Biden suspends oil and gas drilling on Federal Lands for 60 days for review.

[El Nikko + 2,145]

6 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

^

I think you're being too pessimistic about the oil business and too optimistic about the renewables. I agree that EV's and solar/wind are coming on strong. However, I would stress that the exploration deficit is likely more dramatic than people realize. Saudi Arabia is using more and more seawater to waterflood their reservoir, and the salinity is only 10% of the intrinsic salinity of the reservoir--which is causing ongoing damage. Libya has trouble with sustained production. Iran and KSA (and maybe Israel) are almost certainly going to tangle. Guyana is big but man there's a lot of gas to get rid of. Suriname is very likely the same way. 

Natural gas is going to be the chokepoint for oil production in this decade. Indiscriminate venting and flaring will be stopped soon. With massive amounts of NG coming out of the shale basins, as well as Guyana and Suriname, not to mention Russia, Australia and others, the world is going to be awash with LNG. 

This will also be the decade of electricity: it will be king, what with all the new EV's that need charging. I can see a world of solar and wind producing electricity, but it's going to mean a massive number of units and that takes time. Someday there will be a solar cloud event of disastrous proportions. Nothing is free in this old world, and nothing is certain either.

All 'five year plans' are doomed to failure and political.

They might be selling is of some future dream while we suffer if we were are going in to a long recession. 

The waiting is killing me

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

32 minutes ago, El Nikko said:

The waiting is killing me

Maybe.  But if you die, it was Covid!

[Roch + 537]

15 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

You said short oil then said high forties to upper 50s ... if your talking wti (i said i was talking brent) then your quoting my 3$ less than this morning is a floor (and thats fine I guess we just have a different opinion on what is good or bad for oil price) -short term

... I just don't think your price prediction is as bearish as your talk is.  high 40 $ oil is no threat anyone is concerned with. Mid 30s would be scary for them but they have hedged at high 40s. 

And I am aware 2year out prices are imagined until they happen but if you have an opinion at least express it. Something is going to be the price so lay a foundation for your beliefs of what that is. I'm saying shale flat 1yr .growth 700k barrels next year or more with high prices. Global  flat to low growth, opec at small withholding of production.and prices of 70+ and a spike at some point around 2022 year end. -medium term

No EV oil demand loss . At least for 11 years from 2018 levels. So 2030 ish. At 100M b/d with 70$ average price now to then or more (but 10 years is quite the far prediction).-long term.

High forties to upper $50s is my two year range.  Just a wild ass guess.  

I don't see oil going back into the $30s no matter how bad things get.  

So basically 40s and 50s.  

Like I said outside of a major Middle East conflict disrupting oil we will never see $70 or more oil.  $60 WTI oil will be scarce and temporary if at all.

The theme of the original post is the Biden ban on Federal Lands may increase prices BUT BECAUSE THE TWO YEAR GRACE PERIOD WILL JUICE PRODUCTION OF SHALE OIL AND PROBABLY OTHER PRODUCERS.  This will increase price competition and hurt the whole shale industry leading to more bankruptcies. 

The analyst are focusing on the lost Federal shale production.  NOBODY EVEN MENTIONS THE TWO YEAR GRACE PERIOD WHERE SHALE PRODUCTION WILL SURGE.

Shale producers just got snookered by Biden.

The oil industry will fight back .  But what do you do in the meantime.  A producer can't take the chance of loosing the opportunity to get as much oil out of the ground over next two years that could start as soon as the 60 day review period completed. They have to pump like crazy.  

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Roch

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

8 minutes ago, Roch said:

The theme of the original post is the Biden ban on Federal Lands may increase prices BUT BECAUSE THE TWO YEAR GRACE PERIOD WILL JUICE PRODUCTION OF SHALE OIL AND PROBABLY OTHER PRODUCERS.  This will increase price competition and hurt the whole shale industry leading to more bankruptcies. 

You may be right--it will be interesting to watch. However, the companies drilling on federal lands can only be "juiced" so much. 

