Question: Why are oil futures so low through 2020?

[D Coyne + 305]

11 hours ago, wrs said:

Even the independent is more dense than that now.  He has 5 wells on a 675 acre section while XTO has 24 on 640.  Most of the XTO wells are Wolfcamp, only a couple are Bone Springs.  All of the indpendent's wells are Wolfcamp, he hasn't tried Bone Springs yet.  He told me that it wouldn't be out of the question to eventually have 32 wells on the 675 acre section in the Wolfcamp.  The Wolfcamp has multiple layers with the deeper ones being more gassy.

wrs,

What is the average length of the wells you are talking about? Perhaps XOM has average wells with longer laterals, that affects the acres per well, along with spacing.

[D Coyne + 305]

On 2/13/2020 at 8:03 AM, wrs said:

You would think that makes sense but wall street values the companies on reserves and completions add to reserves.  It's not as simple as it seems and also, one producer won't make a difference, all have to cut back to make a difference.  If they all agreed to cut back that would be an illegal cartel action and I am sure Trump would be all over them with the DOJ.

wrs,

I agree one producer won't make a difference, so producers get together and petition the RRC to control output, just as the RRC did from 1945 to 1970, it was legal then, and as far as I understand would be legal now.  The RRC would be doing it for the good of the oil industry in Texas,  overproduction which drives oil prices to levels that destroy the oil industry is likely not good for the state of Texas, at least in my opinion, but I am not from Texas.

As a royalty owner, wouldn't higher oil prices benefit you?  Perhaps those collecting royalties should join with oil producers in asking the RRC to act to control Texas oil output as they once did (prior to 1971).

Edited February 14, 2020 by D Coyne

[Mike Shellman + 548]

15 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

petition the RRC to control output,

Restricting oil production (allowables) in frac induced horizontal wells ultimately leads to mechanical problems downhole and can't be done reasonably. Limiting the number of future wells drilled per acre of land, the distance between wells and from lease or unit lines can be done by the Texas RRC, easily, thru existing Statewide Rules. Those rules are statutory laws in Texas that basically three elected officials have chosen to overlook. As a result we have overdrilled these shales and shaley carbonate plays, wells are bumping into each other, gas to oil ratios, a precursor to depletion, is going up, recovery factors of OOIP are going down, product prices are low and going lower (as is associated tax revenue), infrastructure is lagging, flaring is on the rise, employment is unstable and going down and we export almost 4MM BLTOPD from Texas at a financial loss...oil we'll wish we had back someday.

We can always go back and drill in between wells later, when prices are higher and America's oil can stay in America, for Americans. 

People benefiting from all this shale stuff, like royalty owners and corporate CEO's, will argue the merits of conserving our county's hydrocarbon resources for our LONG TERM energy security all day long; they want money and they want it now. Balls to the wall development of oil and gas is some sort of "political' or moral victory (like "freedom gas!"). Those people almost inevitably believe America is sitting on an ocean of shale oil. 

The shale industry does not need to petition the Texas RRC to slow the rate of shale oil and shale gas growth. They'd never do that ! They're all trapped like goats in a pen right now and have to borrow baby borrow, drill baby drill to pay back debt and stay afloat. Voters in Texas can change all of this, beginning in November, and at the ballot box. But they have to first be made to believe that our hydrocarbon resources are limited and in dire need of better management. That takes being able to think past next week. Even consumers relishing in cheap gasoline prices need to understand that someday very soon the great shale revolution will be recognized as on giant step forward, briefly, and three steps back, forever. 

 

 

[wrs + 893]

37 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

wrs,

I agree one producer won't make a difference, so producers get together and petition the RRC to control output, just as the RRC did from 1945 to 1970, it was legal then, and as far as I understand would be legal now.  The RRC would be doing it for the good of the oil industry in Texas,  overproduction which drives oil prices to levels that destroy the oil industry is likely not good for the state of Texas, at least in my opinion, but I am not from Texas.

As a royalty owner, wouldn't higher oil prices benefit you?  Perhaps those collecting royalties should join with oil producers in asking the RRC to act to control Texas oil output as they once did (prior to 1971).

