Will We Ever See 100$+ OIL?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

16 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

I don't think the pressures from oil pipelines could take it. Remember the NGL is much colder and would imagine the lines welds aren't compatible. 

I think that the natural gas is shipped as CNG through the pipelines for the vast majority of the journey though. That is with relatively low compression also. The gas is compressed at the shipping point if it is to be marketed as LNG. Otherwise it just goes into smaller lines at low pressures. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/14/2019 at 8:56 AM, Old-Ruffneck said:

In 2016 USGS put whole Permian at 20bbl. Just 2 years later they re-estimated it :The Wolfcamp Shale and Bone Spring rock formations in the Delaware hold an estimated 46.3 billion barrels, the scientists said in their first assessment of the area. In addition, it holds about 281 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, about 18 times the amount in the Midland Basin, which is more heavily drilled and better known.The Midland and Delaware estimates are the USGS’s “largest continuous oil and gas assessments ever released,” Dr. Jim Reilly, the organization’s director, said in a statement. The amount consists of “undiscovered, technically recoverable resources,” the USGS said.

The study only looked at the two rock formations, which are both well known to operators including Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc, EOG Resources Inc. and Occidental Petroleum Corp. Industry experts say there are as many as a dozen so-called ‘pay zones’ in the area.

 

The Yates field in 100 years produced 1bb, re-estimated in 2018 to give up 1bbl more than thought. So when so called experts keep getting their numbers wrong, I tend to believe that several hundred billion invested in wells, billions in pipelines, someone aint telling the truth. You don't run 3 pipelines to the gulf for oil to last just 4 years. Doesn't make economic sense. 

The Delaware basin alone could yield more than 50bb, and that is just one piece of the Permian pie. Get calculate out and guess with it, at 200mb monthly how long to suck it dry. Trying to put a timeline of 4-5 years curve is incorrect imho. 

It seems that we are not considering offshore possibilities that are presently off limits to exploration and drilling. Perhaps voters would decide that they like their gasoline enough to take the risks involved. I do not think this is likely however. Just wondering the estimated oil out there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/climate/trump-offshore-drilling.html

[D Coyne + 305]

On 7/17/2019 at 2:43 PM, ronwagn said:

This may be a stupid question but can excess oil lines ever be converted to natural gas pipelines? Has it ever been done?

ronwagn,

I have heard of conversions from natural gas to oil, so I am assuming the reverse may be possible.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Natural-Gas-Pipelines-are-Being-Converted-to-Carry-Crude-Oil.html

[D Coyne + 305]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

I think that the natural gas is shipped as CNG through the pipelines for the vast majority of the journey though. That is with relatively low compression also. The gas is compressed at the shipping point if it is to be marketed as LNG. Otherwise it just goes into smaller lines at low pressures. 

NGL is not the same as LNG, which is chilled.  NGL are just under a bit of pressure, pretty sure these conversions are possible, but perhaps expensive.

[D Coyne + 305]

On 7/16/2019 at 9:00 PM, ronwagn said:

It is strange that no one here considers that nations all over the world (especially China) will want to use all of the latest technology for oil exploration and drilling. I am sure they will surprise us eventually.

I look to natural gas as the long term answer but wind and solar will play a role also.

Ronwagn,

The World output of oil is likely to fall by 30 Mb/d by 2050 from peak output levels in 2026, that is the equivalent of 174 BCF/d or 63 TCF per year of natural gas to replace the lower C+C output.  Natural gas output was 372 BCF/d in 2018 for the World and the rate of growth from 2008 to 2018 was about 2.4% per year.  If we assume that rate of growth continues to 2050 and in addition all of the drop in oil output is replaced through conversion to NGVs then we would need 1167 BCF/fd of natural gas output in 2050.

When we also add in demand growth for C+C of about 800 kb/d per year the total cumulative natural gas output from 1965 to 2050 would be about 13,000 TCF, about half of the likely URR for World natural gas form shale gas and convention al gas and coal bed methane, for a high (or optimistic) estimate for these resources.  Natural gas is more plentiful than crude, but it is not unlimited.

Eventually we will need to move to other resources unless demand for oil and natural gas falls for some reason (better efficiency will help, but there are thermodynamic limits to increases in efficiency).  Natural gas may be a useful bridge, but something else will need to replace fossil fuel, coal is also more limited than some seem to believe.  See research by David Rutledge on coal.