Make no mistake: this is a big deal to me and every private royalty-holder/investor. However, the oil market--like the stock market--is a forward looking process and smart companies will be scouring the countryside for good private drilling sites soon enough. 

No matter what anyone thinks about oil, it is going to be a necessary ingredient in global commerce for many years to come. In the long run, banning fracking on federal lands will be very good for shale oil prices. 

Ever wonder why the "sweet spots" in shale always seem to be centered around federal land? This is the case in both New Mexico and North Dakota (not much federal land under the Texas portion of the Permian). If you lease a 2560-A plat and you deal with one lessee--the federal government--it's a quick process, as opposed to perhaps dealing with a hundred lessees on private lands. 

Let them pump as much as they can from federal lands. Two years will be plenty of time for Biden to show gratitude to the blue state of New Mexico. At the end of that, he can show the greens that he did what he said he would do . . . if he can even function at age eighty.  

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 1/22/2021 at 4:17 PM, Hamish said:

Just wait....carbon taxes are next.

Not necessarily. Depends on what your utilities are prepared to invest in renewables without a carbon tax. This will give you some idea of what is happening in Australia:

Largest battery in Australia to be built at ageing NSW coal-fired power plant - ABC News

If USA does decide to use a carbon tax, it would only need to be small, say $12/tonne, and could be designed to drop by $1/tonne every 2 years. You would barely notice it, but it would create literally millions of much-needed jobs. Not just directly in renewables and storage, but also in the Natural Gas sector as your remaining 100 coal powered stations would be replaced this decade. It would set you up for a further decade of growth in the 2030's because then you could start producing green H2 for transport and to replace natural gas, just as demand around the globe for oil and gas starts to collapse. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 1/25/2021 at 1:12 AM, Roch said:

U.S. unions are pissed off at Biden.  

Biden says replace the Keystone lost jobs with Green Energy jobs. 

Not equivalent.

Plus, where do you think all the solar panels are built now and will be built in the future.  

Correct, China.

I would pass legislation that in order to take advantage of Tax Credits, Federal Grants , etc for building a solar electric facility or buying an electric vehicle the solar panels or EV must be built in the U.S. .  (Not just assembled from imported parts). 

I would phase it in over 5 years. I would start immediately with a % lower credit/grant for foreign solar/EV products and decrease the  allowed foreign solar/EV each year until 100% must be built in U.S. built or zero credits. 

This will give U.S. manufacturers time to buildout mfg. 

Why should the U.S. working taxpayer subsidize China's and Germany Renewable and Electric Vehicle industry.  

China and Germany can sell all they want in the U.S.  

Just don't use U.S.  tax credits  to compete against U.S. manufacturers and employee your citizens.

Or manufacture solar panels and EVs in the United States ( including parts) 

Think of the jobs created : buildings, mfg equipment, maintenance, financing , supply chain, shipping etc , etc ,. etc.  The actual mfg jobs at the plants is minor when compared to the supporting jobs.  

I like your idea, but there is one big problem with it: the USD is still worth roughly 7 Yuan. US made solar panels would be triple the price and be unviable. German EV's on the other hand, you make a good point but again, there is one big problem, the Auto Workers Union. They demand excessive salaries AND the most expensive health cover in the country. Next recession, they will be wiped out I reckon. Both sides of politics have had a gutful of them, and so has their employers. All greedy unions will be wiped out over the next decade IMHO. Everything they do will be automated, including teaching and nursing. Then there are the robot trucks and trains etc. Not to mention soldiers etc.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 1/25/2021 at 2:36 AM, Gerry Maddoux said:

I think this is going to blow up in their faces. Every paradigm shift--especially a sea change as massive as switching from fossil fuel to wind, solar, hydrogen--requires a reasonable transition period. During that time, it is traditional to embrace the new while paying homage to the old. 

