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.
One could argue that your fears have already come to pass
Was a joke. Bad one I guess.
i think this makes it obvious that Donald Trump hatched his great wall idea with Chinese co-conspirators 2 yrs ago. They are the experts in such things. ;^)
T sure appears that some folks r trying to push that string but as u pointed out it would b yet another case of people stabbing their own asses.
big differences between tobacco and oil: oil ain't addictive but 99+% of US residents couldn't live without it. A lot of people will have rhetorical potty problems if they manage to 'force' climate change settlements on oil companies.
XOM is the MON of oil companies.
Hypocracy strikes again. XOM discovers climate change 10 yrs before US gov't scientists but those same evil corporate scientists do junk science to show climate change doesn't exist.
The 1980s weren't exactly a great time for oil companies and most US oil companies were severely cutting or closing their research operations so it's no surprise that XOM would cut back on climate change research.
For anyone to cast those cuts as an attempt to bury truth would be the act of a propagandist.
Yeah, I'll have to disagree w myself in 2nd thought on the energy independence part but I was thinking wrt to oil rather than nat gas.
Wrt to your comment about the price drop, my use of the word "directly" was important. 1 bbl (42 gals) of conventional oil (15 - 45 API) would produce 20-35 gals of transport fuels (gasoline + diesel + jet). 1 bbl of unconventional (~55 API) might produce 5-10 gals of transport fuels. So there's some direct displacement in terms of fuels production but it certainly doesn't account for the drop in oil prices to $40/bbl.
The displacement I think u r discounting is the volumetric displacement and its effect on the disposition of conventional oils. And the Saudis didn't ramp up production just to kill production from unconventional reservoirs in the US. Don't underestimate their antipathy towards Iran
oils are about as diverse as people. Firstly, fracking doesnt differentiate unconventional from conventional. Hydraulic fracturing is usually used for tight/low-permeability reservoirs and in many but not all cases those reservoirs are self-sourced, i.e. the rock is both the oil source and reservoir. In most people's minds, those self-sourced reservoirs are what people consider to be unconventional. Hyraulic fracturing is used in something like 95% of all US wells but i doubt if most of those are considered to be 'unconventional' reservoirs.
While there are heavy oil fractions present in some of those tight reservoirs, those oils tend to be unproducible. Consequently, the oils produced from tight, self-sourced reservoirs tend to be light, high API oils. Consequently, the fraction of < C10 hydrocarbons in those oils is much higher than for medium to low API oils that are frequently produced from conventional reservoirs. Oils from conventional reservoirs tend to have long tails to the light end with a modal composition on the high end whereas unconventional oils are the converse.
One of those things that should be a general rule is: it's easier to make smaller things out of big things than it is to make big things out of small things. The relevance is that the hydrocarbon mid-point for diesel fuels is about C16 (thus the cetane ranking for diesel fuel) whereas for gasoline the midpoint is about C8 (thus the octane rating). Given the desired fuel characteristics and the differences between unconventional and conventional oils, it should be obvious that the low- to medium-API oils would be desirable for maximizing diesel and gasoline output per barrel of crude. So that's one reason for not including unconventional oils in the graph in the previous post.
Another reason is that some conventional reservoirs have long production lives of higher value products. Conversely, unconventional reservoirs tend to have high near-term production which tail off over a long period but the products tend to have a lower value per BTU.
A somewhat subtle confirmation of my points is that the Keystone XL was principally targeting transport of Canadian heavy crudes to the US rather than Bakken crude oils. If all oils were equal, it would've made much more sense and would've been much simpler to build pipelines from ND to whatever delivery point proved most expedient.
While hydraulic fracturing may've enabled a near doubling of US production, that's a meaningless statistic from the perspective of making the US 'energy independent' or contributing directly to lower gasoline prices. Obviously, it did help contribute to cheap gasoline prices but it wasnt because unconventional crudes were going predominantly to gasoline production. That crude did occupy a lot of storage space which forced conventional crudes into the market.
The biggest beneficiaries of production from unconventional reservoirs has been plastics manufacturers and anybody who utilizes ethane, propane, and butane.
i suspect the intended meaning was relative to extracted quantities
i-hub doesnt seem to support post editing from mobile devices. Is this something that will be changed?
