Spekulatius Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 Interesting perspective from sculpin, yet we also have this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar--battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharperDingaan Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 You might want to question whether the planned US July 04 display of weaponry, is not a prelude to a US strike on Iran. Iran is expected to exceed its uranium enrichment cap on Sunday. https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN1TY18E-OCATP "Iran will boost its uranium enrichment after July 7 to whatever levels it needs beyond the cap set in the landmark 2015 nuclear deal, President Hassan Rouhani said on Wednesday, defying U.S. efforts to force Tehran into renegotiating the pact." US sanctions are also not delivering as expected. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Maximum-Pressure-Campaign-Fails-To-Kill-Off-Irans-Oil-Exports.html "Still, despite the heightened tension, Iran has managed to keep oil exports from collapsing to zero. As the New York Times reported, some oil tankers have recently resorted to switching off their transponders as they enter the Persian Gulf, likely loading up with Iranian oil and then heading out towards markets in Asia. According to the IEA’s June Oil Market Report, Iran’s oil production was 2.4 million barrels per day in May, down 210,000 bpd from a month earlier. Exports fell more sharply to 810,000 bpd, down 480,000 bpd from April. “The final destination of Iran’s oil exports is becoming increasingly difficult to track after the National Iranian Oil Co (NIOC) shut off the satellite tracking systems on its ships,” the IEA wrote." The practical solution(s) are air-strikes on the Iranian enrichment facilities to stop further enrichment, and on the Iranian loading facilities to prevent tankers from filling. Charming. SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sculpin Posted July 3, 2019 Author Share Posted July 3, 2019 Interesting perspective from sculpin, yet we also have this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar--battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/ Yeah I see these low cost renewable claims quite a lot. But are they using real math or the new enviro math? As Bjorn Lomborg states.... @BjornLomborg Solar and wind at ¢5/kWh — when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. If you want it with batteries included and at 100%, the cost soars to an unaffordable $0.70-$1.1/kWh http://euanmearns.com/the-cost-of-wind-solar-power-batteries-included/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 Interesting perspective from sculpin, yet we also have this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar--battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/ Yeah I see these low cost renewable claims quite a lot. But are they using real math or the new enviro math? As Bjorn Lomborg states.... @BjornLomborg Solar and wind at ¢5/kWh — when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. If you want it with batteries included and at 100%, the cost soars to an unaffordable $0.70-$1.1/kWh http://euanmearns.com/the-cost-of-wind-solar-power-batteries-included/ Somebody rush to Greg Abel and stop him before he uses enviro math! Oh no, too late... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sculpin Posted July 3, 2019 Author Share Posted July 3, 2019 Interesting perspective from sculpin, yet we also have this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar--battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/ Yeah I see these low cost renewable claims quite a lot. But are they using real math or the new enviro math? As Bjorn Lomborg states.... @BjornLomborg Solar and wind at ¢5/kWh — when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. If you want it with batteries included and at 100%, the cost soars to an unaffordable $0.70-$1.1/kWh http://euanmearns.com/the-cost-of-wind-solar-power-batteries-included/ Somebody rush to Greg Abel and stop him before he uses enviro math! Oh no, too late... The government is doing the math & taxpayers and consumers will be on the hook. Nice guaranteed high return PPA's are a great investment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 Interesting perspective from sculpin, yet we also have this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar--battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/ Yeah I see these low cost renewable claims quite a lot. But are they using real math or the new enviro math? As Bjorn Lomborg states.... @BjornLomborg Solar and wind at ¢5/kWh — when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. If you want it with batteries included and at 100%, the cost soars to an unaffordable $0.70-$1.1/kWh http://euanmearns.com/the-cost-of-wind-solar-power-batteries-included/ Somebody rush to Greg Abel and stop him before he uses enviro math! Oh no, too late... The government is doing the math & taxpayers and consumers will be on the hook. Nice guaranteed high return PPA's are a great investment So you are saying that Abel and Buffett are lying when they say that BHE energy prices are cheaper than competitors'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sculpin Posted July 3, 2019 Author Share Posted July 3, 2019 Interesting perspective from sculpin, yet we also have