Everyone is following the California Plan, which is intent on funneling energy harvested from wind and solar into lithium-ion storage, while at the same time decommissioning perfectly reliable natural gas utility plants. They are, in effect, trying to choke the life out of anything that smacks of fossil fuels while subsidizing renewables. 

To make a shift like that puts millions of people out of a job, requires untold amounts of rare earth minerals, taking a massive risk with peoples' lives. If the 2021 summer is anything like last year's, California is going to see even more pain and very possibly--at some point--a massive mortality event. For example, California has for years preached clean energy and a "low carbon footprint" while buying electricity from Wyoming on the exchange. That Wyoming electricity comes from the Powder River coal mines--they made the utility plant much larger than the state needed for the sole purpose of selling to . . . California. This last summer, Gov. Newsom frantically called the governor of Wyoming for more juice, only to find that Wyoming needed it for its own use. Same for Nevada. Thus, the rolling brownouts. And this occurred when NG-fired utility plants were actually functioning . . . at least in some places.  

Mr. Biden shows every inclination of squeezing U.S. fossil fuels out of business. At the same time, he has blocked the Keystone Pipeline, probably forever. The Indian Tribes are threatening to block coal trains that traverse Reservation Land, even though there is a paid right-of-way. If fracking is banned on federal lands, we're going to need that heavy oil from Canada, mixed in with the light sweet shale oil from the Bakken/Williston. The situation that is rapidly building and taking form puts us at the mercy of the Saudis and OPEC . . . not a good place to be. Especially at a time when Mr. Biden calls the KSA a "pariah state." The prince takes things like that personally and he is going to screw us good given half the opportunity.

The climate change fabulists say we're looking down the barrel of an existential crisis. I think we will look down the barrel at an existential crisis from a military standpoint if we become energy-insecure: Prince Mohammed bin Salmon has already shown a willingness to sell at a discounted price to China, and that was in the most treacherous throes of the Great Pandemic. I am at the point where I think it's going to take something like an earth-shaking threat to put this back into perspective. I'm not pulling for a catastrophe, but I am aware that they seem to happen when those afflicted are most vulnerable.  

I might be a climate change "fabulist" Gerry, but at the end of the day I agree with Rob Kramer that folk should not get into $40K debt to buy a brand new car if they cannot afford more than $40/tank? Then there are all the young folk that can afford thousands for their tattoes and mobile phones and pay TV, but can't pay their rent or eat properly?

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 1/25/2021 at 8:28 AM, El Nikko said:

Yes I do agree it doesn't make any sense but we seem to be living in clown world.

I would love to hear any explanation as to why markets have soared in a year where they should have crashed. 

Personally (but I have thought this for quite a few years and it still hasn't happened) I thought we should have seen a major correction after the huge drop in March like the UK indices have done, they're basically inline with our GDP down 12% or so.

Devaluation of the dollar?

Cheap easy to borrow money due to printing pumping up stocks?

Capitol fight from other countries?

Stupidity and euphoria (we've seen that before)?

In a sane world this should have crashed through the floor but I get the impression every time the Fed announces more stimulus it adds a second (third/forth etc) wind to the markets. 

I don't have a good feeling about any of this.

 

You are correct to feel a bit uneasy, but to answer your question as to why the "everything bubble" has not popped YET, is because the banks have not stopped lending YET, because the Monetary and Fiscal stimulus has not been exhausted YET. Give it another 12-18 months Nikko, the law of diminishing returns still applies in the real world. The Govt and the Fed think that debt levels do not matter because that is what crazy economists with Nobel Prizes have told them. When the housing bubble bursts, expect a repeat of the Great Recession, only twice as bad. The whole world is in the same boat. Global debt to GDP is at 300% and heading rapidly higher. But each new trillion of debt is creating fewer and fewer jobs. You get the picture? 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 1/25/2021 at 10:15 AM, Rob Kramer said:

All the above. Plus most companies can't fail. Free money to keep the system afloat. At the tax payers expense. So poorly run companies essentially are always the biggest winner as they receive the most help and their bottom line is changed the most. I had a list of companies on the edge of bankruptcy in a watch list now they get 30M in 0% loans 90% building rent covered and 65% of wages and can layoff as many as they want (plus their service companies can get the same thing and lower prices).... but their day will come (not that I'm rooting for it but its not fair for overpaid big wigs + lying companies [over promis under deliver] to be aided while profitable companies and their shareholders not be rewarded fairly by hard earned interest via fair competition + outperformance) 

Totally agree. 20% of S+P 500 companies are trading while insolvent. Their earnings do not cover their interest bill, let alone dividends, let alone share-buybacks. Leading up to the last crash, the Russell 2000 companies had debt at 8 times earnings, a record. Now it is 14 times. Recipe for disaster, but could have been even worse otherwise. I warned Trump that the dems would steal the election and that his only hope was to wage war on China a month beforehand, but unfortunately, he did not listen.

[Roch + 537]

On 1/25/2021 at 6:29 AM, Dan Warnick said:

Without comment, except to say you guys have already said it before.

Republican Senator: Canceling Keystone XL Means Oil Goes to China, Other Countries, or Less Safe Rail

Republican Senator: Canceling Keystone XL Means Oil Goes to China, Other Countries, or Less Safe Rail

 

Senator Rounds doesn't know what he is talking about.  

He's recycling Rex Tillerson's old (false) talking points from 2012/2013.

Rail transport of Dilbit doesn't work.

Tanker shipping of Dilbit doesn't work. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Roch

[Roch + 537]

On 1/26/2021 at 12:47 AM, Wombat said:

I like your idea, but there is one big problem with it: the USD is still worth roughly 7 Yuan. US made solar panels would be triple the price and be unviable. German EV's on the other hand, you make a good point but again, there is one big problem, the Auto Workers Union. They demand excessive salaries AND the most expensive health cover in the country. Next recession, they will be wiped out I reckon. Both sides of politics have had a gutful of them, and so has their employers. All greedy unions will be wiped out over the next decade IMHO. Everything they do will be automated, including teaching and nursing. Then there are the robot trucks and trains etc. Not to mention soldiers etc.

There's no problem. 

Fine.

Still, no tax credits for buying Chinese or EU solar panels or EVs.  

Tesla stock seems to be doing alright building EVs in the US.

Tesla is building their second mega manufacturing plant in Texas. 

Joe claims the Union's are his friend.  What do the Union's think about my plan ?  Bring EV mfg back to U.S.  (including parts)  ?

If Joe is afraid of killing Solar and EV uptake phase it in over 5 years.  

Joe put the American workers first like Trump.  Not your WallStreet donor cronies. 

Can you imagine the tens of thousands of jobs it would create by bringing back EV mfg along with the supply chain.  

The Union's that just lost 11,000 jobs on the Keystone XL pipeline endorsed Biden.

The United Auto Workers Union in Michigan endorsed Biden.  Where's Joe ?

I watched an interview last night of a welder that was working on the Keystone XL. He was just laid off. At the end of the interview he was asked how his family was doing .  He said he had 3 boys that he was very proud of.  He became very emotional and started to tear up.  He no longer has a livelihood to support them.  Sad.  

Union's deserve a fair wage and healthcare.  

You prefer slave labor in China .  

Years ago my state gave a solar company startup close to $100 million to develop and build solar panels in the state.  They developed the solar panels, supporting technology and mfg processes. Then declared bankruptcy.  Took there technology and moved to China.  

Sometimes that's what you get when government bureaucrats get involved.

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Roch

[Roch + 537]

23 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

It moves production doesnt add new production. They can move drill and frac rigs they can't afford more rigs. So yes the production in that area will rise to get their $ worth but at the expense of another area (that they can hold). And depending on what area has higher production rates is if there's any growth or how the decline will look after the 2 yrs.

We will see. your short at today's price? I think its a floor. (Again with covid who knows but I really can't see more than 3$ falling off the price) for every bear there is a bull :).