To b more precise I'd say the changes r infinitesimal over the avg human lifespan. Going by memory here, but I think that over the course of several hundred millions of yrs the change has been on the order of hours, eg in the Devonian a day was about 2 hours shorter.
small edits above and a nit: why doesnt ihub allow edits from mobile devices?
also when many anti climate change folks cite higher CO2 levels in the past, the Devonian is one of the cases. Surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations were much higher.
As Obama has shown, the executive branch can exercise powers in the face of conflicting legislation - especially with a compliant Supreme Court. Even if the GOP retains 1 or both Houses, I think we can look forward to more strong arm tactics on business by regulatory agencies.
Just a guess (being factious) - it plays well with her constituency
I think he's talking about worldwide. While renewables have grown, mostly in Europe, North America, & Oz they still make up a small part of the energy usage pie for the world.
Chevron CEO Why I think oil and natural gas are indispensable for the foreseeable future
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-i-think-oil-natural-gas-indispensable-foreseeable-john-s-watson
the graph below shows why big oil is becoming bigger in gas
I've never been a fan of Shell. They also seem to make a habit of picking up other people's garbage (i.e. they seem to think they're taking advantage of weakness when they are the ones being conned). The smartest Shell people I've known are those that quit and I've never seen another company with so many people that seem to be doing the same job yet none of those people know each other. Even back around 2008 it seemed to be a horribly inefficiently run company.
yuppers. i suspect you are correct. oil exec skills at predicting the future are only surpassed in inaccuracy by folks who have predicted the 2nd coming of Christ.
Oil firms deepen cost cuts as price recovery remains elusive
http://www.reuters.com/article/oil-outlook-idUSL8N1BA4FG
sounds of prognostications for oil recovery being pushed from 2nd half 2016 to 2nd half 2017 <since we're almost into Q4 2016, that seems a bit obvious>
that's how I look at but then I've worked in the food supply system. As a kid I raised orphaned calves which eventually ended up in the family freezer. I got over thinking of the calves as pets about the 2nd time I got head butted in the nuts.
Food is a messy, unpleasant business and vegans would starve if they really went meatless.
as jbog points out, chicken 'farms' are not owned or operated by Tyson. I suspect the same is true for all chicken meat retailers in the US. Boycotting Tyson wont accomplish much other than causing some displacements in the supply chain. The activities shown in the video are probably common in the chicken farming industry. Without higher profit margins for the farmers, they'll simply sell to another retailer without changing the farming practices.
If folks want to force change and do good for a fellow human as well as a future McNugget, a more effective path might be thru your local liability lawyer. I'd venture the folks working directly with the chickens are from Mexico or other central American countries and they dont tend to have the same awareness of health hazards as well as not having fluffy ideals about chickens that some US citizens possess. I'm sure they'd happily treat the chickens in any way that was directed as long as it doesnt affect their paychecks.
As the video shows, those folks dont appear to be aware of the health hazards to themselves. You can see in some clips that the workers are wearing face masks while in other clips they dont. In any case I suspect there are some OSHA violations as well as some ripe liability lawsuits in the wings. Those things would force changes to the the entire chicken farming industry and, of course, to chicken prices.
I think that many supposedly green approaches to energy production actually net greater CO2 emissions than fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels already have the entire discovery to consumption network in place.
Any substantive difference due to biofuels would require construction of new and enormous processing facilities not to mention that the collection process is extremely inefficient. Algae is about as close to efficient as anyone will get for biofuels but people generally don't think thru the quantities and footprint necessary. Some algae naturally contain a substantial fraction of oils but things like grass don't. In order to transform things like grasses to oil a lot of processing comes into play and producing and shipping the materials for that processing throws any hope for a reduction of CO2 emissions into the toilet. Similar problems exist for solar panels.
Overall I think people like to make themselves feel like they're making a difference while they're stabbing themselves in their own asses.
that article states that VZ can fix their problems by some simple steps but then doesnt state what the steps are or how they can be accomplished.
In MHO their biggest problem with respect to increasing production and bringing in foreign currency is that the country/PdVSA doesnt pay its bills. The article alludes to a single case but it is a chronic and ubiquitous problem that has been on-going for >15 yrs. That failure to pay the bills underlies the collapse of the oil production and transportation system. Of course, paying the bills requires having US$ cuz the bolivar is worthless but they cant get $US cuz they dont pay their bills and not surprisingly, the barter system isnt working. Eventually, even the Chinese will get fed up. Maduro may need more than 50k Cuban troops to keep himself in power since he seems to be adopting the Pol Pot approach to governance.
i think any oil price stability will be imposed by the Saudis. The increase in M&A is a matter of those with the means taking advantage of those without. I dont think XOM or Statoil are desperate. Conversely, i wouldnt be shocked if Petroleo Brasileiro or InterOil were hurting for cash.