Dennis,

I don't think any of them want to do anything other than manage their own output as they see fit.  Your suggestion also only applies to Texas and would not affect New Mexico or the Bakken and it wouldn't help with the dry gas problem either.  It would likely be seen as hurting the Texas producers and helping the others, not unlike how OPEC feels about shale.  The only thing that is going to change the behavior is low prices and honestly, that didn't bother KSA a couple of years ago when they imposed low prices on us at much lower production levels.  I guess turnabout is fair play.

I also think that the market players on the short side and those who would like to swoop in and grab up some good oil properties for cheap are spinning this story of unprofitability and dumping on this sector unfairly.  Look at all the other zombie companies out there, Amazon doesn't make money on anything but AWS, Netflix loses money, Uber loses money, lot's of companies continue to stay in business on cheap credit, it's not just the oil industry.  That's on the Fed.  The real-estate industry is the biggest bubble of all.

Obviously higher prices would benefit me but higher production does too.  I don't care to have resources trapped that will never be used and you see a lot of that kind of talk these days.  It's why XOM is having trouble with it's stock price right now.  There is a huge public push against FFs so while I don't like the low prices, it would be worse to have limited production and low prices which I am quite sure would eventually happen.

Edited February 14, 2020 by wrs

[wrs + 893]

52 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

wrs,

What is the average length of the wells you are talking about? Perhaps XOM has average wells with longer laterals, that affects the acres per well, along with spacing.

My sections are approximately one mile on each side, laterals are 4500-5000 ft to conform with lease line spacing rules set by the RRC.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

1 hour ago, D Coyne said:

What many fail to realize is that the best locations tend to be drilled first and gradually the average new well EUR will decrease at some point.

How does one know which are the best locations?

In the Bakken, at least, the biggest wells right now are coming in on previously condemned acreage: Bruin picked up Tier-3 property for next to nothing and drilled 8 wells from a pad with a cumulative IP24 of 49,000 boe/d (average 6131/well--81% oil). The largest was the FB James, #150-90-3A-10-6B, which produced an IP24 of 7,798 boe/d (again 81% oil). These are pretty good Tier-3 wells. That's in McKenzie County. Hess did the same thing in McKenzie. Marathon first did that in Dunn County (Lars well).

Now school is still out on what the rate of decline will be, but so far it looks to be following the curve. The thickness of the shale may not make as much difference as most thought, because fracturing of the rock only propagates so far from the well-bore. The difference may lie much more in how oil-soaked the rock is than how thick it is. If so, that will change the calculus in a myriad of ways. In the Bakken right now, the best plays are far from the so-called "core" of yesteryear.

It should be noted that these all came from the Bakken formation, with a lower Three Forks shelf. The lower shelf seems to be more oil-soaked (Newton's law must apply underground too). The Permian is the prime example of a stacked shale formation (Bone Spring I, II, II with a lower Wolfcamp--I don't know much about the Avalon on top). 

My point? Cumulatively, we're looking at probably 15 million acres containing stacked formations of oil-soaked shale, and the most oil-soaked aren't necessarily the thickest. In fact, the farther down you go, the gassier the play in most cases. Since NG has turned into the Great Satan of shale, a lot of oil is going to be taken from fairly shallow plays that aren't all that thick. With accurate drilling right down the thoroughfare, the shale only has to be thick enough to accommodate the circumference of the fracture lines propagating out from the well-bore.

[wrs + 893]

42 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

How does one know which are the best locations?

Only by drilling them.  That is the only way they have been able to determine what's good and where the sweet spots are in the horizons.  All this tier talk is sounding like peak oil, dreadfully misinformed and incorrect. Ghawar was supposed to be nearly out of production by now according to Matt Simmons.

Edited February 14, 2020 by wrs

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

^^^^^^

EXACTLY MY POINT!

[BLA + 1,666]

1 minute ago, BLA said:

Obviously higher prices would benefit me but higher production does too.  I don't care to have resources trapped that will never be used and you see a lot of that kind of talk these days. 

It's why XOM is having trouble with it's stock price right now.  There is a huge public push against FFs so while I don't like the low prices, it would be worse to have limited production and low prices which I am quite sure would eventually happen  

"I don't care to have resources trapped that will never be used and you see a lot of that kind of talk these day"

The stranded reserves talk is starting to get louder and louder.  These voices will rise in the coming years.  When it gets to a certain level you will see a stampede to pump and sell as much of their oil ASAP. Damm the price.

