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.
part of the reason i dont think the US livestock industry will be tenable under the soon-to-be implemented rules is because the way i read the rules, it appears that vets are responsible for monitoring after drug administration. I don't see this as being an affordable or logistically possible scenario. In addition, responsibility means the vet also carries a liability which i'm sure they will also build into their cost. Without concomitant food price increases - which i'm sure would get the attention of a much larger fraction of the population - it wont work. So something has to go: either the rules or the livestock farmers. The rules will take over a year to make go away and that's after it gets peoples' attention.
I think the existing FDA rules will exacerbate this problem. Raising cattle and pigs in the US will become untenable under existing rules. In addition and in the process of eliminating those producers, cases of diseases such as "pink eye" and "hoof and mouth" disease will blossom. I also, wouldn't be surprised if cases of salmonella contamination do the same.
I dont think killing further increases in ethanol usage in fuels will upset farmers much. Quantity of corn going into fuel ethanol hasnt changed much since 2010.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10339
I suspect refiners and farmers would both be happy if the ethanol rules were killed along with the myriad of other growth inhibiting rules that obama spawned.
BTW: look for meat, cheese, and milk prices to increase after 1Jan2017 due to new rules regarding administration of drugs to animals used for food production. Cows, chickens, goats,... will be effectively treated like people with required prescriptions and administration and monitoring by vets.
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ucm071807.htm
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/CVMUpdates/ucm507355.htm
i dont think CHK is doing anything that other companies havent already done. The length of the lateral mentioned in the WSJ article isnt particularly unusual, e.g.
http://www.aogr.com/magazine/editors-choice/purple-hayes-no.-1h-ushers-in-step-changes-in-lateral-length-well-cost
http://www.halliburton.com/public/news/pubsdata/press_release/2016/halliburton-teams-up-to-complete-longest-lateral-well-in-us.html
and an older one
http://archive.businessjournaldaily.com/drilling-down/longest-lateral-consol-innovates-efficiencies-2013-11-16
Many industry people have long followed the dictum of more sand pumped in fracking begets greater production. CHK probably had a crap load of stages and thus the large amount of sand. The Haynesville tends to be hot and sulfidic and, I'm guessing, the gas is dry (i.e. not a lot of produced water after flowback tails off) I wouldnt be surprised if the reservoir rock characteristics enabled the successful use (that's another assumption) of such a large quantity of sand.
they've done an amazing job of moving debt out but they're still losing crap loads of money and have ~$1B in debt due in next 2.5 yrs - 50% of which is at >6% interest. Even though they've reduced their employee count by 70% they still have a lot of knuckleheads and activities that dont and wont make money. I dont see them making it through.
my point was that drugs would still have to be established as being safe. I would think that the treatment being worse than the disease might still serve as an impediment to lower testing bars. If a drug has already been established as being safe for other indications and then efficacy is established by the market, then, yeah, that's a bit loony. There would be an eruption of contra-indications between "safe" drugs and not-so-safe drugs, e.g. aspirin is considered safe but probably a bad idea to take with warfarin.
However, most of the drug companies I see discussed on this board are for severe or life-threatening diseases and evaluation of safety is on par with efficacy (joined at the hip as stated on your twitter feed). I really dont think anyone is going to volunteer for liability duty by not rigorously evaluating safety in these cases. Of course, that rigorous evaluation cant be completed if a slew of low-bar drugs, that might have undesirable interactions, flood the market.
This law looks like an untenable mess of unintended consequences so i foresee either a slew of amendments in its future or Darwinism gone wild.
Maybe this is a naive thought but regardless of how fast/easy some politicians, FDA bureaucrats, and drug companies might want new drugs to go thru, won't trial centers and the MDs involved be an ultimate brake on the process? I have great faith in liability lawyers' ability to enforce a sense and practice of caution since the MDs and trial patient centers wont want to be hit with a flood of liability lawsuits for enabling approval of flawed or dangerous drugs.
Pruitt's nomination will certainly draw out the wailing and knashing of teeth crowd since he's pissed off folks that worship at every one of Obama's totems. If approved his nomination virtually guarantees that the EPA's rules on carbon emissions and water associated with oil and gas development are toast. Since he's a Kentucky boy, I also wont be surprised if many of the earlier coal industry rules also get flushed and I suspect that connection will also assure that he goes through.
