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.
I only own one o&g producer but i won't be buying any now 'cause I think the economy is going to tank and oil prices will drop or, at best, be flat.
Historically, most South American governments have not provided very useful investment environments; that includes brazil. So I'm unlikely to invest in any South American companies or any company which is highly leveraged on s American assets. However, I think the Ecuadorean stuff will be inconsequential to cvx even if Argentina does something nutty.
if it weren't south america i'd say 'no' but it is and the only countries in south america that chavez doesnt run or have a strong influence in are brazil and columbia.
Lol. Along the same line: check out the story "swarm for dorms" in today's Wall Street journal. Further examples of why higher education costs have nothing to do with increased costs of education.
Too much engineering for me to offer an honest judgement.
What I like about GE's CNG in a box is that it can be appended on to existing fueling stations/service islands and the pods can be serviced similarly to gas station tanks. It may turn out that Vandor's technology is complementary but I'll reiterate my engineering ignorance.
Google "CNG in a box"
I agree that those things will happen in the end and sooner if Romney wins, but in the short run I think it's a wash for NG. Again, I wish it were otherwise but if Romney wins, then NG will be competing with coal for electrical power generation and that is the big market. The other markets are years down the line.
BTW, if you haven't seen the GE/CHK CNG pods for service stations yet, check them out. I think those will make a difference to NG utilization in the passenger vehicle market.
I don't think oil and gas will respond as immediately as coal. If Romney wins, coal sky rockets. If he loses, then back to the dumps. My money is literally on coal. Of course, I might be a degenerate gambler 8^)
I think the o&g service companies don't have pricing power and probably won't regain it until an economic recovery is well under way. I wish it were otherwise. In that respect, producers are a better investment but demand is necessary. If Obama wins, then forget about it.
In an Obama win case, then I think appreciation in natural resource related stocks is only based on inflationary monetary/fiscal policies but even that is a losing proposition eventually. I don't think china is gonna ride to the rescue (conversely, I think they, like the rest of the world, depend on the us). I'm probably in jbog's camp on this front.
Hoping some secret service employees will soon have a nice assignment in Hawaii.
Charlie
I watched too much Get Smart when I was a kid.
Acronym for China's Anton Oilfield Services Group = CHAOS Group. How appropriate.
One of the specific things that I was referring to are Dean-Stark extractions of water and oil from cores. There's nothing hugely complicated about that sort of service. They line up dozens of heaters, extractors, and cooling fluid lines and off to the races. Anybody could do the same work in their garage. If CLB is making 30% margin on that, then lots of unemployed folks should start setting up shops at home. I have no idea what side of their business they shoehorn that sort of service into. Sometimes the difference is a little grey and fuzzy.
I suspect that either they are making 100% margins on some stuff and 10% on this stuff I was referring to or if the 30+% is on the latter, then they are doing a lot of 1 offs or there are some stupid customers or customers they will eventually lose
i don't see how competition from folks like SLB and WFT can not hurt CLB. SLB in particular has deep pockets so they can use the service as a loss leader. SLB won't like doing that but they can. Conversely, CLB is much more of a one trick pony.
I think the comment about doing testing at reservoir P and T is complete BS. That sort of thing is exactly why companies have started doing more testing in-house. CLB is following - NOT developing a market.
your last question is a good one.
CLB will continue to make money but the business environment has changed dramatically from 2007.
i now work with several individuals who formerly worked for CLB and i have a much greater knowledge of some of their techniques (these are public knowledge sorts of things but would take some education to know what to look for and where). Some of the measurement techniques are extremely primitive so the only way i think anyone could make money on those measurements is thru volume. If there was any deterioration in service quality/reliability, which is easy in a volume operation, then they'll obviously have a problem. I don't know if they have a QC problem but efficiency and standardization was (and may still be) their advantage. Specialized testing was not.
in the event of an obama loss and democratic retention of a senate majority, it is quite likely that legislation more favorable to oil, gas, and coal will pass since there are likely to be a sufficient number of democratic senators from oil, gas, and coal producing states who will go along with a republican minority to over-rule any roadblocks thrown up by dirty harry.
i also think it is conceivable that there could be a challenger to reid (e.g. schumer). while schumer isn't a big friend of energy, i think he's much more likely to compromise than reid.
in addition, romney could also simply relieve some of the counter-productive justice and state dept activities related to energy production and transportation thru executive action. the obvious cases being state dept approval of Keystone XL and stopping EPA/justice dept actions against the industries and specific companies.
i think the response of coal industry stocks immediately after each debate is a perfect gauge of how the investment community views the advantage of Romney as president to that industry and how well those folks think romney performed.
i don't see any particular Romney related advantage to oil and gas service industries. i dont think those companies have a good pricing position at the moment and my gut feeling is that situation could persist for two to four years.
btw, i'm now working for a production company (which shall remain nameless)
before i finished reading your post my response was 'probably not'. call it politics or 'understanding human behavior'. Exxon knows that they have an image problem with some populations and it's easier to have a bunch of subsidiaries with a different name that don't immediately draw the ire of reactionary types. XTO still maintains some amount of autonomy.