[D Coyne + 305]

On 7/17/2019 at 9:21 AM, Old-Ruffneck said:

I was being 

fa·ce·tious

/fəˈsēSHəs/

adjective

adjective: facetious

1. treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

   "a facetious remark"

   synonyms:

   flippant, flip, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek, waggish, whimsical, joking, jokey, jesting, jocular, playful, roguish, impish, teasing, arch, mischievous No I don't really expect the Permian to 4 fold increase, but once the 3 pipelines are on and running I can see 5.5 as a good guesstimate, the only thing holding back more productions is takeaway. A lot of wells are not running full capacity, and reason DUC wells aren't completed. This is common information, get down there and talk with drillers, company men, pushers.  As an investor as I would assume you are I think I would like to see the goings on and what is happening in the "real" world and not staring at a screen and making graphs and telling us the oil will stop flowing in 4 years time.

Old Ruffneck,

Not an investor.  The charts do not suggest oil will stop flowing, they suggest that just like every field ever discovered that output will increase, peak and then decline.   If you do not think that is typical in the oil industry, you have not been paying attention. 

Can you clarify the 5.5 as a good guesstimate, you think output will increase to 9.5 Mb/d in the Permian basin?  Is there 5.5 Mb/d of new pipeline capacity coming online?  I think there is only an additional 2.5 Mb/d of pipeline capacity planned, so that would limit output to 6.5 Mb/d through 2020.  More capacity could be built if needed, but pipeline companies will wait to see if output can fill their pipes before proceeding with further expansion.  I do not think it likely that Permian basin output will exceed 8 Mb/d, the peak is likely to be 2028, but only if oil prices rise which is unknown.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Ronwagn,

The World output of oil is likely to fall by 30 Mb/d by 2050 from peak output levels in 2026, that is the equivalent of 174 BCF/d or 63 TCF per year of natural gas to replace the lower C+C output.  Natural gas output was 372 BCF/d in 2018 for the World and the rate of growth from 2008 to 2018 was about 2.4% per year.  If we assume that rate of growth continues to 2050 and in addition all of the drop in oil output is replaced through conversion to NGVs then we would need 1167 BCF/fd of natural gas output in 2050.

When we also add in demand growth for C+C of about 800 kb/d per year the total cumulative natural gas output from 1965 to 2050 would be about 13,000 TCF, about half of the likely URR for World natural gas form shale gas and convention al gas and coal bed methane, for a high (or optimistic) estimate for these resources.  Natural gas is more plentiful than crude, but it is not unlimited.

Eventually we will need to move to other resources unless demand for oil and natural gas falls for some reason (better efficiency will help, but there are thermodynamic limits to increases in efficiency).  Natural gas may be a useful bridge, but something else will need to replace fossil fuel, coal is also more limited than some seem to believe.  See research by David Rutledge on coal.

Nice figures but I really don't believe that anyone really knows. You covered all the bases except methane hydrates and biogas which is ongoing and nearly limitless in potential. We can make seaweed and peat into biogas. Methane hydrates have more natural gas than all land based natural gas. I predict that natural gas and biogas will be plentiful and cheap until those alive today are all dead. Hopefully, by that time science will have come up with even better answers. Maybe wind and solar with storage will do it all before then. Maybe fission or something else. 

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

2 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Can you clarify the 5.5 as a good guesstimate

The capacity of pipelines in the near future just to  the gulf 3mbd. There are other lines being run to Oklahoma too. In all I can see within 2 years oil ramped up to 7+mbd. The big IF the lines are completed on time. There is no reason to choke back the production then. But if price keeps falling why sell at a loss? Stable 55 WTI should bring about the 7000 DUC wells waiting for pipelines. Just my opinion.

[D Coyne + 305]

14 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Nice figures but I really don't believe that anyone really knows. You covered all the bases except methane hydrates and biogas which is ongoing and nearly limitless in potential. We can make seaweed and peat into biogas. Methane hydrates have more natural gas than all land based natural gas. I predict that natural gas and biogas will be plentiful and cheap until those alive today are all dead. Hopefully, by that time science will have come up with even better answers. Maybe wind and solar with storage will do it all before then. Maybe fission or something else. 

I do not share your optimism on methane hydrates, we could have working fusion reactors about the time that methane hydrate becomes economically viable, how much biogas is currently being utilized as an energy source?  Again until large amounts can be produced economically, it's just hopium imho.

We agree that nobody knows what the future will bring.