5 CFR Part 2634, Subpart J - Certificates of Divestiture
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2634.1001
i'm sure they will. What i dont get is, if the tax break is granted to avoid conflict of interest, then why on earth did Trump dispose of his stock holdings in June? Unless there's a grandfather clause of at least 6 months he severely screwed himself.
i think you are correct
lmao. and if all goes well he could get a 16% cap gains tax. Wonder if Warren will do a block buy from Rex.
unless the federal government can do hedging via long term futures contracts I'm sure this will be an exercise in buying high and selling low
Both troublesome and not so troublesome. I was thinking Canada, Mexico, etc in addition to the ME countries, Russia, and China. I'm not sure how much he's dealt with pipelines but I'm sure he grasps how important such things are to Turkey and Ukraine and how that importance extends to the relationships those countries have with their neighbors and consequently the well being of the world.
It's an interesting choice and one that should draw thoughtful review but I suspect the response from the left would simply be wailing and knashing of teeth about pushing a fossil fuel agenda and self-dealing. What those folks fail to recognize is that much of the world's unpleasant revolves around oil and religion and in several cases, those things are intertwined and RT has much experience navigating that morass
I'm sure RT has a thorough grasp of the complexities of international trade and has probably dealt personally with the major players. The hard left would undoubtedly hate the choice becuz he's from XOM and they're inherently evil. It would b shades of Dick Cheney and HAL. Consequently, I'm all for it. Of course, I'd b happy with John Bolton so oil or bombs; I'm happy either way.
MIT is just a trade school
;^)
my bad: re forgetting the internet bubble collapse.
while a large debt/GDP is bad, i'll take US debt over Chinese, Russian or Indian debt any day.
However, that gets away from point of US vs GDT. I dont think there is a versus - one comes with the other.
As for the $US falling - personally i'd love for that to happen and the sooner the better. I'm not so sure that's good or bad for the rest of the US.
i think your examples refute the hypothesis in your previous post, i.e.
EPA rules on O&G methane emissions
Federal Register entry
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-06-03/pdf/2016-11971.pdf (this encorporates a slew of Obama's Executive Orders)
The EPA operates under the abomination of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations which effectively criminalizes unpermitted operation of kiddy lemonaid stands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_40_of_the_Code_of_Federal_Regulations
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=74201f3d7670a6a2b77087f9ad90f2db&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl
Parts 51, 52, 60, 70, 71 and 98 (and probably a few others) directly affect O&G production in the US.
synopsis here
https://www.spe.org/en/ogf/ogf-article-detail/?art=2491&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTkRVeFpHSXdZV00wTlRKaSIsInQiOiJlOGxcL0J0WGNRTFQ3ODBoZ1lyV3ZyQU5GQWMyMlpqelpCbmo1S3ExMVl4UFwvU1RjWGo1MGFkdjhLb2w0aWhySUxDS1pBQzQ0UFRSSlJEbW5yMXdJQlFxTmZVUkFhV2lFaUJpbXZxcTZwbUxjPSJ9
New EPA Regulations Issued To Curb Methane and VOC Emissions
That was the obama administration's selling point. I think the real reason was exactly what is happening which was to cut back on O&G E&P.
Under the previous rules smaller companies always partnered with larger companies for the reason you stated. The older rules were sufficient. The Macondo incident was terrible but with respect to economic accountability the old rules were sufficient and worked. Where are the examples of small oil companies being the sole proprietors of wells such as the Macondo (with or without the accident)?
Under the new rules a company with 1% interest in a project has to meet 100% of the estimated "clean-up" cost. That is ridiculous and precludes smaller companies from entering into partnerships which precludes them from ever seeking leases. The new BOEHM rules are another case of the federal government picking which companies can play and they seem to usually pick big.
