WTI @ 67.50, charts show $62.50 next

[sirbinington + 3]

I agree with both of you on the long term pricing of oil. I don't trade the commodity itself but I do have a few equity positions. It just appears there is a clear agenda in place to push oil higher and the biggest players are in on it and honestly it may be necessary. Price maintenance is key for profitability as we found out a few years back. I'm curious to see where we end the year at. You have any guesses?   

[NickW + 2,714]

52 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

I give up.  When I start getting compared to Maduro I know that I am not being clear.  That tells me that I am writing into a vacuum. 

As far as the pricing on industrial wind, I am telling you, once again, that Premier Wynne took personal control of the industrial wind and industrial solar contracting in order to dramatically expand "renewable," but does not treat hydro as renewable (yes, it is unfathomable, but there it is), and she signed power-purchase contracts at 80.1 cents/kwh.  OK, so there are other contracts for less, but that shows you just how extreme the mantra crowd will go.  Since you don't believe it, I give up.  As far as buying power from HydroQuebec, while totally logical, you overlook the antipathy of the French versus the English, and v.v., that has been going on sine the battle on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec City.  The Conservative government of Ontario is not going to do that, in part because of the capital costs of installing new wire, and in part because they will buy oil from Alberta first, Alberta is not part of the Ottawa Liberal Government.  The politics will always beat out the economic imperatives, that is the way Canada works, and will always work.  Meanwhile, since nobody seems to want to either believe it or even consider it, I give up.  You guys figure it out.  Cheers.

When you propose a 'sure fire winner' of using tar Sands Oil to generate electricity at 3-4X  the cost of what you could actually get for it on the wholesale markets.

As for 80c /kwh for wind / solar - that's a obscene rate and completely out of kilter with what would be needed for onshore wind (perhaps 1-2c/kwh) and solar 3c kwh) in the 2013-18 period. However I can't find any links. Could you perhaps post a linky.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

42 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Easy now, NickW.  Jan is not known for pulling his facts out of a hat.  Rarely are the prices on a website the same as what can be negotiated, wouldn't you agree?

Here is an interesting quote from that website (Canada) that Nick referenced:

"A known cottage when not in use:
Uses electricity for one refrigerator, four clocks and the hydro meter.
(Yes, our meters use our electricity). Monthly bill is approximately $130."      [emphasis added].

OK, so for an empty cottage with basically just the refrigerator "on," the hapless rural Ontario weekender is paying $130!!!!!!   Pricey enough for you?

Where this is coming from is two-fold:  ridiculous PPA   [power purchase agreements] that get folded into the rate structure, and  so-called "stranded costs," or costs including values of capital installation (including wire and poles) that have not been depreciated through the Canadian capital cost allowance accounting criteria.  Those values now get charged off to the rural homeowner.  You end up with this crazy system where the cottager is paying $800 a month for bare-minimum electricity, until he runs out of cash and they shut him off. 

At that point the successor entities to Ontario Hydro, the former provincial "crown corporation" that was effectively the government, proceed to physically remove the wire and the meter, going back to the main road.  So if your house is say 1800 feet down a dirt driveway to your modest little shack, they rather maliciously pull all the wire out of there, and before you can get power again, you pay the old bill, you pay a security deposit, and you pay to put the wire back  (which amount you do not get back if they take it out a second time).  Thus the disconnected old people now face a charge of over $10,000 to get some electric service back, which is money they do not have and never will have.  The upshot of the Liberal/Progressive Kathleen Wynne government policies is that the poor and the old people are reduced to living like Osama bin Laden in his caves, back to the 13th century with fireplaces running for light, going to bed in the dark, and no juice for the oil furnace, and if you don't like it, hey too bad. 

To no surprise, the Liberals and Progressives got utterly demolished in the last election, down to six seat from I think 124, so bye-bye Liberal Party in Ontario, probably for a generation  (except for the very eastern part  next to the Quebec Border, where the dairy farmers benefit from "supply management" policies that exclude all imports from the USA).    All that malicious behavior of Hydro One et al flows directly from the Wynne government. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

When you propose a 'sure fire winner' of using tar Sands Oil to generate electricity at 3-4X  the cost of what you could actually get for it on the wholesale markets.

As for 80c /kwh for wind / solar - that's a obscene rate and completely out of kilter with what would be needed for onshore wind (perhaps 1-2c/kwh) and solar 3c kwh) in the 2013-18 period. However I can't find any links. Could you perhaps post a linky.

