Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
priceless. apparently you are too lazy to actually read the Articles.
tax fraud was considered and REJECTED as an Article of Impeachment by the Judiciary Committee. Impeachment and conviction only occurs for the specified Articles - NOT your wishful thinking.
maybe it's rarely talked about because your claim is BS. There are 3 uses of the word tax in the Articles and they refer to Nixon illegally using tax audits and investigations against others. Tax evasion by Nixon is not mentioned anywhere in the Articles of Impeachment - which are a just a bit more authoritative than a Christian Science newspaper article.
There were 3 articles of impeachment. The 1st involved the Watergate breakin, the 2nd was misuse of executive office employees such as the IRS to threaten political enemies, and the 3rd was failure to comply with
congressional subpoena - sound familiar? (e.g. several Obama appointees). Those subpoena related to the tapes and other correspondence and had nothing to do with tax evasion.
Nixon was going to be impeached for politicizing the IRS. Until Obama nobody else had done such a thing and i dont remember any democrats complaining then. It's more than hypocritical to be whining about something as trivial as the FDA pushing GMOs especially since it actually is something that belongs in their domain.
“It is not the responsibility of the FDA to mount a government-controlled propaganda campaign to convince the American public that genetically modified foods are safe,” said Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.)
what the hell does she think was happening over past 8 yrs in practically any federal department outside defense?
potentially useful set of reports on mineral resources (free)
Future Global Mineral Resources
by Nicholas T. Arndt, Lluís Fontboté, Jeffrey W. Hedenquist, Stephen E. Kesler, John F.H. Thompson, Dan G. Wood
http://www.geochemicalperspectives.org/online/v6n1
direct link to pdf
http://www.geochemicalperspectives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/v6n1.pdf
suitable to lay people with interest in mineral resource occurrences and investing as well as technical people who are non-specialists in ores/economic geology.
Abridged table of contents
1. Metals and Minerals, now and in the Future
2. Formation of Mineral Deposits
3. Mineral Exploration: Discovering and Defining Ore Bodies
4. Exploring Mineral Deposits
5. Estimating Ultimate Resources
Appendix: Exploration methods
edit: some of the conclusions in above run contrary to conclusions in
Natural Resources in a Planetary Perspective
http://www.geochemicalperspectives.org/online/v3n2
my knee jerk thought was that this was due to reduction in coal utilization for base load power generation and replacement with natural gas didnt keep pace. Those things did occur but seems the kicker is that they've had a large reduction in hydro-electric power generation. I'm sure they'll ascribe the latter to climate change but not like a drought in Australia should've been a big surprise.
PS i like the use of the term "seams of natural gas" without mentioning coal
and even those that know, frequently dont recognize how private ownership drives development and how resource nationalization inhibits development.
i also forgot to mention the lack of infrastructure support for shale development. Countries such as France have the resource and infrastructure but lack private ownership. Countries like Argentina have the resource but lack infrastructure support. China is just AFU (all f'd up)
while there are many potential shale resources outside N. America resource ownership and laws in those countries frequently preclude development of those resources
avg platinum concentrations in siderophillic asteroids are only about 1E2 to 1E4 higher than Earth's crust so space mining of PGEs is an extremely dicey proposition. Much easier to identify geologic bodies on earth that result from the differentiation processes that form ores (metal >> avg concentrations). No guarantee that any particular asteroid will have undergone differentiation beyond gross iron separation and i doubt separating 0.5 to 50 ppm Pt from something that is 90+ wt% Fe & Ni would be more economic than old-fashioned mother Earth.
As for water as a fuel: these folks have a much more practical approach and may actually become investable within few years.
http://www.accion-systems.com/
my bad, you're correct. the $2T was for the entire company
but the 260 billion barrels is total reserves while the $2T is for only 5% of the company so shouldnt that work out to about $150/bbl?
if it wasnt for bad luck...
he came as close as one could possibly come without explicitly stating that he intended to use it as a negotiating tool. He repeatedly mentioned NAFTA in the context of the lumber monologue.
the resurrection of the 1962 law is undoubtedly Ross's idea so i'd bet he intends to use it more vigorously than previous administrations.
sounds like Trump intends to use it more broadly and not just with respect to China; he gave a lot of verbage to lumber as well as steel.