There are a lot of good assets available that can be picked up for a small fraction of what they would've gone for 2 yrs ago. Cobalt is the example i'm most familiar with. They have large proven assets in the GOM and offshore Angola and their agreement made ~2 yrs ago with the Angolan national oil company to purchase tho Angolan assets has collapsed. They have a small mountain of debt due in 2019 with little revenue so they'll probably be forced to sell assets at a large discount.
I'm guessing Statoil's new assets are long lived so they dont care so much about oil prices in the next 18 months, however, i dont understand the XOM purchase. It's not like there isnt a lot of natural gas and LNG facilities with easy access to southeast asia. PNG is a horrible place for western businesses (i probably could've just stopped at 'place').
Oil Industry Shifts From Survival to Growth
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-25/oil-m-a-is-back-as-industry-focus-shifts-from-survival-to-growth
i'm not a big fan of the Papua New Guinea and Brazilian deals featured in the story. PNG is a graveyard for natural resource companies but the deal exemplifies the increasing 'globalization' of the natural gas market and that NG consumption in southeast asia to grow.
there's another link in the article to another M&A story and under that is a story about Chinese debt - just to offset XOM's plans.
Lies and damned lies... ;^)
Something seems askew when Japan is behind Canada and Mexico is nearly tied with China.
i'd forgotten about the "Windfall Profits Rebate Act of 2005". Nice name. Typically misleading. It would've placed a 50% tax on sales over $40/bbl and would purportedly rebate that money to US citizens (though not necessarily tax paying citizens). Of course the bill was sponsored by the usual suspects, e.g. the CT congressional delegation but I'm sure it also contributed to the former part of former South Dakota Senator Dorgan (what was he smoking?!). Strangely enough this attempt at reviving Carter's Windfall Profits Tax is not listed in Wikipedia's list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_profits_tax#Repeal.
I wont be shocked if this kind of trash comes back under a Clinton administration - particularly if one or both Houses switch. As i said previously, those attempts will merely cause a replay of 1979 and oil companies will relocate production outside the US and the targeted profits will remain outside the US. As usual, lots of propagandist noises with counter-productive results for most of the US population.
As for oil company debt, since the Reagan recovery in 1983 to 2014, the growth rate in worldwide oil consumption and production has been a rock steady 1.1M bbls/day/yr (58M bbls/day in 1983, 93M bbls/day in 2014). In contrast, since the 2007 economic collapse, US consumption has not risen above 1999 levels. From 1983 to 2007, growth in US consumption was a rock steady 227k bbls/day/yr (with steadily declining production over that period). Since i don't believe that planes, trains, and automobiles have started running on pixie dust and windmills I think something is wrong on the US consumption side and i see that as being an unhealthy economy. If and when Democrats decide to quit regulating and taxing everything to death, then the growth rate in US oil consumption will resume.
Since the growth in US consumption has not been growth in the last 9 yrs and since the US consumption growth doesnt match the world consumption growth rate, one might be inclined to go for the global demographic angle. That combined with the propensity of Democrats to drive businesses out of the US and increase costs to US citizens will blend well with the resources available to multinational oil companies. I think they'll do fine - cynical and pessimistic as my outlook for the US may be.
except that the $100B in LA is money that belonged to the oil companies and was paid to to various construction contractors. In contrast, the VZ gov't has been 'buying' goods and services on credit for 20 yrs and rarely pays the bill. Big difference. Now VZ has run out of other people's money and the slow learner part of the population is finally suffering the consequences. The quicker learners left VZ 20 yrs ago.
...But back to LA, as the article states, a good part of the problem is due to what was once considered a solution. Mother Nature is fairly relentless and a hard woman to beat.
i'm about 10 yrs overdue on my prediction of a coup d'etat or revolution in Venezuela
Lack of investment, payment delays hamper Venezuela oil output
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pdvsa-output-idUSKCN10Q0D6
"it was not bread alone that created the revolutionary activity in many countries, hungry people decided that the governments were not taking care of their basic needs..."