Who can't afford ?  Sure they can afford.

Short.  I'm not short.  Where did you hear that.  I'm not long either.  I haven't taken a position since closed out my last in June.  Too many cross currents.  Too many variables.  Too many unknowns.

I do know oil demand, thus price,  will plateau and decline.  Don't know the timing , but will be faster than you think.

Oil will be around for a long time  HOWEVER you don't have to replace a "Majority" of oil to decrease price.  5% will temper price.  What happens when it is 10% ?  20% ?  

Analyst are talking about the ban.

They never mention the Two year grace period that will increase production.

Typical.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Roch

[Roch + 537]

13 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

 

 

Quote

Ever wonder why the "sweet spots" in shale always seem to be centered around federal land? This is the case in both New Mexico and North Dakota 

Good point I never thought of that.  However there is a limit to the length of a horizontal  lateral.  That still leaves a lot of Stranded Oil on Federal Land leases.

QUESTION : I assume those affected are filing lawsuits against the Feds as soon as the 60 day waiting period passes claiming a breach of contract for leased lands.  They probably have grounds. I think Federal shale, offshore and Alaskan producers could win that one.  

IF Biden prevails and stops the fracking in two years does the Federal Govt have to refund all the lease monies  ?

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Roch

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

1 hour ago, Roch said:

IF Biden prevails and stops the fracking in two years does the Federal Govt have to refund all the lease monies  ?

Yes. 

The pendulum never swings evenly like a metronome; it always goes too far right and then too far left--we're seeing that now. Our former presidents--Clinton, Obama, Trump--used the much-referenced Bears Ears/Grand Staircase as a political pickle ball. The area is mostly in the San Juan Basin, which is oil-rich but not very profitable to drill on, these days. Clinton declared the staircase a national monument, then Obama made a vast area of the Bears Ears a national monument. Here comes Mr. Trump, who knows next to nothing about oil and gas and has never expressed an interest in learning. He instructs his Interior Secretary (Zinc) to look at it, then auctioned off leases which encroached on the Indian (Wovenheep) burial grounds. How stupid is that? The area is mostly deep canyons, but idiots bought it on the cheap. Those people will be paid off and the land will probably revert back to being part of a national monument. 

In the Delaware Basin, there is no ancient burial ground, to my knowledge. That land is as oil-rich as you can make it. However, lots of it is federal land, too. Apparently you can't make some federal land off-limits without making it all off-limits. Otherwise, it would be favoritism and subject to lawsuits. Mr. Biden made a solemn oath to the Indigenous Peoples that he would restore the sacred burial grounds of the Wovenheep to being part of a national monument. This was part of his commitment to them and the Sierra Club and other groups.

Anyway, you're going to see Bears Ears and Grand Staircase in the news. And you're going to see a very solemn President Biden taking it away from those who hold oil and gas drilling leases and giving it back to the Wovenheep. Along with that, after he pays homage to New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan-Grisholm--who has national political aspirations, of course--he will pay back the leases from the Delaware Basin leases. Of no interest to Mr. Biden is the fact that in two years every parcel that is in a "sweet spot" will have at least a half-dozen wells on it. There is no natural use for most of the Delaware, other than oil and gas; it is not-so-pretty land and has remained barren for a reason (T. Boone Pickens used to say, "God didn't put oil under purty land.")

Sorry to take so long to show the relevance but this is, as usual, a complicated issue with many moving parts. Joe Biden is exactly like Trump in one peculiar way: He could give a tinker's dam about oil and gas, he's just using it as a political pickle ball. Trump wanted to curry favor to oil and gas groups; Biden wants to curry favor with anti-oil and gas groups. In their selfish political acts, both confounded the San Juan Basin (with its beautiful canyons and eroded red pillars and Indian burial grounds and modest oil deposits) with the Delaware Basin (with its stark plains and rich oil deposits). Trump didn't know diddly-squat about oil and gas and neither does Biden. To them it is/was merely a political pickle ball. 