Edited July 19, 2019 by D Coyne

[D Coyne + 305]

14 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

The capacity of pipelines in the near future just to  the gulf 3mbd. There are other lines being run to Oklahoma too. In all I can see within 2 years oil ramped up to 7+mbd. The big IF the lines are completed on time. There is no reason to choke back the production then. But if price keeps falling why sell at a loss? Stable 55 WTI should bring about the 7000 DUC wells waiting for pipelines. Just my opinion.

Sounds pretty reasonable, if the USGS mean TRR estimate is correct and oil prices are high (over $70/b for WTI).  If oil prices are stable at 55/bo for WTI, Permian basin output is unlikely to increase beyond 5.2 Mb/d and those pipelines will not be filled with Permian output, but perhaps there might be some flow from Cushing to the Gulf coast for export.  Maybe they can use the pipes to move natural gas and reduce flaring and the Texas RRC and New Mexico Oil and Gas division will enforce existing gas capture rules to reduce the wasted natural gas being flared in the Permian basin.

WS will say his wells have very little gas flared, but from what I have read one only needs to go outside at night with eyes open in the Permian basin region to see that for most wells the natural gas is being flared.

For flaring in Texas see link below (thanks go to Mike Shellman for pointing this site out)

https://viirs.skytruth.org/apps/heatmap/flaringmap.html#lat=32.4578&lon=-102.76924&zoom=7&offset=15&time=2012-08-25T12%3A22%3A07

Edited July 19, 2019 by D Coyne

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

2 hours ago, D Coyne said:

WS will say his wells have very little gas flared, but from what I have read one only needs to go outside at night with eyes open in the Permian basin region to see that for most wells the natural gas is being flared.

Find a use for the gas that's being flared and I am sure some would be captured. Yes at night driving up 285 towards Coyanosa, Pecos, over to Monahans is quite the light show. Most new wells are flared. If close enough to a pipeline and enough gas is on hand, it'll get piped. If you google map the wells in West Texas, you'll see burners and usually 2-3 1000gallon propane tanks to keep the fire lit. I personally don't think it's a big issue as the cost to capture the said gas which is comprised of several gases an liquids being worth it. Gas is by-product of the frac'd well.

[D Coyne + 305]

1 hour ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Find a use for the gas that's being flared and I am sure some would be captured. Yes at night driving up 285 towards Coyanosa, Pecos, over to Monahans is quite the light show. Most new wells are flared. If close enough to a pipeline and enough gas is on hand, it'll get piped. If you google map the wells in West Texas, you'll see burners and usually 2-3 1000gallon propane tanks to keep the fire lit. I personally don't think it's a big issue as the cost to capture the said gas which is comprised of several gases an liquids being worth it. Gas is by-product of the frac'd well.

Old Ruffneck,

A waste of resources plain and simple, it is a very useful product, if the flaring was not allowed or fines had to be paid to flare the natural gas, the necessary pipelines would be built.  Just a matter of enforcing regulations.

In earlier comments I mistakenly claimed North Dakota was doing a good job on restricting flaring. That is not correct, for North Dakota about 12 to 15% of natural gas is flared, in Texas it is only 4.4% based on satellite data, in the Delaware basin the flaring rate is higher with about 7.9% of natural gas flared.  In the midland basin the natural gas flared is only 2.3%.  

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2018/08/13/299613/report-texas-natural-gas-flaring-at-record-highs/

Edited July 19, 2019 by D Coyne

[wrs + 893]

Looks like the Iranians are wanting the answer to be, the end of this month.  They clearly are in control of the Straits and the only way to take it from them is militarily.  

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

10 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Old Ruffneck,

A waste of resources plain and simple, it is a very useful product, if the flaring was not allowed or fines had to be paid to flare the natural gas, the necessary pipelines would be built.  Just a matter of enforcing regulations.

A waste of resources maybe. If yer smart, figure a way to capture it and sell it on the market. It's allowed because of cost effective measures when the price is about 1.00 buck wholesale. Last summer it was negative, had to pay to take it. If it was a valuable resource worth money, it wouldn't be flared. You speak like you've been there. Pipelines to where? Concrete answers please. 

[D Coyne + 305]

3 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

A waste of resources maybe. If yer smart, figure a way to capture it and sell it on the market. It's allowed because of cost effective measures when the price is about 1.00 buck wholesale. Last summer it was negative, had to pay to take it. If it was a valuable resource worth money, it wouldn't be flared. You speak like you've been there. Pipelines to where? Concrete answers please. 

Where does the 94% of natural gas that is not flared get piped to, Texans are smart as are producers in New Mexico, if they are not allowed to flare long term or have to pay stiff fines to waste the natural gas, they will develop the necessary infrastructure.   The flaring is both wasteful and a source of pollution, free markets don't deal with pollution problems well, regulations are needed.