I keep trying to tell you this:  they don't care if some other oil is cheaper!  It is not the factor under consideration.  Politics will exclude other oil, even if it was being offered for free. 

That 80 cent PPA contract that the Premier's Office signed was reported in the Canadian Press, I think it might have been either the Financial Post or the Toronto Sun.  I grant you the Sun is a tabloid and run by the right-wing up there, but they do not lie.  No "alternative facts" are presented.  They have made a fine art of fetching hidden embarrassments from the shrouds of the Wynne government and plastering it over their pages to embarrass the government. 

[NickW + 2,714]

53 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Easy now, NickW.  Jan is not known for pulling his facts out of a hat.  Rarely are the prices on a website the same as what can be negotiated, wouldn't you agree?

Government prices for power / subsidies etc are public information so generally freely available to be scrutinised

I am fairly certain that Tar Sand operators won't negotiate to sell Oil for <$20 a barrel. At that price they might as well shut up shop.

I have asked him for a linky to support his claim of 80c / kwh. If that's true it's tantamount to govt / developer fraud.

 

As for using tar sands oil to generate electricity in some mothballed 1960-70's oil plant I stand by my original statement - Its a Machine to turn Gold into Lead. To make a profit on this the power stations would need to defy the laws of physics! It would need a conversion efficiency of about 220% - mind you anything's possible on Oil Price.Com!

Sure it might get done for political reasons but the subsidies needed will make 11c/kwh for wind look like a real bargain

[NickW + 2,714]

22 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

(1)I keep trying to tell you this:  they don't care if some other oil is cheaper!  It is not the factor under consideration.  Politics will exclude other oil, even if it was being offered for free. 

That 80 cent PPA contract that the Premier's Office signed was reported in the Canadian Press, I think it might have been either the Financial Post or the Toronto Sun.  I grant you the Sun is a tabloid and run by the right-wing up there, but they do not lie.  No "alternative facts" are presented.  They have made a fine art of fetching hidden embarrassments from the shrouds of the Wynne government and plastering it over their pages to embarrass the government. (2)

1.Unless this oil fired proposal is backed by significant public subsidy then using Oil (any oil) is a complete non starter other than for running peaking plant in the dead of winter.

Basic physics / maths should inform you on this.

Even if you could use unprocessed crude oil as a cheaper substitute for Heavy Fuel Oil:

Energy content of a barrel of oil  6GJ (ish)

Conversion efficiency of oil fired plant (38-44%)

https://www.netl.doe.gov/File Library/Research/Coal/energy systems/gasification/gasifipedia/EEGJulyrevisedFINAL1-2003-030-0548-2.pdf

Even assuming 44% which is highly unlikely for some clapped out 1960/70's plant 6 GJ will generate 733 kwh. At $65 a barrel your fuel costs alone are 8.76 cents (US).

2. Linky please. I have looked and found nothing in that range. Happy to accept this did happen buts its incumbent upon you to back this up as you are making the claim so evidence please. I see various anti wind groups are claiming figures around the 11c mark - that sounds about right to me.

Edited August 21, 2018 by NickW

[Top Oil Trader + 469]

welll i did misjudege the eu, i will say it did show signs of weakness, and still the eur shold go down even more right here. In hindsight should have waited for now. Indeed 1.1560 was the sweet spot. I hope i can be a little more patient next time.

[Top Oil Trader + 469]

Sometimes emotions takes over logic, exactly what happened to me. This is why i had to create programs,  one of the 7 programs to fire the one that only trades the eur,  was a long in eur 160 points (pips ago), now I kept saying close the position, and no, it kept going up and up, and still is open, Programs prevents you from using your emotions which clog up the logic, which it did when i took that short, about 40 pips ago, since logic would have told me to  wait for a better entry, even though the eur looks very weak. But at this I just need to wait since this is a great place to short too.

[ATK + 355]

17 minutes ago, Top Oil Trader said:

welll i did misjudege the eu, i will say it did show signs of weakness, and still the eur shold go down even more right here. In hindsight should have waited for now. Indeed 1.1560 was the sweet spot. I hope can be a little more patient next time.

Hopefully the same doesn't hold true for your oil prediction this week as well! Dollar is continuing to drop, I might have to chalk up this week for a loss for my USO puts. What can you do though haha

Hopine trump pisses off China again during trade talks this week and another surplus at cushings and maybe I can salvage this trade lol

Edited August 21, 2018 by ATK

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

When you propose a 'sure fire winner' of using tar Sands Oil to generate electricity at 3-4X  the cost of what you could actually get for it on the wholesale markets.