This is a sad commentary on national politics in the United States. But it is what it is.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

10 hours ago, Wombat said:

Not necessarily. Depends on what your utilities are prepared to invest in renewables without a carbon tax. This will give you some idea of what is happening in Australia:

Largest battery in Australia to be built at ageing NSW coal-fired power plant - ABC News

If USA does decide to use a carbon tax, millions of much-needed jobs.

Bull, already have the energy sector jobs.  Jobs needed are factory jobs making robots to make Shoes, cloth, steel, aluminum, concrete, socks, pants, underwear, shirts, hats, motherboards, power supplies, LED screens, lightbulbs, tools, batteries, etc. Must cut down the import bill. 

Energy sector jobs in puke "green"?  No.  Let others dump capital $$$ into unreliable expensive junk. If they can figure out how to make economical, then you go in.  Use the simple fact the USA has the H-C's and those who do not let them put their blood sweat and tears into that which they must for national security reasons.  Those claiming for the planet are bald faced liars as the past, RECENT past has been much warmer than today.  They are screaming because it is 1) about their religion and 2) its all about national security other than scoundrels who think they can make $$$ off suckers and will always scream.   If anything put giant tariffs on said goods so if there IS a native industry building them in the USA(there is), then they have every tool to succeed as those nations who do not have H-C's are giving out garngantuan subsidies to those industries for national security reasons and rightly so. 

Then of course there are a few rare geographical areas which can completely out compete others in Solar/Wind and are beating the band to get others to invest so they can make lots of $$$ << Cough >> Australia... << Cough >>  and soon to be Argentina --> Of course that assumes these ham fisted idiots can ever count to 20 without taking their socks off and even then it is difficult as they keep shooting themselves in the foot. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

2 hours ago, Roch said:

Good point I never thought of that.  However there is a limit to the length of a horizontal  lateral.  That still leaves a lot of Stranded Oil on Federal Land leases.

Time to send all federal land back to the states where it belonged a 100 years ago.

--> Fine, keep the National parks separate, everything else, and I mean EVERYTHING goes to the state in which they reside.  EDIT: Every national so called "park" made in the last 30-->50 years, get rid of and send those back to state control as well.  Almost none of them other than a couple in Alaska are worthy of the name national park. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Roch + 537]

3 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Yes. 

The pendulum never swings evenly like a metronome; it always goes too far right and then too far left--we're seeing that now. Our former presidents--Clinton, Obama, Trump--used the much-referenced Bears Ears/Grand Staircase as a political pickle ball. The area is mostly in the San Juan Basin, which is oil-rich but not very profitable to drill on, these days. Clinton declared the staircase a national monument, then Obama made a vast area of the Bears Ears a national monument. Here comes Mr. Trump, who knows next to nothing about oil and gas and has never expressed an interest in learning. He instructs his Interior Secretary (Zinc) to look at it, then auctioned off leases which encroached on the Indian (Wovenheep) burial grounds. How stupid is that? The area is mostly deep canyons, but idiots bought it on the cheap. Those people will be paid off and the land will probably revert back to being part of a national monument. 

In the Delaware Basin, there is no ancient burial ground, to my knowledge. That land is as oil-rich as you can make it. However, lots of it is federal land, too. Apparently you can't make some federal land off-limits without making it all off-limits. Otherwise, it would be favoritism and subject to lawsuits. Mr. Biden made a solemn oath to the Indigenous Peoples that he would restore the sacred burial grounds of the Wovenheep to being part of a national monument. This was part of his commitment to them and the Sierra Club and other groups.

Anyway, you're going to see Bears Ears and Grand Staircase in the news. And you're going to see a very solemn President Biden taking it away from those who hold oil and gas drilling leases and giving it back to the Wovenheep. Along with that, after he pays homage to New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan-Grisholm--who has national political aspirations, of course--he will pay back the leases from the Delaware Basin leases. Of no interest to Mr. Biden is the fact that in two years every parcel that is in a "sweet spot" will have at least a half-dozen wells on it. There is no natural use for most of the Delaware, other than oil and gas; it is not-so-pretty land and has remained barren for a reason (T. Boone Pickens used to say, "God didn't put oil under purty land.")

