the KSA carriers served not as physical straws that broke the proverbial Camel's back but by the emotional toll of a president refusing to tell them to turn the damn things around. Ted Cruz said it in just those words, and at that moment I was wishing sincerely that he was in charge. 

The total avoidance of enforcing Statewide Rule 32 is the predominant feature responsible for undisciplined drilling, fracking, completion and production in the Permian Basin and also in the Bakken. Unless the oil and gas industry comes to its senses, produces responsibly, marshals its NG effluent wisely and responsibly, the Green Movement will indeed shut it down. It won't be tomorrow but the punishing share price of Occidental falling from $72 to $6 wasn't entirely due to their foolish overbidding for Anadarko--some of it was due to careless production. It was only slightly worse than the beating CVX, XOM, BP, TOT, Shell took.  

I wouldn't harp on about this but believe me, the world is watching. And to the world, we're dinosaurs.  

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

The fact remains that the United States produced about 19 MBO/D in 2019 and consumed about 20. Ergo, energy-independent.

However, in 2019 the U.S. imported 9 MBO/D, >50% of which was from Canada. 

In 2019, most of the petroleum products the U.S. exported to Canada were diluents used to get Canadian bitumen running in the pipeline. 

Bitumen is not a great oil: it is heavy, sour, and of low quality. Still, >5 MBO/D of it were used as feedstock for the big Gulf refineries. 

The 2nd most imported oil was from KSA, and it is heavy, sour. 

The production in the United States is for the most part light, sweet. 

This makes no sense!

You need the heavy fractions.

It's relatively easy to make heavy oil lighter, it is very difficult to make a light oil heavier.

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

For a lot of your bottom lines, assuming you own equity in oil majors or futures, you better hope Biden wins because Trump has been an utter disaster for oil prices.  And no, I'm not saying this impartially.  I'm developing a stake in this topic, too.  

Edited by Zhong Lu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Yes and your beloved China will crash because of high oil prices!!!

China will do very well by purchasing oil and natural gas from Russia, Central Asia ("The Stans") and anyone else who needs to get rid of cheap oil. They are focusing on building refineries for it.

The benefit of cheap oil and natural gas for America is as fuel and chemicals. It benefits the entire country but producers must gear up as needed.or find another business.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2020 at 11:51 AM, Zhong Lu said:

Look, I'm a numbers guy.  And 

1.  There was no manufacturing or economic uptick under Trump that exceeded Obama-era rates. I can link you the ISM and durable good orders and various other generally accepted numbers to prove my point. Though given the way some of you argue (cough, Ward Smith, cough) you'd be like "fake news."  In which case: exactly where is the numerical evidence behind your claim that Trump's econ was significantly better then Obama's?

2.  Deficits are run by the House.  Sure.  And guess who controlled the House in the first two years of the Trump presidency? Who controlled the House before the Iraq War? Are you seriously arguing, after 4 years of Trump and 8 years of Bush, that Republicans are any more fiscally responsible than Democrats? 

No.  No evidence 🙄...   I don't need a link to a 'survey' or specific stats that prove your point.  Look at the Macro.  Record low unemployment, GDP growth 38% higher than Obama (pre COVID).

The average REAL GDP growth rate under President Obama was 1.88%.Here is the Real GDP Growth as per US Bureau of Economic Analysis by year. Do the math yourself to confirm:2009 0.18%, 2010 2.57%, 2011 1.61%, 2012 1.47%, 2013 2.61%, 2014 2.7%, 2015 2.00%, 2016 1.88%; The average is 1.8775%;

The average REAL GDP growth rate for President Trump is 2.8%, so far.  Do the math yourself to confirm: 2017 2.5%, 2018 3.1%; 2019 2.3%.  The average is 2.6%.  That's a 38% increase in GDP growth rate versus Obama.  It's all tax cuts and deregulation.

 

This is my go-to page for the Which Party is Fiscally Responsible debate 

https://extranewsfeed.com/who-is-better-at-controlling-deficits-republicans-or-democrats-af24c0fd00b0

Who is better at controlling deficits, Republicans or Democrats?

 
Image for post

I love to disspell myths with data. It makes me happy :)

What’s great about the subject like deficits is that the data points are fairly straight forward. The data points around who’s to blame for deficits are not that exact but let’s take a stab at it.

I frequently hear the claim that Democrats are better at containing costs and deficits than Repbulicans. Better check your math.