i think the break thru in this case is the development of a MOF that is stable in the presence of H2O. That probably opens up applications and lowers the cost of industrial MOF applications. However, the use of MOFs in passive systems to condense water for large scale human consumption is an implausible application, e.g. 1 kg MOF/3 kg H2O in 12 hours would only be useful for peculiar emergency situations. Using MOFs in a pumped system to condense water might be much more effective but i doubt if it would condense water much cheaper than a dehumidifier.
i obviously did not say that. What I did say is that the US was one of 3 regions that would be most responsive to price increases.
i wouldnt bet on the rest of the world ramping up. I suspect operational costs will keep a lid on North Sea production. South America and Africa are political and logistical messes and they dont pay their bills. Sanctions on Russia & Iran are likely to increase. A good chunk of Canadian oil is expensive to produce and ship. That leaves the Middle East, the US and maybe Mexico as 1st responders. OPEC is likely to maintain their version of discipline if Iran goes back under the thumb and Iraq doesnt go rogue. Obviously Europe and Canada will ramp as prices increase but i think we're still many months away from demand driving an expansion in exploration activity in 'frontier' areas and deep water.
thus the mention of Carter. It was largely dormant until Obama came along and started using it as an extortion tool that it became completely onerous to business operations. If Clinton had been elected and continued to apply it in the same way, it probably wouldve been challenged.
https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/taking-aim-at-the-foreign-corrupt-practices-act/?_r=0
the FCPA is one of those things that needs to go and will probably eventually be ruled unconstitutional if not repealed. It would be a great stimulus to business and I'd bet a simple repeal would easily pass congress. Pelosi, Fauxcahontas, other neo-Carterites would wail and knash their teeth but they and their ilk have no idea how much the FCPA impedes simple cross-border trade (and non-commercial intra-company materials transfers). It's ironic that the left is usually adverse to policing other countries but they dont have any problems with the FCPA and FATCA.
Doing away with the FCPA would kill many box-checking jobs but the skill level for those jobs isnt any greater than required for tracking inventory and stacking shelves at Walmart.
The FCPA has obviously had no impact on corruption in 3rd world countries. Because the FCPA is so vague with respect to what can be considered facilitation of corruption, Obama reduced it to a cudgel to extort settlements from unfavored companies - another of his darkages approach to 'taxation' and governance.
thx. opinions vary.
i wouldnt hold my breath for graphene becoming a cheap means of converting seawater to potable water. Cheaper means already exist. Graphene has apparently become a scientific and commercial fad where funding has become easily available so any yahoo can dabble in their own niche topical area. I know a bunch of guys who set up a graphene focused company and none of them know anything about chemistry but apparently some VC funders were swayed.
just in case it matters: in the case you posted, graphene/graphite-oxide sheets are stacked with the plane of the sheets parallel to the direction of flow (if i knew how to paste images, this would be clearer). The distance between the stacks is just large enough to pass water molecules while electrical repulsion effects between solute ions an localized charges at the channel entrances preclude passage of the solute ions thru the channels (the authors appear to claim that it's an ion hydration sphere size effect but that's bunk cuz the hydrating H2O molecules are not statically associated with individual ions). This ends up making the water on one side of the graphene 'filter' very salty while the other side is nearly pure water. As a consequence of that situation there is a progressively greater osmotic gradient which opposes the mechanical pressure applied to force water thru the 'filter'. Reverse osmosis water purifiers have the same problem which can obviously be dealt with but if osmotic water purification systems can do the same job for lower cost, why bother with graphene?
For a good chunk of the world, the biggest problem with water is not lack of quantity or dissolved salts but the nasty biologics in or associated with the available water. Of course, if those problems are slain the cure begets additional problems.
In the US there is simply enormous waste. If more people in the US (I'd focus on California) had to occasionally carry their daily useage from a well or spring i suspect there would be a lot less waste and fewer stupid regulations. A few less golf courses in places where there shouldnt be golf courses wouldnt be missed.
not one of my things but doubt that if anyone is spouting such numbers, i would ignore them. First would be the question of what is being defined as groundwater and how is it being quantified.
If memory correct, water considered suitable for agricultural purposes contains less than 10k ppm salts (<1 wt%). There's much more water in the subsurface that contains higher concentrations of solutes. One could manipulate appearances by mixing and matching those different solutions.