Morgan Stanley believes peak demand is coming in 2025.

It's like hardware stores selling snow shovels in March at 50 cents on the dollar. Fifty percent off is better than zero cents on the dollar.

This is why Russia is resisting increased  OPEC + cuts at this time.  Should Russia cut production so Saudi  Arabia (China is largest Saudi buyer) can sell more oil to China at Russia's expense ? Don't think so.

Russia might make some type of support announcement , just won't really comply. A "surprise" Russian announcement would bump oil price up short term. 

Edited February 14, 2020 by BLA

[0R0 + 6,251]

10 hours ago, Mike Shellman said:

The shale industry does not need to petition the Texas RRC to slow the rate of shale oil and shale gas growth. They'd never do that ! They're all trapped like goats in a pen right now and have to borrow baby borrow, drill baby drill to pay back debt and stay afloat. Voters in Texas can change all of this, beginning in November, and at the ballot box. But they have to first be made to believe that our hydrocarbon resources are limited and in dire need of better management. That takes being able to think past next week. Even consumers relishing in cheap gasoline prices need to understand that someday very soon the great shale revolution will be recognized as on giant step forward, briefly, and three steps back, forever. 

 

Wall street and banks are not lending any longer. The best you can do is roll over the loans where the bank prefers to have you in business and servicing it rather than being out of biz and selling the debt settlement at a discount.

It is in the nature of all depleting resources that they are one step forward and two steps back. Which is why we are so happy that Solar and wind are actually cheaper for electric production where and when they work than FFs. The pinch being that if you restrict FFs then you have fewer resources to install renewables.

[0R0 + 6,251]

8 hours ago, wrs said:

Only by drilling them.  That is the only way they have been able to determine what's good and where the sweet spots are in the horizons.  All this tier talk is sounding like peak oil, dreadfully misinformed and incorrect. Ghawar was supposed to be nearly out of production by now according to Matt Simmons.

It was, if you didn't use active pressure management. It wasn't squirting it into the sky on its own anymore. But that was not a technologically impervious brick wall.

[D Coyne + 305]

9 hours ago, wrs said:

My sections are approximately one mile on each side, laterals are 4500-5000 ft to conform with lease line spacing rules set by the RRC.

wrs,

If XOM wells are 9500 feet laterals on average and similar spacing to your wells, obviously the number of acres per well would be doubled for XOM wells compared to yours.  How many wells per section on average?  I am not familiar with RRC spacing rules.

[D Coyne + 305]

12 hours ago, 0R0 said:

Wall street and banks are not lending any longer. The best you can do is roll over the loans where the bank prefers to have you in business and servicing it rather than being out of biz and selling the debt settlement at a discount.

It is in the nature of all depleting resources that they are one step forward and two steps back. Which is why we are so happy that Solar and wind are actually cheaper for electric production where and when they work than FFs. The pinch being that if you restrict FFs then you have fewer resources to install renewables.

0R0,

The idea is to enforce spacing and flaring rules so that oversupply is reduced.  For those that claim other states are not affected, North Dakota is already enforcing its flaring (aka gas capture) rules and Colorado has enacted laws that may slow development of the tight oil resource there.  The Permian basin is where the bulk of the increasing tight oil output will come from so Texas and New Mexico are where rule changes are needed to keep output at a level where the industry can be profitable.

I am not advocating that the industry be shut down, just managed properly for the benefit of all.

[wrs + 893]

2 hours ago, D Coyne said:

wrs,

If XOM wells are 9500 feet laterals on average and similar spacing to your wells, obviously the number of acres per well would be doubled for XOM wells compared to yours.  How many wells per section on average?  I am not familiar with RRC spacing rules.

Dennis,

I don't understand your math or your question.  I don't know for sure why XTO has put so many wells on my 640 acre section.  I also don't know what their average lateral is on other leases but on my lease, they can't be longer than about 4800 feet without some rule 37 exceptions so there are none longer than that.  They obviously haven't violated any spacing rules.  The RRC has statewide spacing and density rules (rule 37 &38 ) and field specific spacing and density rules.  Rule 37 deals with leasline spacing and 38 addresses density of wells in the lease. Each field can have different rules subject to approval by the comission.  