Go to the archived Obama website (just to make sure I’m being fair I’m using the data from the previous party in power) https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budget/Historical

Download a historical table. The first one will do: “Table 1.1 — Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789 — 2021”
Add a column and label the years from 1970 to 2016 with which party was in control of the White House (we can get more granular later)

 
Image for post

did some Pivot tables here are the results:

Deficits by Party in Control of the Presidency

Deficits run up by sitting President by party since 1970:

  • DEM $(7,859,779)
  • GOP $(4,474,671)

(note: these numbers are in the thousands… so that’s $7 Trillion in deficits vs. $4 Trillion). From this angle, it’s hard to state that the GOP is worse than the DEMs at keeping down the deficit. I would say it is factually true that Democrat Presidents are worse.

Deficits by Party in Control of the House and Senate

This time we’re looking at which party was in control of the House and Senate or if the power was split.

Disregarding the party that owns the White House and just looking at who controlled the House and the Senate. Since 1970, if you examine budget deficits according to actual outlays and receipts for each year the breakdown is as follows:

  • DEM. $(6,597,219)
  • GOP $(2,302,718)
  • SPLIT $(3,434,513)

Again, these are in 1000's of dollars = TRILLIONS.

And once again from this angle the data says that the best way to keep the budget deficits under control is to elect Republicans to the House and Senate.

Deficits by Balance of Party in Power

You know — I want to be ABSOLUTELY fair in this so I parsed it another way looking at the total balance of party power across these 2 branches of government. So, if the DEMs or the GOP controlled the White House, Senate and House then I assigned the year to that party otherwise I put SPLIT.

  • DEM $(4,692,288)
  • GOP $(1,386,361)
  • SPLIT $(6,255,801)

This time it’s not even close. The DEMs are pretty darn bad at keeping deficits under control. In fact, having a split set of power leads to worsening deficits.

AVERAGE Deficits by Party in Power

I like averages, let’s go with averages. We’ll use those same parameters: White House party, Legislative party, and Overall party power using total number of years in power as the denominator.

The data is all there.

So, since 1970. Average budget deficit by party in charge of the White House (GOP has a record of 40% lower deficits):

  • DEM $(392,989)
  • GOP $(165,729)

Since 1970. Average budget deficit by party in charge of the legislative branches or split… this one has the DEMs looking a little better. It certainly shows that split bi-cameral options have more debt. GOP still holding the budget line better.

  • DEMS $(286,836)
  • GOP $(164,480)
  • SPLIT $(343,451)

Since 1970. Average budget deficit by party across the 2 branches… this one is a slam dunk notch against the DEMs. When the Dems own the White House and both legislative houses — deficts increase… pretty dramatically.

  • DEM $(521,365)
  • GOP $(231,060)
  • SPLIT $(195,494)

I frequently hear how people on the right ignore facts and have no data to support their stances. I just used data and I made it available to everyone here. If there’s another way to view this I welcome it.

I should note that both parties have a history of running up some serious deficits and increasing the national debt (which is hovering right now below $20 Trillion). No one can argue that Trump’s budget isn’t the most significant budget cut in almost 50 years. It’s pretty astounding (even if it only lowers the federal budget by 13%).

If you want to reduce deficits the best way to elect a Republican to the White House and majority Republicans in the House and Senate.

 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Fake news, man.  WTF is extranewsfeed? 

Quickly google searched it.  Apparently half their posts are satire. 

Edited by Zhong Lu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

This is tooooo funny.  

The data from extranewsfeed.com was taken directly from the Obama's White House 

Talk about satire!   LOL

Read the story, specifically the fourth paragraph.  I've pasted it below ....

Let’s go to the data. Guess what… you can do this yourself if you know a little Excel.
Go to the archived Obama website (just to make sure I’m being fair I’m using the data from the previous party in power) 
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budget/Historical

Edited by Bob D
Fixed link
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Sorry but the page you're looking for is not found. That's what the link says.  

 

Seems like Ward Smith is not the only account that likes to link to irrelevant or non-functional links.  

Edited by Zhong Lu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Sorry but the page you're looking for is not found. That's what the link says.  

Operator error. Try clicking on this link, which I got from @Bob D post above. You're welcome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2020 at 9:43 AM, Bob D said:

No.  No evidence 🙄...   I don't need a link to a 'survey' or specific stats that prove your point.  Look at the Macro.  Record low unemployment, GDP growth 38% higher than Obama (pre COVID).

 

Shame on you.  President has NOTHING to do with budget.  Congress has EVERYTHING to do with budget.  So, WHO is in majority in the house... THEY ARE IN CHARGE of the budget with a giant helping hand from the Senate.  President?  Can't do Shit other than Veto and beg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Shame on you.  President has NOTHING to do with budget.  Congress has EVERYTHING to do with budget.  So, WHO is in majority in the house... THEY ARE IN CHARGE of the budget with a giant helping hand from the Senate.  President?  Can't do Shit other than Veto and beg. 

Shame on me???   I agree with your post 100%.  Reread the thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.