Sorry to take so long to show the relevance but this is, as usual, a complicated issue with many moving parts. Joe Biden is exactly like Trump in one peculiar way: He could give a tinker's dam about oil and gas, he's just using it as a political pickle ball. Trump wanted to curry favor to oil and gas groups; Biden wants to curry favor with anti-oil and gas groups. In their selfish political acts, both confounded the San Juan Basin (with its beautiful canyons and eroded red pillars and Indian burial grounds and modest oil deposits) with the Delaware Basin (with its stark plains and rich oil deposits). Trump didn't know diddly-squat about oil and gas and neither does Biden. To them it is/was merely a political pickle ball. 

This is a sad commentary on national politics in the United States. But it is what it is.

 

What the hell is a pickle ball ?

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Roch

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

11 hours ago, Wombat said:

Then there are the robot trucks and trains etc. Not to mention soldiers etc.

Dont forget the unmanned fighter planes too!

https://news.sky.com/story/ground-breaking-unmanned-combat-aircraft-project-in-northern-ireland-12198119

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

50 minutes ago, Roch said:

What the hell is a pickle ball ?

I've never seen one. Who said anything about a pickleball? 😊

It is an old paddle-board sport--it's been around for more than half a decade. You must be very young, Mr. Roch. I was told just yesterday that pickleball is making a comeback . . . which seemed to fit the topic of our discussion. As we used to say, you have to get with the program. Ha-Ha.

I would have used political football, but that's what all the commentators use and I didn't want to give attribution. The point is, federal lands are knocked back and forth for political gain.  

[Rob Kramer + 696]

On 1/24/2021 at 6:48 PM, Roch said:

.

You said "short oil too much" before you edited it out. I don't know why I really don't care if you do or don't short oil. And I'm not trying to pin  you to numbers in a 2yr prediction of oil price I just want to know what you mean by too much oil. And short oil. And floods of shale and opec coming .... apparently it means "high 40 to 50$" ... ok cool my stock is banking 17% free cash flow at thoes prices so according to bearish veiws I'm safe. (Gotta look at veiws other than my own to see  possibilities I don't veiw). 

As for shale it won't flood next 2 years. Will be flat then up with prices (or because of prices so not if low prices stick) alot of ppl are saying they won't invest in infrastructure on federal land that will be unused in years so only use current infrastructure.  So flat to pre pandemic levels max. This is the opinion I have based on the talk I've seen and or had with others and snipits of company releases and their tone. Anyways I get the feeling your irritated with our conversation unless I'm reading into it too much so ill leave it here and again I'm ok with disagreeing.  

[Rob Kramer + 696]

4 hours ago, Roch said:

Who can't afford ?  Sure they can afford.

Short.  I'm not short.  Where did you hear that.  I'm not long either.  I haven't taken a position since closed out my last in June.  Too many cross currents.  Too many variables.  Too many unknowns.

I do know oil demand, thus price,  will plateau and decline.  Don't know the timing , but will be faster than you think.

Oil will be around for a long time  HOWEVER you don't have to replace a "Majority" of oil to decrease price.  5% will temper price.  What happens when it is 10% ?  20% ?  

Analyst are talking about the ban.

They never mention the Two year grace period that will increase production.

Typical.

They were all saying 45$ oil for 2021 also. Their views are sold to the latest hope. I addressed the rest in last post

Edited January 26, 2021 by Rob Kramer
Hype not hope

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

6 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

As for shale it won't flood next 2 years.