If Obama had been president in 1848 the California gold rush never would've happened the way it did with the consequences that California statehood and the transcontinental railroads wouldn't have happened before 1900.
one of the things Trump can do relatively quickly that will further help with O&G cap-ex expenditures as well as keeping a few more companies from going BK is to roll back the financial accountability regulations that were issued in July of 2016. The new requirements in those regulations effectively preclude smaller oil companies (i.e. those with <~$300M market cap) from participating in offshore US O&G exploration. They are effectively the equivalent of Dodd-Frank for oil companies (without the inconvenience of being passed by Congress) and with the same contra-intended consequences:
Outlook: Oil, Gas Bankruptcy Fears to Linger Through 2017
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?hpf=1&a_id=147599&utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2016-11-30&utm_content=&utm_campaign=feature_1
this article was written yesterday and i'm somewhat surprised that it wasnt annotated to recognize the OPEC agreement but the situation discussed will probably hold true regardless of the OPEC deal.
keeping small and mid-sized O&G companies in business and exploring in the GOM will not contribute to the existing oil glut since the relative contribution of production from outer continental shelf reservoirs is relatively small and wouldnt be realized for years.
Absolutely (eom) i hate autocorrupt
roughly inversely related to well-being of the company
you're probably correct but there are a lot of loud people who think that fossil fuels present a greater problem (e.g. Obama spends lots of time wailing about climate change but precious little about cigarettes). I was mostly expressing my sardonic view that cigarettes probably have a greater detrimental effect on more people than fossil fuels.
i'll make a bold prediction: a cigarette free world will happen long before fossil fueled electrical power plants lose their market domination. I think several hundred million Chinese will present a problem in either case but i'm sure the PRC will find cigarettes much easier to address.
calling them thugs is being overly generous. OPEC is in an incredibly weak and deteriorating position. If the Saudis were smart they'd perform some sort of face saving exercise, walk away from the fight they started, and come back when the battleground is more in their favor. They've lost this battle. They cant go to a hot, direct war with Iran and if they dont come to grips with the fact that they cant bankrupt their competitors, then they'll end up ruining themselves as well as destabilizing several countries to the point of precipitating other unpleasantness.
It usually involves fish and other organisms - some of which r the 2 legged variety (native Americans who complain about changes in fish populations)
The dams r being removed for 'environmental' reasons usually pushed by the 'activist' community which tends to b composed of folks with a leftward political bent.
California has an interesting and hypocritical classification scheme for hydroelectric dams so as to not completely inconvenience themselves
California, Oregon and Washington have been removing dams over the past 15 yrs
I'm sure some folks will use Canada as a case of "if they can do it, so can we" without actually examining the details of Canada's electrical power generation and then reconciling the Canadian infrastructure with their own ideals of "sustainable" electrical power generation.
Canada derives most of its electrical power from nuclear and hydroelectric plants. The former is non grata everywhere except the 3rd world, France and China. Hydrolelectric is busily being destructed in most of the US where it exists as a contributor and not coincidentally those states are generally run by liberals. Obviously, Canada has a small population concentrated around a few cities - most of which are conveniently situated close to geologic features which support hydroelectric power generation.
I'd be willing to bet that 1. Canadian natural gas will supplant most of the coal that is not burned in Canada and 2. Canada will continue to subsidize Canadian coal mining for export. Those things and their pending carbon taxes will put a further burden on Canadian citizens that wont be supportable from their oil production and increased fuel taxes.
Canada may very well accomplish their 90% "sustainably" sourced electrical power generation by 2030, but the US and most of Europe are nowhere close to being capable of meeting a similar goal and Canada will suffer for their idealism.
Oil Tankers Used to Store Millions of Barrels as Land Sites Fill
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-11/oil-tankers-used-to-store-millions-of-barrels-as-land-sites-fill
story is from a few days ago. the graph is interesting and serves to demonstrate my point about Aramco being in a hard place. In spite of oil prices and North Sea oil employment being in the toilet for the past year, North Sea production is approaching a 4 yr high. Could be interesting if Brent goes for a discount relative to WTI
that 3 days is part of my reason for labeling the rule as being cynical. I'm sure the BLM anticipated Clinton to be President but changing the date for implementation is trivial so I'm sure that the fact that they didnt was an intentional stab at costing natural gas producers $millions. Producers will face fines and litigation if they ignore it while waiting for Trump to reverse the rule - even if he does that on Jan 23. I'd bet there are plenty of vindictive political appointees who will file citations just before walking out the door. Remember Clinton's people are the folks that glued Whitehouse phone receivers down and removed W's from keyboards on their way out the door.