Groundwater could be anything from the water percolating down thru your yard soil to water in a confined stratigraphic unit 1000s of ft below the surface.
i'm confident that the amount of water extracted from the subsurface is proportional to the number of water wells drilled so if there were more water wells drilled into a specific aquifer at the same distance from its principle recharge area last year vs 10 yrs ago, then i'd say there's less extractable water in that aquifer at the specified extraction area. There will still be water in the aquifer at anytime but water is like oil in that there comes a point where the residual water becomes unextractable, either because of physical limitations or economic limitations. So worrying only about there being less is not the most relevant question.
Worrying about quantity is wasted consideration. Worrying about what is going into 'waste' water and what happens with that water is a much more worthwhile thing to worry about. IMHO much more so than CO2.
w/o looking at the full set of details in the deal it looks like more ammo for COP getting more benefit from the deal. C$52 is what the price for WCS was in Feb2017 and i suspect CVE wasnt making money at that price.
fresh water is obviously a natural resource but investing in water is probably a poor choice. investments around water can be a sterling investment thesis. For example, Los Angeles was a an inconsequential dusty berg until some enterprising individuals who had substantial real estate investments in the area convinced the local and state government authorities to take ownership in remote sources of water and build the infrastructure to deliver that water to LA. I suspect it is still cheaper to build pipelines and dams than build and operate desalination or recycling plants.
As for the rainfall/groundwater connection. It's not so much about rainfall as it is about flow. The surface recharge of an aquifer may be many 100s of miles from the extraction point. If the subsurface recharge at the extraction point is less than the extraction rate, then there is depletion and eventual loss of production regardless of rainfall activity in the area of surface recharge and the time lag between water entering an aquifer and extraction can be many years (> decades).
the last thing consumers need is more labeling on their food products. Canadians have already run out of surface area on their food products for gibberish.
buried somewhere in that article was a comment regarding risk of permanent damage to the reservoir if steam chambers werent maintained. Under that circumstance somebody has to make a very expensive call. I wouldnt be surprised if the call made in some cases had the worst possible outcome (continued injection and production over a longer period of unprofitable oil prices than projected).
i suspect there are or will be some government "incentives" provided to CVE. Otherwise i'm with you in not seeing how this can continue to work.
http://blog.ihs.com/energy-oil-sands
2nd story
crude but this will definitely work. thx for letting me know about problems
Wednesday, 17 February 2016 by Kevin Birn
What does it cost to produce a barrel of oil in the Canadian oil sands—a source of supply often considered higher cost?
With the price of WTI falling below $US30/bbl (all prices in $USD unless otherwise noted) at the start of 2016, this is a question that has captured a lot of interest.
IHS recently released a detailed review of oil sands costs through the IHS Oil Sands Dialogue. The complete report is available here: www.ihs.com/oilsandsdialogue
The cost to produce oil in the oil sands is made up of the upfront capital cost required to first construct a facility, the cost to operate a facility once it is online, and the periodic cost to sustain production by replacing worn out equipment or parts or, in case of in situ projects to drill new wells pairs over time. These costs, plus an assumed 10% return on investment, are often referred to as “full-cycle” costs.
On a full-cycle basis, IHS estimated that a new greenfield oil sands mine (without an upgrader) required a WTI price between $85 to $95 per barrel on average in 2015—to breakeven. An steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) project required between $55 to $65 per barrel to breakeven. Expansion of an existing SAGD facility required about $5 per barrel less to breakeven.
Average full-cycle costs in the oil sands fell by about $5/bbl on an annual average basis in 2015 from 2014. Several factors help explain this. Lower upstream activity enabled oil sands producers to access more efficient equipment and labor at lower rates. Producers also benefited from even cheaper natural gas. At the same time, oil sands facilities achieved higher utilization rates, which reduced operating cost per unit of output. Further reductions are possible as activity slows further and producers remain focused on efficiencies.
With oil prices at low levels, the viability of existing operations has come into focus
Despite cost reductions, as WTI prices fell below $30 per barrel early in 2016, the focus has shifted from full-cycle cost of new projects towards the ability of operators to continue to produce from existing projects.
In this discussion a lot of attention has been paid to operating costs. These costs are typically reported as a well-head or facility level cost. IHS estimated that the average field operating costs towards the end of 2015 for SAGD was just under US$10 per barrel of bitumen, and for mines with upgraders was around US$32 per barrel of synthetic crude oil (SCO).