Rob, I think you're correct. Everyone, including Roch, thinks that companies will drill frenetically on federal lands during the next two years. After all, fully 50% of the "sweet spots" in the Delaware Basin are on federal lands. That won't happen as much as you might think on first blush. Why? Because federal lands there are en bloc, but also interlaced with private and state lands. Companies like to go in and corral a large tract of land on which to drill. The guys in the Delaware are beginning to "get it" that Mr. Biden wasn't just spouting campaign rhetoric: he fully intends to follow the California Plan, to rapidly squeeze the breath out of oil and gas while jump-starting renewables. 

If a company has a few wells on land that zigzags in and out and they haven't covered the ground, in the past they could get an easy lease renewal. That's not apt to happen in the near future. Better to take the hit on some of that and just mosey on down the road. To back that up, private land leases that were being shunned are now getting fairly sharp attention . . . within just a few days.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 1/22/2021 at 7:38 AM, Roch said:

Don't forget gasoline tax.  Biden will substantially raise the Federal gasoline tax.   The states will follow.

His reasoning will be , " finance the the infrastructure bill ".   

In my state the Fed, State, Local gas tax is a little over  $0.60 gallon.  It was supposed to go toward roads and bridges.  It doesn't.  It goes in the general fund.  

Biden will tax gasoline like European countries. 

Look for the gas  taxes to double and eventually triple. 

The major use for oil is TRANSPORTATION FUEL.  Biden can't advance green technology fast enough.  He will make driving an ICE car more expensive than buying an electric car by making the price of a bbl of oil more expensive + substantially increased taxes on gasoline.  These costs affect the  low and middle income people disproportionally. 

I've always argued that a carbon tax is cheating.

If your green systems are so cost effective, why are you penalizing us for using fossil fuels while subsidizing green energy in addition?

"We'll impose a carbon tax to incentivize the profitable field of renewables" = oxymoron 

Edited January 26, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

33 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I've always argued that a carbon tax is cheating.

If your green systems are so cost effective, why are you penalizing us for using fossil fuels while subsidizing green energy in addition?

"We'll impose a carbon tax to incentivize the profitable field of renewables" = oxymoron 

This is part of the "California Plan," and you're totally right. Actually, California lags the rest of the country by 35% in reduction of Greenhouse Gases . . . mainly because they've been actively decommissioning nuclear and natural gas power plants as their solar/wind come on line. 

That means that California isn't truly mitigating the climate change threat. Add to that the particulate carbonaceous matter from burning forests and it is very likely that California is the single worst offender in the United States. 

They lecture the rest of us, and their "defense" is that oil and gas has changed the climate so that their forests are burning. No, their forests are burning because they have so damn much corruption in their state that millions of miles of electric utility lines that should have been buried long ago are sparking fires. They act as though they don't know that the cladding around the wires becomes taut during cold and sags during hot weather, and that after fifty years of that, the cladding and the wires become unsafe. 

I'm not picking on California for any other reason than Mr. Biden is using the California Plan as his blueprint, and it is as flawed as you get. In fact, if they push the rest of the states enough, some smart fellow is going to figure out that California is the biggest offender of all. Carbon doesn't care whether it comes from an exhaust pipe or a burning tree. If a carbon tax is issued, the states will sue California for all that carbon it releases into the trophosphere each year. Other countries might join in. But Mr. Biden isn't astute enough to figure this stuff out on his own and unfortunately he has no one who will tell him.

A carbon tax? Bring it on, but be sure to figure in the million of tons of ash that spewed into the air last year from California fires.

[Roch + 537]

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Rob, I think you're correct. Everyone, including Roch, thinks that companies will drill frenetically on federal lands during the next two years. 

 

Now, Joe is going to sign a second Executive Order tomorrow ( Jan 27th) asking for Federal Bureaus and Agencies input on oil ban on Fed lands.  Wasn't that part of or at least implied in the first Executive Order for "Review"  ? 

I think Joe is feeling the heat.  This second signing is his way out.  The agencies and departments will come back and say , Hurts Economy , Hurts jobs , Hurts National Security , etc , etc etc 

All will be good in the Delaware basin and Alaskan oil fields.

Let's see .

If Joe pulls back on this Bernie and AOC will be quite upset. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Roch