The  RRC historically has done a good job on this (at least form 2001 to 2010).  

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

2 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Where does the 94% of natural gas that is not flared get piped to, Texans are smart as are producers in New Mexico, if they are not allowed to flare long term or have to pay stiff fines to waste the natural gas, they will develop the necessary infrastructure.   The flaring is both wasteful and a source of pollution, free markets don't deal with pollution problems well, regulations are needed.

The  RRC historically has done a good job on this (at least form 2001 to 2010).  

Does my statement above not make sense? The water in said area of the Permian is worth more than the gas. You want Government to get involved in flaring and fine them on a product that is not cost effective to build the infrastructure for? You seriously should go down there and try and sell them your idea!! It's damn easy to suggest what others should do when your not footing the bill. Pipelines cost lots of money and each well has its own flare longevity. So a well 50 miles from a pipeline, what do you do with the gas? Even 30 miles?  As I said before, if there was a need for the byproduct (NG) they wouldn't just flare it off. It's real easy to lecture others from the pulpit, when you have no real life experience in the flaring issue. West Texas is a vast expanse and what NG lines are available are at capacity, hence last years negative market on the stuff. 

 

[D Coyne + 305]

16 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Does my statement above not make sense? The water in said area of the Permian is worth more than the gas. You want Government to get involved in flaring and fine them on a product that is not cost effective to build the infrastructure for? You seriously should go down there and try and sell them your idea!! It's damn easy to suggest what others should do when your not footing the bill. Pipelines cost lots of money and each well has its own flare longevity. So a well 50 miles from a pipeline, what do you do with the gas? Even 30 miles?  As I said before, if there was a need for the byproduct (NG) they wouldn't just flare it off. It's real easy to lecture others from the pulpit, when you have no real life experience in the flaring issue. West Texas is a vast expanse and what NG lines are available are at capacity, hence last years negative market on the stuff. 

 

Old-ruffneck,

Mr Shellman has been in the oil business for 40 years, he seems to think the flaring problem can be solved.

From 2001 to 2010 the rate of natural gas flaring in Texas was 0.5%.  Go back to doing whatever was done before 2010, Texans are smart people and yes the solution to pollution is government regulation, that is why the clean air and clean water acts are the law of the land.

Those who don't like clean air and clean water should perhaps move to third world nations where pollution is not regulated.

Oh and it is the job of the RRC to prevent the waste of resources, they can use fines or simply shut down wells that require flaring, whatever works.  Fines seem the better approach, this gives the operator a choice, pay the fine or shut down the well.

Perhaps wells that are likely to produce a lot of natural gas when there is no existing infrastructure to move the natural gas should not be drilled.  Having fines in place for flaring, might reduce the number of wells completed in areas where it is known that the amount of associated gas produced will be very high.

It is just stupid to waste all that natural gas, plain and simple.

Edited July 20, 2019 by D Coyne

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

1 minute ago, D Coyne said:

Old-ruffneck,

Mr Shellman has been in the oil business for 40 years, he seems to think the flaring problem can be solved.

From 2001 to 2010 the rate of natural gas flaring in Texas was 0.5%.  Go back to doing whatever was done before 2010, Texans are smart people and yes the solution to pollution is government regulation, that is why the clean air and clean water acts are the law of the land.

Those who don't like clean air and clean water should perhaps move to third world nations where pollution is not regulated.

The flaring in time period you state was because fracking was about non-existent. Yes for sure Mike has a lot of years in the oil-field. All I am stating is a fact. Find a quote from Mike where he can find a solution to the problem in above conversation. There is no simple way or it'd been done by now. I don't disagree with what you say, but to put blatantly state like it's an easy fix, when in fact its not. Find a solution to this and you too can become a multi-million dollar perhaps more by inventing a system to save the "flare's".

[Tom s + 5]

Yes of course, when all the 50-$99 oil is used up we will get to $100 oil and it will probably come quicker than we think with monetary policy the way it is.  

[D Coyne + 305]

1 hour ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

The flaring in time period you state was because fracking was about non-existent. Yes for sure Mike has a lot of years in the oil-field. All I am stating is a fact. Find a quote from Mike where he can find a solution to the problem in above conversation. There is no simple way or it'd been done by now. I don't disagree with what you say, but to put blatantly state like it's an easy fix, when in fact its not. Find a solution to this and you too can become a multi-million dollar perhaps more by inventing a system to save the "flare's".