this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar--battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/ Yeah I see these low cost renewable claims quite a lot. But are they using real math or the new enviro math? As Bjorn Lomborg states.... @BjornLomborg Solar and wind at ¢5/kWh — when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. If you want it with batteries included and at 100%, the cost soars to an unaffordable $0.70-$1.1/kWh http://euanmearns.com/the-cost-of-wind-solar-power-batteries-included/ Somebody rush to Greg Abel and stop him before he uses enviro math! Oh no, too late... The government is doing the math & taxpayers and consumers will be on the hook. Nice guaranteed high return PPA's are a great investment So you are saying that Abel and Buffett are lying when they say that BHE energy prices are cheaper than competitors'? No they probably are more efficient & cheaper than competitors depending on fuel source/method. I'm just saying that with renewables someone is paying more for it compared to say nuclear or NG. This is the reason Buffett stated the following. He's a smart business man taking opportunities provided by government.... Energy deregulation will be the largest transfer of wealth in history. Warren Buffett Transfer from the lowly taxpayer to the smart businessmen with great connections & almost unlimited capital Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 Just like he did by supporting Democrats to block Keystone XL. Then turn around and make big money with crude by rail which is much more dangerous and much larger emitter of CO2. Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sculpin Posted July 5, 2019 Author Share Posted July 5, 2019 Below A U.S. Senate Report regarding environmental activism and it's funding. The virtuous circle created by the funding of public policy initiatives aided by tax deductions in charitable foundations which promote green energy which leads to the closing of the circle when those same individuals and corps see gov't investment in wind and solar projects. Ironically as a hedge fund manager Steyer was considered one of the primary financiers for coal projects in Asia and Africa. He has a charitable trust called TomKat which serves as a investment vehicle for the funding of his public policy activities. He contributes to a organization he also created called NextGen America which promotes green energy public policy thru that TomKat trust. These billionaires donate to organizations they create, use tax benefits and the tax code to promote their message on wind and solar, these organizations are often treated as charitable foundations or they receive funds thru pass thru charitable foundations. In turn as they promote that green public policy and perception , manipulate the media through the use of social media and technology campaigns they create demand for their projects, than they hold investments in the projects. Typically all require gov't subsidies to be built. Michael Bloomberg is mentioned many times in this report. Those billionaires involve reap the rewards of gov't subsidized projects, generally wind and solar which normally would not be considered economic without gov't involvement. Part of their agenda is the disinvestment of fossil fuels while promoting tax subsidized wind and solar projects, the gov't tax code aiding and abetting them at both ends, charitable deductions and subsidized projects. The circle is complete. /uploads/13942/files/SenateReportonBillionairesClubEnvironmentalActivistm.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sculpin Posted July 5, 2019 Author Share Posted July 5, 2019 From Volteface on the IV board. Renewables are a highly regressive tax on the low & middle class. As western nations destroy their competitiveness & wealth with the popular & politically motivated move to uneconomic intermittent renewables, nations such as China & India continue to build coal fired plants and move to nuclear.... There is no threshold for intermittent renewables. There is only cost. The cost of the INTERMITTENT renewables goes up in a parabolic fashion as the free rider threshold is breached and left in the dust. They do this for lots of reasons such as storage costs, the duck curve slaughtering the profits of all baseloads which then need their own subsidies, the bounce back on high production days where power is overproduced in great conditions and can't be used and must be dumped for negative or zero prices, etc. look at the cost of power in the states http://calchamberalert.com/2019/03/29/california-electricity-prices-no-7-in-u-s/ Notice the most progressive high subsidy states for intermittent renewables have the highest electric costs. There is nothing wrong with the rare exceptions like a HI where they already base their grid on stationary oil power so intermittent power and extreme energy costs are already the unalterable reality (without nuclear). California still gets half of its renewable power from hydro, which is a true baseload and economic source of electricity. If California doubles intermittent renewables again in proportion to say 40% of grid the cost of power will go up even higher. California also has the highest gasoline cost in the CONUS. BTW Iowa IIRC is one of the few states were Coal is still the largest source of electric power and Iowa consumes many times the amount of propane of other states with its size population in the course of drying