You can read this https://www.oilandgaslawyerblog.com/landowners-need-know-field-rules/ to get a feel for how it works.  However, the old system really isn't applicable to the shale geology and reservoir formation.  It's so different that the RRC really can't figure out how to manage it and operators don't know how much acreage they are draining per lateral.  It's almost impossible to tell.

Your assumption that an external entity can manage all ths better than the people actually doing the drilling and production is just wishful thinking.  It's the kind of thinking that lets gov't bureaucrats involve themselves in matters they have no understanding of and make a workable situation into a total disaster.  Govt is only good at collecting taxes and wasting them on useless projects.

I want to ask you, what is the benefit of all?  Is this your land or your resource?  No, it's my land and my resource and the E&P companies have leased it from me in order to produce it.  These reservoirs are not permeable until they are frac'd so it's really a matter of how far the fractures extend as to how much is actually drained.  What business of yours is it how my oil is produced and sold?

Here are the latest field rules for the Phantom Wolfcamp

https://www.rrc.texas.gov/media/48021/08-10856-afr-ord.pdf

Edited February 15, 2020 by wrs

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

3 hours ago, D Coyne said:

For those that claim other states are not affected, North Dakota is already enforcing its flaring (aka gas capture) rules and Colorado has enacted laws that may slow development of the tight oil resource there. 

1. North Dakota has been fully as delinquent as Texas in allowing prolonged flaring. 

2. Colorado has basically shut down new production, which will bite them in the butt.

[D Coyne + 305]

4 hours ago, wrs said:

Dennis,

I don't understand your math or your question.  I don't know for sure why XTO has put so many wells on my 640 acre section.  I also don't know what their average lateral is on other leases but on my lease, they can't be longer than about 4800 feet without some rule 37 exceptions so there are none longer than that.  They obviously haven't violated any spacing rules.  The RRC has statewide spacing and density rules (rule 37 &38 ) and field specific spacing and density rules.  Rule 37 deals with leasline spacing and 38 addresses density of wells in the lease. Each field can have different rules subject to approval by the comission.  

You can read this https://www.oilandgaslawyerblog.com/landowners-need-know-field-rules/ to get a feel for how it works.  However, the old system really isn't applicable to the shale geology and reservoir formation.  It's so different that the RRC really can't figure out how to manage it and operators don't know how much acreage they are draining per lateral.  It's almost impossible to tell.

Your assumption that an external entity can manage all ths better than the people actually doing the drilling and production is just wishful thinking.  It's the kind of thinking that lets gov't bureaucrats involve themselves in matters they have no understanding of and make a workable situation into a total disaster.  Govt is only good at collecting taxes and wasting them on useless projects.

I want to ask you, what is the benefit of all?  Is this your land or your resource?  No, it's my land and my resource and the E&P companies have leased it from me in order to produce it.  These reservoirs are not permeable until they are frac'd so it's really a matter of how far the fractures extend as to how much is actually drained.  What business of yours is it how my oil is produced and sold?

Here are the latest field rules for the Phantom Wolfcamp

https://www.rrc.texas.gov/media/48021/08-10856-afr-ord.pdf

wrs,

My bad, you had referred to your independent operator, I forgot you had wells operated by XTO.

I know from shale profile the average lateral length in the Permian has increased from about 7000 feet to about 9000 feet over the past 5 years. I have not seen the specific numbers for XTO, perhaps the wells on your land is typical for XTO wells, or they may be anomolous.

[wrs + 893]

56 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

wrs,

My bad, you had referred to your independent operator, I forgot you had wells operated by XTO.

I know from shale profile the average lateral length in the Permian has increased from about 7000 feet to about 9000 feet over the past 5 years. I have not seen the specific numbers for XTO, perhaps the wells on your land is typical for XTO wells, or they may be anomolous.

Part of the issue is getting two sections vertically contiguous because of the ownership out in the trans-pecos region being checkerboarded. The trans-pecos was surveyed by Texas Pacific RailRoad and in return the state of Texas gave them every other section in a checkerboard pattern.  Most of the land is in the TPLT but the minerals were leased/sold (not sure which) to Texaco in the 60s or earlier.  