These costs represent considerable improvement over 2014 when IHS estimated the average field operating costs for SAGD was about $13 per barrel and for mines was just over $42 per barrel. Further reduction may yet be possible as producers continue to explore additional ways to lower cost.
However, to capture the full cash cost to produce a barrel of oil in the oil sands, additional costs need to be considered. For example, there is the additional cost of transporting the oil from field to market. For SAGD, there is also the additional cost of purchasing the diluent that is used to blend with the extra-heavy oil to permit pipeline transport.
Interpretations of operating cost are also complicated because SAGD and mining operations market different grades of crude oil that fetch different prices. SAGD typically market heavier bitumen blends that trade at a discount to WTI while mines with upgraders market lighter synthetic crudes that fetch a premium over WTI. These price relationships (typically the degree of premiums or discounts to WTI) may also vary depending on market changes (e.g. supply and demand changes or transportation issues).
Adjusting for the factors outlined above, IHS estimates that based on the market conditions in January 2016, the cash cost to produce a barrel of oil in the oil sands on WTI basis ranged a few dollars below $30/bbl to just above $40/bbl. Although most oil sands production fell in the lower end of this range, many oil sands operations would have still struggled just to cover the day-to-day cash cost to produce and market a barrel of oil. And this does not include the costs of covering periodic maintenance, corporate overhead or debt payments.
Although operating cost is an illustrative metric of the financial pressure a producer may be under at lower price levels, it may not be the best metric to answer the critical question of: “Will a material shut-in oil sands production occur?”
For all oil production, a decision to shut in is complex. It involves weighting several variables, including: the unique attributes of the type of oil production and reservoir characteristics; the owner’s financial situation; oil price expectations; and the risks and costs associated with shutting-in production. For a large oil sands operator there may be no point at which an indeterminate shut in would be tenable. There are a couple reasons for this thinking.
In 2015, IHS estimated that over 90% of production was backed by large oil sands focused companies and global majors. These type of companies typically have deeper pockets and a large portfolios of assets which they can rely on to offset price weakness, such as downstream refining or even non-oil assets. It is these companies that are more capable of weathering the current price volatility.
A shut in of an oil sands facility comes with considerable risk. This can be particularly true for SAGD projects that use steam to warm bitumen in situ to permit recovery. In the event that a prolonged shut-in were to occur and the reservoir allowed to cool, permanent damage could be done—potentially putting in jeopardy the life of the asset. With a production life of over three decades, owners of oil sands production will most likely make all efforts to preserve the asset.
A shut in of oil sands production is also not without cost. Even if production were shut in, oil sands facilities have fixed costs that will still need to be covered. This includes expenses to cover road access, essential maintenance or pipeline commitments. There may also be ongoing labor costs should the owner plan to restart operation in the future. Many oil sands barrels may also be vertically committed to downstream refiners. Moreover, in the example of a mine, it could take significant investment to restart operations potentially negating the savings from shutting in. Thus, day-to-day cash cost may not be representative of the economics, let alone risk profile, of a shut-in.
Counter-intuitively, the most logical strategy in a low price environment may be to defer all non-essential maintenance and strive for maximum output. This has the benefit of lowering the cost on a per unit basis. In 2015, the output of many facilities reached new heights.
Although conventional production is expected to decline in Canada in 2016, IHS does not anticipate any large scale commercial oil sands facility shutting in. To be certain, lower prices will impact oil sands supply. Production declines from primary oil sands—a process more akin to conventional production—are likely to accelerate (in 2015 primary made up just over 10% of supply). Despite the risks, shut-in of smaller oil sands production could increase the longer the even lower prices of early 2016 linger. Investments into new projects—projects not yet under construction—will continue to be deferred. In the event prices were to fall even further it is possible some in situ producers could curtail steam levels and volumes. However, any negative impacts to supply in 2016 would most likely be offset as new facilities already under construction ramp-up and existing facilities continue to maximize output.
Learn more about IHS Canadian Oil Sands Dialogue or download the recently released report here: www.ihs.com/oilsandsdialogue.
By Kevin Birn on 17 February 2016.
CNAT anybody know what's driving the 20% climb at end of day?
wrt O&G this might produce one of those counter-intuitive outcomes. Lowering costs for producers will be good in the long run but in the near term anything that makes US production cheaper doesnt help oil prices.