As for 80c /kwh for wind / solar - that's a obscene rate and completely out of kilter with what would be needed for onshore wind (perhaps 1-2c/kwh) and solar 3c kwh) in the 2013-18 period. However I can't find any links. Could you perhaps post a linky.

Wholesale market?  What wholesale market?  There is no wholesale market.  

The power producers produce it, and the consumer pays for it.  End of story.  Forget the ideas that there is some "wholesale market" as there is in places in the USA.  These guys shovel the costs down the throats of the consumers and no matter the consequences, all in some Messianic zeal to go "wind" and "solar."  OK, so guess what, the consumers wait until the election, and then the entire renewables crowd gets the boot.  And those wind contracts?  They will be torn up, denounced as ruinous, bye-bye. What to replace?  Some other plant.  Since there is nothing else around, I predict it will be a start-up of the old coal plants - except running on Alberta oil.  OK, so you don't believe any of it.  Fine by me. I really don't mind.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

58 minutes ago, NickW said:

2. Linky please. I have looked and found nothing in that range. Happy to accept this did happen buts its incumbent upon you to back this up as you are making the claim so evidence please. I see various anti wind groups are claiming figures around the 11c mark - that sounds about right to me.

Not sure if this is what Jan was talking about, but 80.1 cents per kw hour is found on page 11 of pdf at this link:

http://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/SUBSIDIES-TO-SOLAR-AND-WIND-ENERGY-IN-CANADA-–-AN-INVENTORY-draft-2.pdf

[Top Oil Trader + 469]

Ding! End of round one.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Not sure if this is what Jan was talking about, but 80.1 cents per kw hour is found on page 11 of pdf at this link:

http://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/SUBSIDIES-TO-SOLAR-AND-WIND-ENERGY-IN-CANADA-–-AN-INVENTORY-draft-2.pdf

That rooftop rate the Wynne government created gets bastardized.  If you go to the approving entity, typically the municipality, with some pitch that instead of installing 50 rooftops, to instead put it in some field on pole mounts and have the equivalent surface area, you then ask for the rooftop rate for the feed-in tariff.  You come up with some story that it is better for the environment, etc, because you can harvest more sun from the field units (presumably with tracker motors) than you can from the fixed rooftop (which basically produces nothing).  So if the approving authority bites, now you can go install your 20 MW project and collect 80 cents.  Then you can syndicate your project, pull out a fat wad of cash, and head for the Big City and go blow it on $10,000-a-night call girls.  And booze.  And the coke.  And a big yacht.  And a $15-million-dollar summer lodge.  Whatever you want.  Old Grandpa living in his little hovel is going to pay for it, at the rate of $800 a month, out of his little pension (until they cut him off).  What do you care?  You are the guy with the 80 cents and the gorgeous, model-quality hookers.  And that, my friends, is how Kathleen Wynne wrecked the entire Province of Ontario.  Amazing stuff.  Additional to her many other qualities, she also flaunts being homosexual and demanding "modern" sex education in those schools, another area the new Government is ditching.  Oh, well.  

Moral: stay away from the "Progressives/Liberals."  They have serious problems knowing what they are doing, and they have this tendency to go wreck everything. You want to see how that played out in Ontario, I invite you to go drive around and look at all the empty, abandoned factories. Not for nothing that the capitalists walked away from their fixed assets.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Wow!  Check out these memes of Kathleen Wynne:

https://www.google.com/search?q=kathleen+wynne+memes&amp;newwindow=1&amp;sa=X&amp;pws=0&amp;gl=us&amp;tbm=isch&amp;tbo=u&amp;source=univ&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiqrbmA3v7cAhVMpY8KHVTkDdcQsAR6BAgFEAE&amp;biw=1862&amp;bih=957#imgrc=_

How do you guys make links where people can just click on the word "here"?