My great grandfather bought four sections from the state in 1907 when the state decided to sell most of what they had left.  However, some of that land is called minerals classified and some is fee simple.  We had one minerals classified section which we sold.  The fee simple ones are what we kept.  It's a complicated ownership structure out there and the minerals are chopped up even more because they were traded around like money.  So it's often hard for the operators to get all the minerals in a single section much less two sections on top of one another.

I looked at a couple of other leases owned by XTO in Loving County where they are developing the Phantom Wolfcamp.  In those leases they have two sections one on top of the other.  In those cases they are using the longer laterals but their production isn't double what ours is.  Of course I am not sure how many wells they are producing at any given time because it's not reported on a per well basis.  As to the acreage per well, you can't just divide the total acres by the number of wells because it's clear that the frac only drains maybe 150 feet on each side horizontally and 50 feet or less vertically.  A 5000 foot lateral may only drain 40 acres in that case.  On a 640 acre section that is 16 wells.  Then if you have multiple horizons you can see how the number of wells on a section can be pretty large.

[wrs + 893]

Well as I said before, the chinese love cheap oil, apparently they just can't resist it.

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2020/2/14/oil-too-cheap-to-ignore-sends-chinese-refiners-on-buying-spree#.XkhbXed6zu8.twitter

So why do the traders give the buyers a benefit?  This is whythe oil market is so stupid.  The producers get screwed over something that really isn't reducing actual oil demand but fuel demand.  The refiners are buying cheap oil just because traders over react.  Hope we see a big bounce on Monday especially now that the mideast is heating up again.

 

Houthis shot down a KSA jet and Al Queda shot down another Syrian helicopter.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/yemens-houthis-shoot-down-saudi-jet-advanced-surface-air-missile

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/2nd-syrian-helicopter-brought-down-manpad-only-few-days

Edited February 15, 2020 by wrs

[D Coyne + 305]

17 hours ago, wrs said:

Part of the issue is getting two sections vertically contiguous because of the ownership out in the trans-pecos region being checkerboarded. The trans-pecos was surveyed by Texas Pacific RailRoad and in return the state of Texas gave them every other section in a checkerboard pattern.  Most of the land is in the TPLT but the minerals were leased/sold (not sure which) to Texaco in the 60s or earlier.  

My great grandfather bought four sections from the state in 1907 when the state decided to sell most of what they had left.  However, some of that land is called minerals classified and some is fee simple.  We had one minerals classified section which we sold.  The fee simple ones are what we kept.  It's a complicated ownership structure out there and the minerals are chopped up even more because they were traded around like money.  So it's often hard for the operators to get all the minerals in a single section much less two sections on top of one another.

I looked at a couple of other leases owned by XTO in Loving County where they are developing the Phantom Wolfcamp.  In those leases they have two sections one on top of the other.  In those cases they are using the longer laterals but their production isn't double what ours is.  Of course I am not sure how many wells they are producing at any given time because it's not reported on a per well basis.  As to the acreage per well, you can't just divide the total acres by the number of wells because it's clear that the frac only drains maybe 150 feet on each side horizontally and 50 feet or less vertically.  A 5000 foot lateral may only drain 40 acres in that case.  On a 640 acre section that is 16 wells.  Then if you have multiple horizons you can see how the number of wells on a section can be pretty large.

wrs,

yes you are correct we have to think in volume terms as in many cases there might be 4 or even 6 wells that might be stacked in a given area.  But to simplify, lets consider a single horizon such as Wolfcamp A in a given area and assume this is the most productive target for that area, let's further assume 800 foot spacing has been determined by operators using best practices to give the highest output per lateral foot on average (note I am guessing here at 800 feet, we could simply call it x, to be determined by producers).  My point was simply that at the optimal spacing x, the acres per well would be roughly  x times y for a lateral length of y for any given horizon z.  If y1 for one well is half of y2 for a second well on a set of sections lined up to allow the longer lateral, then acres allocated would double for the longer well.

Thanks for the history lesson, interesting indeed.

[BLA + 1,666]

17 hours ago, wrs said:

Well as I said before, the chinese love cheap oil, apparently they just can't resist it.

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2020/2/14/oil-too-cheap-to-ignore-sends-chinese-refiners-LPon-buying-spree#.XkhbXed6zu8.twitter

So why do the traders give the buyers a benefit?  This is whythe oil market is so stupid.  The producers get screwed over something that really isn't reducing actual oil demand but fuel demand.  The refiners are buying cheap oil just because traders over react.  Hope we see a big bounce on Monday especially now that the mideast is heating up again.