agricultural goods so intermittent renewables as always remain fine in thier niche. So long as having higher and higher energy prices, which are the most regressive and economically destructive tax ever to be devised by the minds of man, is okay with everyone and they want that...100% renewables with 100% EV's will be easy to achieve. Eventually over the next 100 years, one of three things will happen. The US will move to a nuclear-based power economy. The US will be an economic colony of a nation or group that did move to a nuclear-based power economy. The US will live in an intermittent renewable Utopia which will look very much like a dystopian fiction movie with around 10 or 20% of the population having pleasant advanced lives and the Morloks living outside the wire will be in what we now call third world conditions. Such is the inevitable math of this on this planet with the resources at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 I suspect that the urgency around global warming or now climate change has also been planted into the media via the CIA. These guys know that in 40 years from now, it will be impossible to pump 100 million barrels/day out of the ground. If you look at Saudi Aramco's filings on reserves, you see that we are close to the top with unavoidable decline after. Shale in 20-25 years is gone. What we will be left with are Canadian oil sands and Venezuela tar. This is unsustainable. Meanwhile population and energy use per capita will only grow in that next 40 years. 50% more overall demand seems reasonable. Some will argue about autonomous vehicles and the like but, energy demand has never declined in history, never. So a switch has to occur whether you believe in climate change or not and only moving autos to EV's will take decades. Then what do you do with all other uses including those where there is no substitute for oil? Burning oil will become cost prohibitive. I am highly doubtful that renewables are capable to do the trick. More of a band-aid to alleviate. Only fission and eventually fusion will do the trick and it is coming: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/video/one-on-one-with-seymour-schulich~1707212 Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hjorth Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 Your post is certainly an interesting take on the long term matter at hand, Cardboard, Somehow, I think of it the same way as you do. [Here, please take my general ignorance in this space as a given - but within the last 2 - 3 months I've at least tried to be working on that.] With all due respect of your experience & knowledge in the space, how do you think about Russian oil reserves in this space going forward for the long term ["Russian oil" may be uninvestable for other personal reasons, - one of them being political]? -I mean, these Russian investments may - for one, or another, or perhaps several, - reasons, even in combination, be uninvestable, but I think it would be a logical flaw in the long term reasoning to ignore these reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizaro86 Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 I don't think that makes sense for the CIA to do that because oil production over the long term is really price elastic. Story time: Once in Southern Alberta, I worked on a field that was old. Lots of old wells, pump jacks, and batteries. It was basically a stripper operation - we produced emulsion that was 3% oil, 97% water. This was relatively profitable, because you just reinjected the water into the reservoir through injection wells for another round. The oil was relatively heavy, and we had only recovered ~15% of it over the decades the field had been in operation. No new wells were being drilled. Then oil prices jumped. Now it was profitable for us to produce oil at a 1% oil cut. So all the old shut in wells got turned on, and production doubled. Going from a 2.5% oil cut limit to a 1% oil cut limit roughly doubled our estimate of recoverable oil. Worth noting our reported reserves barely changed at all. Those wells are all shut in again waiting for higher prices. There is no technical impediment to production, it's just a price issue. There is lots of discovered oil where you could add secondary/tertiary recovery to increase recoverable oil by adding money. Of course, I have limited visibility into what the CIA thinks and does... but that seems like an insane plan to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sculpin Posted July 10, 2019 Author Share Posted July 10, 2019 https://seekingalpha.com/article/4273887-whitecap-resources-8-percent-fully-covered-yield-100-percent-upside-potential Summary Whitecap resources is stuck near its all-time lows as investors move away from oil and gas sector. The current dividend yield is 8% and consumes just 22% of cash flow at current strip prices. At $45/barrel oil, Whitecap can maintain its production and fully fund its dividend. The stock offersgreat income in addition to tremendous upside potential. This sale is unlikely to last long! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharperDingaan Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 Shush! We're waiting on one of our o/g investments to mean revert, to fund some shopping ;) SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharperDingaan Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 Very clever move by the Iranians "Iran will offer oil futures to interested foreign parties at pre-determined rates. According to OPEC’s most recent Monthly Oil Market Report, however, Iran’s average crude oil production in May was 2.37 million bpd according to secondary sources." https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Iran-To-Offer-Oil-Future-Contracts-To-Foreign-Firms-Despite-Sanctions.html Buy physical Iranian crude at a discount; today, AND UP TO 3 YEARS FROM TODAY. Ship-to-ship transfer of Iranian for Iraqi crude at sea. The Iranian loader continuing to the monitored port, the Iraqi loader to a mystery port. The Iranian loader gets seized .. but unfortunately the lab confirms it's not Iranian crude. Reminds one of the 'good ol' days' of Ari Onassis! https://gcaptain.com/seized-supertanker-grace-1-at-full-capacity-with-crude-gibraltar-says/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle_Onassis And even if you were caught ... were you carrying Iranian crude (under sanction), or Iranian condensate (not sanctioned)? Iranian oil smugglers are very good at what they do, and have been doing it for a very long time. Whereas the Americans ... not so much. "At various points, Darroch called Trump “clumsy and inept,” described him as “radiating insecurity,” and referred to the administration’s Iran policy as “incoherent” and “chaotic” https://theiranproject.com/blog/2019/06/27/expansion-of-irans-persian-gulf-star-refinery-on-track/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/04/16/the-oil-smugglers-of-tehran/ https://www.vox.com/2019/7/10/20688703/kim-darroch-uk-ambassador-resigns-trump-boris-johnson American weaponry is not useful unless it is used, and Iranian smuggling is 'winning'. Iran exports are not at zero (or even close to). To stop the smuggling, the Americans have little choice but to knock out the loading facilities; easy enough to do, but there will be retailiation. And very likely ... an extended conflict. Hard to see how WTI doesn't go to USD 70+ once the conflict starts. And harder to see how it can be avoided. SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharperDingaan Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Shitty way to make a buck, but it would appear that WTI is highly likely to continue rising > USD 60 for quite some time. It would seem that Trump can’t back-off, the US Congress can’t stop him from pulling the US into a war (repeated attempts), and the clock is rapidly ticking down. There is no “day after” plan, as the plan is removal of the mullahs – with air/naval strikes only, and no body bags. Alternatively, removal of Trump himself, by impeachment. Numerous European leaders this weekend, expressing concern that armed conflict is very close. Kuwait announcement they are militarily moving to protect key OPEC exporter ports. Rouhani clearly outclassing the US in just about everything it does. And all this concurrent with big weekly draws on crude inventories. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-kuwait/kuwait-moves-to-protect-its-ports-amid-gulf-tensions-idUSKCN1U80NK https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa/rouhani-says-iran-ready-to-talks-to-u-s-if-sanctions-lifted-tv-idUSKCN1U90DQ We live in interesting times SD “the former United Kingdom ambassador to the United States, said the Trump administration was "set upon an act of diplomatic vandalism" in its decision to abandon the Iran nuclear deal. Trump seemed to be discarding the Iran nuclear deal for "personality reasons," as the deal had been agreed to by former President Barack Obama. Hints that the White House has no "day-after" plan on how to handle the aftermath of withdrawing from the deal. https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/daily-mail-trump-iran-nuclear-deal-leaked-cables/index.html Lawmakers adopted the amendment in a 251-170 vote with more than two dozen Republicans in support. The House and the Senate will still have to reconcile their separate versions of the defense bill, and are likely to exclude the Iran amendment from the final package. Last month, a similar measure that would have restricted the president's ability to unilaterally launch military action on Iran failed in the Senate. The legislation received 50 votes in favor and 40 against, falling short of the 60-vote hurdle to advance to a final vote. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-votes-require-congressional-approval-military-strike-against-iran-n1029311 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sculpin Posted July 19, 2019 Author Share Posted July 19, 2019 https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/market-call/full-episode-market-call-for-friday-july-19-2019~1727915 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharperDingaan Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 The ME is where an ‘eye-for-an-eye’ was invented, and goes back to Hammurabi’s Code and the Babylonian Empire; start a conflict, and there will be no winners. Expecting the Iranians to ‘back down’ in the face of threats, just reflects how poorly the US understands what it has got into. A senior politician and Revolutionary Guards commander, Major General Mohsen Rezai, said on Twitter that Iran was also not looking for war, “but we are not going to come up short in reciprocating.” http://www.ushistory.org/civ/4c.asp Notable is that Iran needs (short-term) higher crude prices (to discount from), and the US/SA/etc. needs lower ones (long-term) to prevent demand collapse and a resurgence of US shale production. WTI at maybe USD 55-60 for the US, USD 65-75 for the Iranians? To make up for revenue shortfalls the US/SA/etc. have to sell more volume at lower prices; additional volume that must come out of Iran’s OPEC production quota if prices are not to collapse. The US imposes global sanctions on Iran, and delivers additional production quota? Take out my oil facilities, and I will take yours. Iranian and OPEC supply instantly drops like a brick, at the same time that demand spikes (buying for inventory buffers); WTI spikes. US/China trade war to reduce base demand? Inflated US and EIA inventory reserves on stand-by to mitigate? Suggests that strikes are expected to happen. Iraq used to have Hussein, Iran used to have Khomeini? SA used to have King Abdullah/MBS? “By law, all Saudi citizens must be Muslims. It is illegal for Saudis to follow a different religion. If Saudi Arabia did not control so much oil, King Abdullah and the Saudi royal family would be treated just as much as pariahs as are Than Shwe and the Burmese generals.” https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-worlds-worst-dictator_b_28679 Hard to see how this ends well. SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Never ending American lies to keep oil at bay: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Permian-Producers-Underreport-Fracking-Activity.html Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sculpin Posted July 30, 2019 Author Share Posted July 30, 2019 https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Will-We-Really-See-An-Oil-Glut-In-2020.html The IEA chronic underestimation of global oil demand combined with the market erroneous belief in the unshakable resilience of US supply growth, is painting an overly bearish picture of the global oil demand-balance in 2020. As I have argued in the past (The New Oil Order) US shale has introduced a new dynamic oil market balancing force that official agencies (such as the IEA) are still struggling to properly account for in their projections. Historically, the IEA has struggled with capturing the exact level of global oil demand, understandably so, considering the vast scope of the oil market. Supply, on the other hand, was easier to project due to the concentrated nature of oil production in few OPEC countries and a handful of non-OPEC mega projects, but with the advent of shale, projecting global oil supply has become a challenging task as well. Consequently, when agencies such as the IEA are unable to properly track global demand and are unable to account for fast changes in US shale supply, one has to take their 2020 oil glut predictions with a grain of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sculpin Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 Energy Stat: Oil Price Gains Set to Continue, as Supply-Side Factors Outweigh Question Marks Over Demand J. MARSHALL ADKINS (713) 789-3551 | PAVEL MOLCHANOV (713) 278-5270 As fun as it is to track White House oil-related tweets and the Royal Navy's Persian Gulf adventures, what ultimately matters for oil prices is (drumroll please)... actual supply/demand fundamentals. As we reiterate today, our global oil supply/demand model remains broadly upbeat, driven largely by bullish supply-side factors. After taking into account the recent extension of the OPEC+Russia production cuts as well as our latest U.S. rig count forecast, we expect global petroleum inventories to draw by 1.0 million bpd in 2019 and 300,000 bpd in 2020, with inventories (on a days-of-consumption basis) set to fall to unprecedentedly low levels in 2020. After marking-to-market near-term oil prices, including the recent price volatility amid macro-related concerns about global demand, our 2019 WTI forecast decreases from $65.50/Bbl to $62.50/Bbl, and similarly Brent from $74 to $71. More importantly, we continue to believe that 2020 will be a cyclical-peak year, due to the impact of IMO 2020, and thus we maintain our forecast of $92.50 WTI and $100 Brent - which is at the high end of Street expectations and well above the current futures strip. July 19, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sculpin Posted September 12, 2019 Author Share Posted September 12, 2019 HFI Research @HFI_Research Since June 1 global oil inventories including oil on water declined by 120 million bbls. ~1.2 mb/d deficit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted September 14, 2019 Share Posted September 14, 2019 Drone attacks strike major Saudi Aramco facility, oilfield https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/14/explosion-fire-hit-major-saudi-aramco-facility.html Damage or production delays unknown yet. 6-7% of worldwide production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sculpin Posted September 14, 2019 Author Share Posted September 14, 2019 Drone attacks strike major Saudi Aramco facility, oilfield https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/14/explosion-fire-hit-major-saudi-aramco-facility.html Damage or production delays unknown yet. 6-7% of worldwide production. The great Russian author, Nabokov, once said: “ Complacency is a state of mind that exists only in retrospective: it has to be shattered before being ascertained.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now