[NickW + 2,714]

28 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Not sure if this is what Jan was talking about, but 80.1 cents per kw hour is found on page 11 of pdf at this link:

http://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/SUBSIDIES-TO-SOLAR-AND-WIND-ENERGY-IN-CANADA-–-AN-INVENTORY-draft-2.pdf

Thank you - some clarity

It states: The rate set for rooftop solar energy was 80.1 cents per kWh, 30 times the cost of conventional energy. This was for projects under 6KW

So this was specifically a scheme to promote take up of domestic solar which I would agree was remarkably generous given that southern Ontario has solar insolation rates about 20% better than the best sites in the UK which around the same time were paying FIT of about 21 pence (They are now 4 pence / kwh) 

---------

This has nothing to do with utility scale wind. the report states 12.5c / kwh for wind which is pricey but still somewhat cheaper than Jan's Oil to sparks proposal😋

[ATK + 355]

1 hour ago, Top Oil Trader said:

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by ATK

[NickW + 2,714]

30 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

That rooftop rate the Wynne government created gets bastardized.  If you go to the approving entity, typically the municipality, with some pitch that instead of installing 50 rooftops, to instead put it in some field on pole mounts and have the equivalent surface area, you then ask for the rooftop rate for the feed-in tariff.  You come up with some story that it is better for the environment, etc, because you can harvest more sun from the field units (presumably with tracker motors) than you can from the fixed rooftop (which basically produces nothing).  So if the approving authority bites, now you can go install your 20 MW project and collect 80 cents.  Then you can syndicate your project, pull out a fat wad of cash, and head for the Big City and go blow it on $10,000-a-night call girls.  And booze.  And the coke.  And a big yacht.  And a $15-million-dollar summer lodge.  Whatever you want.  Old Grandpa living in his little hovel is going to pay for it, at the rate of $800 a month, out of his little pension (until they cut him off).  What do you care?  You are the guy with the 80 cents and the gorgeous, model-quality hookers.  And that, my friends, is how Kathleen Wynne wrecked the entire Province of Ontario.  Amazing stuff.  Additional to her many other qualities, she also flaunts being homosexual and demanding "modern" sex education in those schools, another area the new Government is ditching.  Oh, well.  

Moral: stay away from the "Progressives/Liberals."  They have serious problems knowing what they are doing, and they have this tendency to go wreck everything. You want to see how that played out in Ontario, I invite you to go drive around and look at all the empty, abandoned factories. Not for nothing that the capitalists walked away from their fixed assets.

If  you read (see extracts below)  that report it states the 80c was specifically for systems under 6 KW and I suspect that was limited to domestic residents only. 

The rate set for rooftop solar energy was 80.1 cents per kWh

Since then the rate has been reduced to:

Under the 2017 IESO price schedule, solar PV (rooftop) FIT rates range from 31.1 cents per kWh for projects less than 6 kW

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

For oil, it just hit me: they are going to tout the U.S. is releasing the SPR because of shortages!  Man, they truly have no shame, if that's what they end up saying.  Wait a minute, they don't have any shame, so why would I expect anything else?

And I rest my case:

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-To-Release-11-Million-Barrels-From-Strategic-Petroleum-Reserves.html

 

[ATK + 355]

What everyone's expecting tomorrow with EIA's report?

The price action doesn't make me confident that we will see 62.5. Although something similar happened last week where basically every news outlet spouted the same bullish story regarding news that we already knew about (200,000 Saudi oil reduction) except every news article this time chalks it up to Iranian sanactions.

Would live to here other people's input

Edited August 21, 2018 by ATK

[ATK + 355]

18 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

And I rest my case:

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-To-Release-11-Million-Barrels-From-Strategic-Petroleum-Reserves.html

 

You can answer anything regarding oil literally anything, by saying these two words..... Iranian sanctions 

Cocount oil found not to be healthy, but you know what is healthy in the US? Iranian sanctions

Oil stain in your garage? Not anymore with Iranian sanctions!

Iranian sanctions got you down? Well...  Iranian sanctions!

Sorry I know I'm going over the top with this, but it's like you can't find a single unique article in regards to oil. They just copy and paste from one another.

Edited August 21, 2018 by ATK

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

36 minutes ago, NickW said:

If  you read (see extracts below)  that report it states the 80c was specifically for systems under 6 KW and I suspect that was limited to domestic residents only. 