More permanent. Not on are there more and deep pocket competitors, but clients are also doing more of the work in their own labs.
nah. that's a natural gas pipeline. all that will do is put further pressure on natural gas prices which makes me grumpy.
at the moment most bakken natural gas is flared.
That seems like very bad planning but I doubt it surprises many
OT: fracking nonsense
scams not just limited to biotechs
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11671408/1/chemical-engineer-announces-details-of-chimera-energy-corp8217s-revolutionary-non-hydraulic-shale-oil-extraction.html
i'm sure all the other graduates of UC San Jose are embarrassed.
The Lincoln Towncar index was very high at Biogen last week so the rumor is consistent.
OT: Climate Change
8th,
There wouldn't be an argument, even between intelligent and knowledgeable folks, if there wasn't uncertainty. The physics underlying the climate change hypothesis are facts. How those processes interact with other processes are extremely complex which produces large uncertainties in interpretations and projections. And there are some somewhat random processes that further complicate the problem (e.g. Volcanic eruptions).
Whether there are unrecognized or under-appreciated countering effects that might ultimately balance human derived effects are legitimate topics of investigation. However, it would be extremely delusional to pretend humans do not have an affect on the environment.
So the short answer is that I don't have to be a "believer" or "non-believer". I am a scientist and I see reasonable arguments on both sides. In the end, I agree with Mann's comment that it is an economic problem. At the moment there is at least a perception that there are other problems that should take priority. I don't have a problem with that. However, in highly complex systems there tend to be large historetical effects on both the cause and effect ends. So if human activities do end up turning the Mississippi valley into a north american version of Egypt, then reversing that might be difficult and more expensive than the investment on the front end.
And that gets to your question about sea level. The short answer is "no". If the climate change proposition is true, then such effects will not be manifested in "a few years". This is the difficulty that climate change scientists face: the effects occur slowly and may be drowned out by short term noise.
Charlie
A 2-5 yr decrease in the growth rate of CO2 emissions makes a hill of beans difference to GHG induced climate change. The cause and effect relationships are not resolvable on that scale.
i was inquiring about Clovis Oncology. i didn't think to check Yahoo ;^) as a credible source of info but alas there is no message board for C60.F. Maybe guilt by association with ARRY?
thanks for trying.
charlie
CLVS
anybody have any idea why CLVS has been bludgeoned over the past 2 days?
thanks
Charlie
i suspect that undue emphasis is being given to the automobile industry's consumption of iron. Iron consumption for pipe and pressure fittings is probably more significant (that isn't just a WAG). That iron will not be supplanted by aluminum. Iron consumption is very much tied to oil and natural gas production, refining, and transportation; i suspect the linkage is getting stronger.
I agree completely with Dewophile's response. The lack of appreciation in your "alloy metals" prices may be due to over production related to their association with more profitable metals, e.g. gold. I can easily imagine this is the case for molybdenum and some other metals.
from what i've heard CLB is an assembly line shop. They run things efficiently and in standardized ways; however, they do not develop methods or handle customized analyses. My thinking was that if CLB is losing staff that were responsible for making their operation work, then they might be hurt more than service companies that are more broadly diversified.
As for the stock option aspect, as far as i've seen, everyone does that and i know that some exploration and production companies give far more generous discounted stock and 401k matching plans than some of the service companies, as well as having better salaries. I know many people who have moved to O&G companies from service companies in the past 2 yrs and very few that have gone the other direction (& i think those were in 2009).
my crystal ball says CLB is a bit over-valued and the others are about right. If i could buy oil companies, i'd rather buy them.
there's been quite a bit of poaching of service company folk by exploration and production companies over the past year or so. There's a significant salary differential which the service companies don't seem to be inclined to fight. I suspect this will hurt companies like CLB more than tool developers. SLB, BHI and the larger production companies are also acquiring, expanding, or setting up their own core and fluid analysis labs versus farming work out to CLB. Whether they will be successful in being competitive/superior to CLB is the million dollar question.