I agree there may not be easy solutions, I guess Mike would need to chime in on what solutions exist.  It seems one solution would be to stop granting long term flaring permits.  Or raise the price of those permits so that operators are less inclined to drill wells in areas that have high amounts of associated gas and not enough pipeline capacity to move the natural gas to market.

Mike seems to believe it is a wasteful practice, I do not know what the best answer is,  that is up to the people of Texas and New Mexico. Turns out that New Mexico is worst of all states as far as the percentage of natural gas vented or flared.

Perhaps a simple solution would be to require royalty and tax payments for any natural gas that is vented or flared.  This would be a simple solution that might have the support of land owners and tax payers and would be an incentive for the needed infrastructure to be built or to hold off on new well completion until such time that the necessary infrastructure is built.

[wrs + 893]

3 hours ago, D Coyne said:

I agree there may not be easy solutions, I guess Mike would need to chime in on what solutions exist.  It seems one solution would be to stop granting long term flaring permits.  Or raise the price of those permits so that operators are less inclined to drill wells in areas that have high amounts of associated gas and not enough pipeline capacity to move the natural gas to market.

Mike seems to believe it is a wasteful practice, I do not know what the best answer is,  that is up to the people of Texas and New Mexico. Turns out that New Mexico is worst of all states as far as the percentage of natural gas vented or flared.

Perhaps a simple solution would be to require royalty and tax payments for any natural gas that is vented or flared.  This would be a simple solution that might have the support of land owners and tax payers and would be an incentive for the needed infrastructure to be built or to hold off on new well completion until such time that the necessary infrastructure is built.

I am glad neither you or Mike have any say in what actually happens because you would be costing a lot of jobs and a lot of money with your fines and restrictions.  The conventional wells had very little gas compared to shale wells that have a lot of gas with the oil and it's very wet gas.  The value of the liquids is enough to cause the pipelines that are out there to fill up quickly.  Pipelines and processing for natural gas are not cheap to build and no one will build them with out an assured market.  So it's a chicken and egg problem which I have stated repeatedly on this topic and none of the critics seem to be picking up on it.

The oil was worth enough at first to cover all the well costs and the gas was a cherry on top if it could be sold.  I showed the picture of the Ramsey plant blowing up in December 2015 which happened while it was expanding in an attempt to take more of the growing volume.  At that point, there was no ability to process gas and it all had to be flared.  Now there are new gas processing plants coming on line and more pipelines being built because the liquids have a market.  That will reduce the flaring by this year and that is the market at work.  No need for penalties and restrictions when the market can solve the problem in due time.  This thread is about $100 oil though so why are you derailing it with a topic that is basically a dead horse or at least could get beaten in the NG sectoin?

Edited July 20, 2019 by wrs

[wrs + 893]

Back on topic.  It appears to me that Trump is avoiding doing anything military in response to these Iranian provocations because he is deathly afraid of the political consequences of $100 oil.  I think he is fine with the sanctions as long as shale continues to over-produce which they are doing at this point.  The jawboning out of the administration seems focused on keeping oil below $60 and the stock market near record highs.  That is a goldilocks scenario though and I don't believe it's reasonable for him to expect that he can keep juggling through 2020 without a ball hitting the floor.

I am guessing $100 oil before the middle of 2020 in order to sink the Trump reelection chances.

[Jakridge + 122]

2 hours ago, wrs said:

Back on topic.  It appears to me that Trump is avoiding doing anything military in response to these Iranian provocations because he is deathly afraid of the political consequences of $100 oil.  I think he is fine with the sanctions as long as shale continues to over-produce which they are doing at this point.  The jawboning out of the administration seems focused on keeping oil below $60 and the stock market near record highs.  That is a goldilocks scenario though and I don't believe it's reasonable for him to expect that he can keep juggling through 2020 without a ball hitting the floor.

I am guessing $100 oil before the middle of 2020 in order to sink the Trump reelection chances.

That is a very politically shrewd and insightful comment. I think they will definitely try to harm the Trump Administration in any way possible and by any means, as witnessed by the russian collusion scam, while Trump tries to juggle the balls. I believe one of the balls that will hit the floor will be the Iranian thing. But yes you are correct they, meaning the media, the Democratic party, and the rest of the leftist acolytes, will definitely try anything to derail the Trump re-election.  It seems harming America is of no concern to them and $100 oil or more would be welcomed if it hurts Trump.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

$100 oil? I would like to see it, and I'm about as conservative as they get. I make my living from oil and gas. The price of crude oil has been insufficient to support various and sundry needs of producers for several years now. Saudi Arabia needs at least $85 oil in order to support their welfare state, which is growing. Many OPEC countries needs higher prices to allow them to emerge from Third World status. The US needs oil close to $100 to support shale oil drilling, since nine of ten drillers are currently losing money. Would $100 oil wreck the market? Sure, it would lead to another glut, another crash, then a rash of bankruptcies, and so on.