WRS

Great news . . . more conflict and war.    Hopefully it breaks out to an all out war and you can collect bigger royalty checks on your grandfather's land purchases.  So what if thousands lose their life. You'll be making a killing.

Then the drinks are on you.  Or I guess really your grandfather.

As I said last Weds we were due for a conflict flare-up in the persian gulf. 

WRS, you and the Saudis think alike.  Please don't start killing journalist like them. 

Edited February 16, 2020 by BLA

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 2/14/2020 at 8:21 AM, Gerry Maddoux said:

Your target is moving, Dennis.

In December, you said the Permian would peak about 2025.

Keep going . . . .

I think Permian will peak in 2023 due to uptake of EV/PHEV's.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 2/14/2020 at 11:54 PM, Mike Shellman said:

Restricting oil production (allowables) in frac induced horizontal wells ultimately leads to mechanical problems downhole and can't be done reasonably. Limiting the number of future wells drilled per acre of land, the distance between wells and from lease or unit lines can be done by the Texas RRC, easily, thru existing Statewide Rules. Those rules are statutory laws in Texas that basically three elected officials have chosen to overlook. As a result we have overdrilled these shales and shaley carbonate plays, wells are bumping into each other, gas to oil ratios, a precursor to depletion, is going up, recovery factors of OOIP are going down, product prices are low and going lower (as is associated tax revenue), infrastructure is lagging, flaring is on the rise, employment is unstable and going down and we export almost 4MM BLTOPD from Texas at a financial loss...oil we'll wish we had back someday.

We can always go back and drill in between wells later, when prices are higher and America's oil can stay in America, for Americans. 

People benefiting from all this shale stuff, like royalty owners and corporate CEO's, will argue the merits of conserving our county's hydrocarbon resources for our LONG TERM energy security all day long; they want money and they want it now. Balls to the wall development of oil and gas is some sort of "political' or moral victory (like "freedom gas!"). Those people almost inevitably believe America is sitting on an ocean of shale oil. 

The shale industry does not need to petition the Texas RRC to slow the rate of shale oil and shale gas growth. They'd never do that ! They're all trapped like goats in a pen right now and have to borrow baby borrow, drill baby drill to pay back debt and stay afloat. Voters in Texas can change all of this, beginning in November, and at the ballot box. But they have to first be made to believe that our hydrocarbon resources are limited and in dire need of better management. That takes being able to think past next week. Even consumers relishing in cheap gasoline prices need to understand that someday very soon the great shale revolution will be recognized as on giant step forward, briefly, and three steps back, forever. 

 

 

I agree Mike. I would add that US planning to export too much LNG as well. Australia making same mistake. We paying triple as much for domestic gas and our foreign customers getting the stuff below cost!

[D Coyne + 305]

2 hours ago, Wombat said:

I think Permian will peak in 2023 due to uptake of EV/PHEV's.

Wombat,

I don't think EVs will reduce demand below supply until 2037 or so, note I expect EVs will help reduce the shortage that will arise as oil peaks in 2025 or 2026, but it will take 17 years before there will be enough uptake of BEVs and plugin hybrids and hybrids that demand will be reduced below the level of supply.  Once that occurs, oil prices may start to fall.

[D Coyne + 305]

1 hour ago, Wombat said:

I agree Mike. I would add that US planning to export too much LNG as well. Australia making same mistake. We paying triple as much for domestic gas and our foreign customers getting the stuff below cost!

In the US natural gas is quite cheap, currently the problem for producers is over supply and prices so low that nobody can make any money.

[wrs + 893]

4 hours ago, BLA said:

WRS

Great news . . . more conflict and war.    Hopefully it breaks out to an all out war and you can collect bigger royalty checks on your grandfather's land purchases.  So what if thousands lose their life. You'll be making a killing.

Then the drinks are on you.  Or I guess really your grandfather.

As I said last Weds we were due for a conflict flare-up in the persian gulf. 

WRS, you and the Saudis think alike.  Please don't start killing journalist like them. 

I'm not causing any of that, simply commenting on it.  You are obviously an envious person as you are attempting to belittle me over my good fortune.  Bad Karma for you BLA.