The rate set for rooftop solar energy was 80.1 cents per kWh

Since then the rate has been reduced to:

Under the 2017 IESO price schedule, solar PV (rooftop) FIT rates range from 31.1 cents per kWh for projects less than 6 kW

OK, Nick, so the developer goes to the approving Authority and says: "Hey, guess what, instead of approving 150 (pick your number) individual rooftop deals, each of which is fixed in position and thus is gathering little sunlight, let's go do our part to save the planet (constant refrain, that) by combining all these little deals into one big project of 150 rooftop installations, but we will make them with motor driven directors to really gather the sunlight, so  those panels will do the work they were designed to do, and we save the planet.  How about it?"  And some Authority says, "Gee, great idea, that is brilliant, so sure, you go ahead, build on big one and we treat it as 150/250/650 little ones."  And bingo, the developer gets 80 cents. 

If you are a developer, all you have to do is con people with some deal and cast it as saving the planet, and get your Approval, and you are off to the races. Put 200 of those 6 KW rooftop deals in one field, and you now have 1.2 MW at 80 cents. And that is how the con is done.  Hey, anything to save the planet!

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said:

OK, Nick, so the developer goes to the approving Authority and says: "Hey, guess what, instead of approving 150 (pick your number) individual rooftop deals, each of which is fixed in position and thus is gathering little sunlight, let's go do our part to save the planet (constant refrain, that) by combining all these little deals into one big project of 150 rooftop installations, but we will make them with motor driven directors to really gather the sunlight, so  those panels will do the work they were designed to do, and we save the planet.  How about it?"  And some Authority says, "Gee, great idea, that is brilliant, so sure, you go ahead, build on big one and we treat it as 150/250/650 little ones."  And bingo, the developer gets 80 cents. 

If you are a developer, all you have to do is con people with some deal and cast it as saving the planet, and get your Approval, and you are off to the races. Put 200 of those 6 KW rooftop deals in one field, and you now have 1.2 MW at 80 cents. And that is how the con is done.  Hey, anything to save the planet!

Then that is an issue of fraud and / or poor governance on the part of the State / Local Government if that happened. 

Any evidence to show this happened? 

Otherwise its simply a case of an overly generous, poorly thought out FIT scheme for roof top solar. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

Then that is an issue of fraud and / or poor governance on the part of the State / Local Government if that happened. 

Any evidence to show this happened? 

Otherwise its simply a case of an overly generous, poorly thought out FIT scheme for roof top solar. 

It is not fraud.  It is not poor governance.  It is a con, foisted by guys who have figured out the system.  You make the presentation, the people sitting on some Board that gives out Authority mull it over, and if the Application is approved, off you go to the races. Why do you feel that is "fraud."  Nothing fraudulent; a perfectly above-board Application.  Poor governance?  Not at all. It is an effort by the Directors of that Authority to "do their part to save the planet."   That it ends up making a few guys very rich and a lot of ratepayers impoverished is a mere byproduct.  The Process itself remains crystal pure.  Nothing hidden or coercive about it.  

This is the logical consequence of having Progressives who have absolutely no idea what they are doing ending up running power operations. 

Nick, I gotta go to work, cannot delve further into the absurdities of PPA contracts. This is my very last posting on this issue. Off you go.

[NickW + 2,714]

6 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

It is not fraud.  It is not poor governance.  It is a con, foisted by guys who have figured out the system.  You make the presentation, the people sitting on some Board that gives out Authority mull it over, and if the Application is approved, off you go to the races. Why do you feel that is "fraud."  Nothing fraudulent; a perfectly above-board Application.  Poor governance?  Not at all. It is an effort by the Directors of that Authority to "do their part to save the planet."   That it ends up making a few guys very rich and a lot of ratepayers impoverished is a mere byproduct.  The Process itself remains crystal pure.  Nothing hidden or coercive about it.  

This is the logical consequence of having Progressives who have absolutely no idea what they are doing ending up running power operations. 

Nick, I gotta go to work, cannot delve further into the absurdities of PPA contracts. This is my very last posting on this issue. Off you go.

Ok - I guess this is all part of your fertile imagination in the absence of anything to back this up but I'll bite.

If the eligibility of the scheme was for roof top solar up to 6 KW of capacity on a domestic premises and systems as you describe were allowed knowingly then this is either fraud or incompetence. If allowed unwittingly then this is poor governance either by the state govt or their delegated contractor. 

[Top Oil Trader + 469]

Wow what is al lthe discussion about solar panels. Solar Panels is a dinosaur already, one day you will be able paste a film on your window, for solar power. ok it's not that powerful yet, but so was wifi not powerful when it first came out. Solar Windows. Right now it cost an  average of 40k for roof solar panels, which to me is a fad and a big waste of time and money, and looks horrible, wait for solar windows.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Top Oil Trader