The problem is that the US still has no true energy policy. We have a Secretary of Energy who, when he was running for president, didn't really understand what the Department of Energy did. CEO's of major oil companies have been dragged before Senate subcommitties for years, where they have been hollered at to "make the US energy-independent." Shale oil has done that . . . almost. The refineries have needed a gentle nudge to convert their ancient equipment to light, sweet that comes from shale, but that would take billions of dollars. Two new refineries--one in North Dakota (the Davis) and the other in the Permian (can't think of the name)--are going to be very low carbon-emitting and capable of refining light, sweet shale oil without additions of heavy crude from Canada or OPEC.

The current situation--OPEC+ trying to set the global price of oil--is doomed, mainly because of all the shale oil from the multiple layers of the Permian. Technology and luck, the latter having to do with companies that happened to buy minerals low (Pioneer, for example), and in the sweet spot at that, will favor a few companies. Occidental, Exxon and Chevron bought their way into the Permian. They don't need higher prices so much, since they make their money at the refinery and, increasingly, at petrochemical plants. This sets the stage for stagnant global oil prices for light, sweet shale oil but, ironically, desperation prices for heavy stuff--to blend at the refineries, especially Aramco.

$100 oil? I think we'll see it only with massive disruptions in the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, the likes of which occur only if Iran begins to go bankrupt and lashes out in desperation, or if the entire Middle East goes up in flames. The situation is a mess! I suppose this is the way of a free market system: to generate winners and losers based on cunning, luck, technology, and the cold-blooded business model that comes from all that.

We're going to see the dark side of all this unhampered growth, however, if the Democrats get back in power. For example, I looked at that satellite image of flaring of wells, especially in the Permian. This is a practice that is so indifferent to the concerns about global climate change and greenhouse gases that it is just pathetic! And the Democrats would slap that down immediately, to the point where drilling would pause by 50%. They would also put a moratorium on pipelines. What would happen then? $100 oil! Then $200 oil! Then $300 oil! Is there a lesson in here? HaHa, it's pretty convoluted, so much so that I almost can't follow it, but I am strongly of the belief that we need $100 oil but some governance in terms of limits on flaring. We need pipelines, but also reduced carbon emissions.

In short, the oil and gas industry is--now as in the past--its own worst enemy, so eager to keep drilling and pumping and grab-it-while-you-can that it doesn't seem to realize it is shooting itself in the foot. As they say, be careful what you wish for, because $100 oil and up is probably going to happen only under two possible scenarios: A) Total chaos in the Middle East, or, B) A Democratic power grab. Vis a vis the above writer's opinion that the Left will do anything to bring about $100 oil so as to derail Trump's bid for reelection, there is really nothing they can do while he's president and supported by a Republican Senate. The only way we can, as a nation, bring about $100 oil is by shifting to a Democrat power, throwing vast sums at renewables, placing restraints on hydrocarbons. It's just a matter of time until unfettered flaring catches the attention of the world, fanning the flames of indignation--because that satellite image is damning.

The US needs an energy policy--just as it has needed one since 1950. We are energy-independent, if we had more pipelines, clean refineries, conversion of antique refineries to handle our homegrown shale oil, and if we can develop carbon capture techniques. That takes $100 oil. But we're more apt to put the pedal to the metal, gun and run, pump and dump . . . and stay mired in barely-profitable economic circumstances.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

$100 oil? I would like to see it, and I'm about as conservative as they get. I make my living from oil and gas. The price of crude oil has been insufficient to support various and sundry needs of producers for several years now. Saudi Arabia needs at least $85 oil in order to support their welfare state, which is growing. Many OPEC countries needs higher prices to allow them to emerge from Third World status. The US needs oil close to $100 to support shale oil drilling, since nine of ten drillers are currently losing money. Would $100 oil wreck the market? Sure, it would lead to another glut, another crash, then a rash of bankruptcies, and so on.

< snip long but outstanding analysis >

@Gerry Maddoux I shared your comment above on LinkedIn, for more eyes to see it: 

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6558818470748884992