HES Seeking Alpha article
i wouldn't give the cited article much significance. The author seems more interested in presenting tables of numbers in random order rather than making any sense out of the numbers.
Just in case it's useful:
stages refers to the number of discrete sections of a well which are separately fractured. How many stages are fractured will depend on the length of the well and what the logs have revealed about the intersected rock.
IP refers to initial production rate [production in fracked tight reservoirs is frequently high initially and tails off - sometimes very rapidly]
choke is an orifice used to control flow rate and the pressure drop between the reservoir and the well. There are many reasons for adjusting choke settings so without additional (and probably highly confidential) information, these numbers are not very meaningful.
i don't know if any conclusions can be drawn from the relative quantities of proppant and water used in these wells
i suspect that the last number on the well identifications, e.g. En-Weyrauch 154-93-1918H-1, En-Weyrauch 154-93-1918H-2, En-Weyrauch 154-93-1918H-3 refer to 3 different laterals off of a common vertical hole. Why he separates them as he does and in random order is a function of the writer's madness or ignorance.
WSJ SLB valuation article
That article is a bit shallow. SLB's presence in the shale gas market has been trivial so any decline there hasn't hurt them. That doesn't mean that $2/MBTU doesn't hurt. In addition, SLB has been trying to gain more market share in NA so to portray that as a negative is a bit off. If SLB has been successful in that market share gain, then HAL and BHI have lost share and that will matter more down the line.
OT hint
if you cant write a coherent sentence in English, then you might try writing in your 1st or 2nd language and have Google translate. It couldn't be any worse. Alternatively, you could be silent.
Tullow
Not sure if the 70% is meaningful since hitting oil doesn't mean that a well or even a given target stratum is capable of producing commercial quantities. I've probably found gold 70% of the time that i've gone panning but it's always cost me more to find it than what I could get for what I found. Conversely, tullow does appear to be very successful for their size and I've heard very flattering comments about them that are entirely consistent with the article.
in the process he will guarantee a loss in Ohio and he's working on PA - all of which i'll be very happy about.
for humor value on this theme
the 2nd 2 links add a bit of flavor to the 1st
http://www.worldoil.com/Polands_red_tape_main_headache_for_shale_gas_industry.html
http://www.worldoil.com/Poland_will_present_proposed_hydrocarbon_tax_bill_on_June_13.html
http://www.worldoil.com/ExxonMobil_drops_shale_plans_in_Poland.html
these are particularly timely
http://www.rbnenergy.com/the-bakken-buck-starts-here-crude-pricing-part-1
http://www.rbnenergy.com/the-bakken-buck-starts-here-crude-pricing-part-II
this might also be useful and they they think Bakken crude should trade at $0.50 to $1.00 premium to WTI.
http://www.turnermason.com/Publications/petroleum-publications_assets/Bakken-Crude.pdf
based on the higher gasoline yield, lower residue, Canadian pipeline construction, etc my WAG would be that $1 could be way low. I'd guess it could go for a 3 to 5% premium to WTI.
As of 1 week ago Bakken was trading at $11.65 discount to WTI
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/05/markets-usa-cash-crude-idUSL1E8H5DK320120605
but then you have the wacko crowd that just doesn't understand numbers
http://www.desmogblog.com/new-bakken-shale-pipeline-cushing-ok-works
As long as pipelines are blocked - yup. The one good thing for now is that I suspect rail contracts are probably relatively cheap. If obama loses, then the restrictions on coal will also vaporize which will drive up the cost of rail transport. So pipelines are very important to the Bakken. With a good pipeline network, then Bakken producers can get the proper bang from their relatively high quality crude.
As long as pipelines are blocked - yup. The one good thing for now is that I suspect rail contracts are probably relatively cheap. If obama loses, then the restrictions on coal will also vaporize which will drive up the cost of rail transport. So pipelines are very important to the Bakken. With a good pipeline network, then Bakken producers can get the proper bang from their relatively high quality crude.
I think largely dependent on election outcome. If Romney wins, then pipelines get built as well as other things that I think will be favorable - favorable in my world meaning higher oil prices due to growing economy. Pipelines give Bakken producers more leverage than they currently have.
I think the current situation is temporary. How temporary... I leave to individual imagination ;^)
But at the moment, Bakken production as a share of total production, is more of a problem than an asset because that oil is sold at a large discount to a dropping price for WTI.