Conversely, if trump hasnt whacked the offending BLM regs already, he might save a few GOM focused E&P and rig companies from BK by getting obama's bonding requirments changed back to what they were a few years ago.
i certainly think biochemistry could be productively integrated into oil exploration and production but the oil industry is not known for rapid adoption of things new - particularly technologies involving biology. Most oil industry folks have a hard enough time integrating organic and inorganic chemistry much less biochemistry and genomics.
anybody that is interested in better but still lay-person level descriptions should check out the literature on the biota site: http://www.biota.com/resources/
amongst other things they mention that Illumina is a Biota investor. This sort of thinking gives me the warm fuzzies about Illumina.
somebody should've more critically reviewed the Reuters' story:
I suspect with the impending deaths of more coal and nuclear plants and continued sluggishness in offshore oil and gas and mining, the gas turbine biz is the logical place to emphasize. Hoping for $1T govt infrastructure and wall building seems a bit more iffy.
i wouldnt disparage the technological breakthroughs that have accompanied tight-rock oil production. There have certainly been many important developments but the SI article was hitting the fact that much of the decrease in drilling and production costs is because the service companies have slashed pricing in order to gain or maintain market share. Effectively what Saudi Arabia and Iran have been doing.
When shale exploitation was starting to take off in late 2000s SLB execs were crying that there was no technological useage (at least the relatively expensive technologies SLB offered). Producers were playing run and gun, i.e. drill, frack, repeat and produce those that do produce. Worries about where to frack along a well didnt seem to exist in many companies. Some companies did have a more nuanced approach to their completions but there were relatively cheap technologies available to meet those needs. As an example, SLB committed a major foobar by believing that Geoservices mud-gas sniffing technology could compete in the shale gas market. Problem was that service cost many times more, required multiple SLB bodies, and had a huge footprint. Competing technologies (which already existed) utilized the driller's personnel and facilities and cost a fraction of SLB's so nobody used SLB's product in shale (somehow the geniuses that pushed this as part of the rationale for buying Geoservices still have jobs in SLB).
As an example of the price slashing going on: i had a client recently who had some work done by SLB and there was no request or discussion of discounts prior to having the work done. When the bill was submitted to the client it included a huge discount. Made the client happy but I was shocked.
completely agree with the SI post.
regarding the MF CLB article you linked: 1. some people have a strange idea of what "V" looks like and 2. this comment:
some biologic stereoisomers from algal organisms could conceivably be economically viable for pharmaceutical applications but i would bet that most of the molecules that might end up as food additives would be more cheaply synthesized if the market becomes large enough. (edit:i'd check on vitamin B12 production as a check on that statement). If the food additives remain a niche market then bug growing wins but do you really want to invest in a niche market?
yeah, other governments will continue to fund the bio-fuels angle and even US govt funding lags program death. The CO2 angle is completely foolish but that has never been a good spending restriction.
The materials angle is potentially worthwhile. Part of my research involved catalysis and i suspect that is an on-going area of interest by folks in academia and the oil industry.
not so much regulatory as DoD/Navy was funding research on algal oil to meet jet fuel needs for aircraft carriers in situations where conventional oil sources became severely restricted. Not really a viable alternative in any scenario. I suspect somebody was envisioning another OPEC embargo scenario ala 1973 and '78 but even then, it's an impractical and noncompetitive source. It probably met somebody's definition of a 'shovel ready' work program and it sounded "green" and was probably sold as displacing conventional oil in non-emergency environments so it was funded. I'd bet it's well dead now.
i dont think i weighed in on the prior discussion. I'm very skeptical of the TerraVia as a viable investment. There are or have been several algae farming companies around the world. Several of these have already gone bellyup. The operations that seem to stay in business are those that remain small, privately held companies (http://reedmariculture.com/) that focus mostly on farmed fish and aquarium markets. Those that venture into fuels production and skin care either last as long as government funding lasts or go bellyup because they cant compete with Chinese producers of similar products.
Algae encompasses a diverse set of organisms and some of those organisms are more cheaply harvested "in the wild". The wild sources also dont suffer from things like water shortages and the effects of contamination/disease dont tend to be nearly as catastrophic.
i've dealt with several of these companies as a customer/potential customer as well as doing research on oil extraction and conversion from the wee beasts so that's the source of my knowledge on the matter.
Yes, B4 saying such things became socially unacceptable
Like having to pick between USC and Norte Dame....
i have a suspicion that they just bought themselves $15B ticket to the defendents docket for collision avoidance failures.