BLM METHANE AND WASTE PREVENTION RULE
The Bureau of Land Management released their final rule on natural gas flaring and emissions yesterday. It applies only to natural gas and oil produced from federal and Indian lands, however, according to the BLM that encompasses ~100k wells.
Not surprisingly it's a cynical exercise in cluelessness and trying to have things both ways. The Obama administration presents the rule as avoiding wastefulness and returning value to the population yet they have blocked all efforts to build pipelines so that the gas can be marketed. The rule requires producers to "use infrared cameras, portable analyzers assisted by audio,
visual and olfactory inspection, or other methods approved by the BLM". Good luck with that in snow and rain storms. The rule also requires producers to pay royalties "at or above 12.5% of the value of production" on any gas that is flared or vented. Apparently royalty has been redefined as penalty. They also apparently didnt learn their lesson from the Deep Water Horizon since penalties for venting except in emergencies apply. Unfortunately, emergency is subjective and hesitation to consider the matter can and has had catastrophic consequences.
As the BLM's fact sheet notes, the EPA is also taking "steps to limit venting, flaring and/or leaks". I think it's safe to assume those rules will extend to production from private property.
The BLM also estimates "the rule's net benefits could range from $46 to $204 million per year". I'd bet that is close to the amount of money they spent in formulating the rule and they also dont seem to realize that given the costs of meeting the requirements of the rules that drilling on and production from public and Indian lands will drop precipitously if the rule stands. 0*n = 0. The BLM itself "estimates that the annual cost to industry of implementing the rule will be $110-279 million." Somehow I think the BLM's concept of value is different from anybody that understands capitalism. I suspect the BLM believes that cost = benefit.
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/oilandgas_WastePreventionRuleFactsheetFinal.pdf
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/oilandgas_WastePreventionRule.pdf
the rule becomes effective 3 days prior to Trump becoming president.
fun with language
gets translated to
may be a petty point but i'd argue OPEC lost control >>10 yrs ago and the only control they've had outside of the 1970s was to lower prices which seems like calling the use of Depends a control on incontinence.
one of the most nonsensical titles of all time
Market to OPEC: Make a Deal or Price Rout Resumes
http://www.wsj.com/articles/market-to-opec-make-a-deal-or-price-rout-resumes-1479304929
not that i want to see a test but i don't see how the Saudis can do much regarding Trump's supposed desire to stop importing Saudi oil (I dont know why he cares about Saudi imports 'cuz it seems like a pointless thing to worry about). I suppose Aramco could kick out US or US-identified companies but I think that would be counter-productive to them and probably throw a lifesaver to many US producers. If Aramco craters oil prices by further increasing production, there's no shortage of producers who can and will continue to sell and they'd be happy to take the market share. Likewise, if Aramco cuts production dramatically, the hallelujah chorus of oil producers around the world will be deafening and again US producers are thrown a lifesaver.
If i'm missing something i'm all ears.
Anyone that's serious about reducing imports of ME oil would unblock the various Canadian/Williston/Bakken pipeline projects and not build walls on the Mexican border.
serious nutcase stuff - obviously some mad scientist succeeded in 'mating' dna from Oliver north and Ellen degeneris . Don't shop at the Austin tx whole foods.
http://www.healthranger.com/Health-Ranger-Biography.html
I'm not clear on your "Bakken perhaps not" comment
fair enough on the admonition. I agree with your earlier comment about pipeline projects - I'm assuming you were referring to those in MT, ND and some variant of Keystone XL. Those will happen in a hurry. I'm not so sure it will have a huge effect on quantities of oil produced from the Bakken at current prices but it will enable a better margin on the production.
On the flip side, I wouldnt be surprised if some parts or all of the American Recovery and Investment Act are whacked. I believe that's the law that contains the subsidy for use of CO2 in oil-recovery. That would have a significant effect on Permian Basin production.
In addition, I think lowering taxes on business income, whacking Dodd-Frank (and hopefully the FCPA, FATCA, and ACA) and the myriad of regulatory 'rules' will have a very positive effect on economic growth which will have a bullish effect on oil prices. NAFTA would be moot. Hopefully, Trump wont get mired in walls and tariff BS.