And therein lies part of the problem going back 1000s yrs yet there are so many slow learners.
more on squezzing oilfield services
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-17/bp-to-schlumberger-in-barroom-brawl-as-oil-drillers-slash-cost
BP to Halliburton in ‘Barroom Brawl’ as Drillers Slash Costs
<i dont understand the title>
The Oilfield Service Struggle: $110B in Debt; Depressed By Market Pressure
Deon Daugherty|Rigzone Staff|Wednesday, August 17, 2016
http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/146222/The_Oilfield_Service_Struggle_110B_in_Debt_Depressed_By_Market_Pressure/?pgNum=0
one of the things that the author doesnt explicitly note is that the financially secure oilfied service companies will be pressed to increase margins because the debt stressed companies will aggressively bid to maintain cashflow. I suspect that when oil prices improve we'll hear a lot about differentiating technologies. The same ol' same ol' services wont be carrying much margin for a while.
thx for the reply and map link
i live in a white area (on my screen looks like most of the country is white). It's not Louisiana soggy but it's the wettest that i can remember experiencing (western KY). The rain isnt causing much problem to crops but lots of damaged bridges and homes in low lying areas. Around here I expect a bumper crop of soybeans and probably same for corn.
What areas have u heard of that r having dry weather?
i know that was 'tongue in cheek' but pharmas dont generally intend to harm people and violate existing law. Obama undoubtedly knew that many of his executive orders and regulatory agency rules stood a good chance of getting swatted down but corporations dont have the luxury of gambling on an outcome 4 to 6 yrs out so they are forced to comply with the regulators even if they choose to litigate. Obama accomplishes the goal even if the rules get swatted down because by the time that happens, industry has adjusted or gone bankrupt. The cost is jobs, profits, and industries moving out of the US. Trump is an idiot but i think he actually gets that point and certainly many of his supporters do.
this came out last Thursday. i didnt see until today
https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/LookupWebReportsLastMonthBOARD/BB6910FEC10C01A18525800C00647104/$File/EPA-SAB-16-005+Unsigned.pdf
180 pg SAB Review of the EPA’s draft Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources
SAB is the Science Advisory Board. The Committee handling hydraulic fracturing only has a handful people who have actually been involved in the oil and gas business. Most of the 30 members are academics and most of those are "environmental scientists". You can guess from some of the criticisms of the draft assessment that some of the committee are statisticians.
The review reads like a guide for how the EPA should do science as opposed to what they did for the draft assessment (i would say that this is a general problem with the EPA). The review is generally reasonable but the environmental activist crowd is already touting it as a rebuke of the draft findings which found no systemic risks due to hydraulic fracturing. What the review really states is that the EPA should've done a better job of substantiating that point.
However, the bad part for gas producers is that the review lays out a long list of things for the EPA to investigate/regulate. Most of those things are related to surface activities but like i've pointed out previously, that includes everything from the acquisition of water to disposal. Disposal includes treatment and release into surface waterways, recycling into other fracturing operations, and waste disposal wells.
The review sounds like they are recommending a Yucca Mtn sort of review process for permitting hydraulic fracturing operations.
The review committee also criticizes the EPA for planning a series of tests back in 2011 that would've made many of the uncertainties moot but then never followed thru on any of those tests. I doubt that was an accident or a consequence of lack of funding.
apropos to my previous screed which included regulation of CO2 and CH4 emissions: http://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-cow-police-1471042850
multinationals could actually make out quite well. I really think this will be a replay of 1978-79 on a grander scale. The Saudis have already done a good job of dampening US production and the democrats will put a stake in it. As a consequence, the multinationals will happily refocus offshore. Oil and gasoline prices will go to a happy place for the Saudis and all other oil producers. Multinational oil companies did quite well in 1978-80 even though they were pilloried by democrats and in the press (just like now). Of course, this will be much to the detriment of the US economy but people deserve the government they elect (although i think this is a choice between bad and worse).
Pure US oil and gas producers will probably take a hit although the saving grace for gas companies is that they effectively now have captive customers because of coal's demise and because natural gas is a regional commodity. So increasing regulatory costs will eventually get passed back to the consumer.
Most US oil and gas production (at least in the lower 48) is state regulated so US producers might be ok but i'd keep a close eye on the EPA - particularly companies heavily reliant on hydraulic fracturing & flaring. If the EPA starts getting more aggressive about waterways, groundwater & CO2 emissions, then those companies will be in a world of hurt. Domestic producers in TX will do better than those in ND largely because of water and methane & CO2 emissions.