# Oil!!



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Oil is currently trading over the $50.00 mark now.

This is great news for Texas. Go baby go!


----------



## 24Buds (Dec 5, 2008)

Great for some. Not for others. Happy median would be nice. May I suggest a $65 deal?


----------



## jaime1982 (Aug 25, 2009)

24Buds said:


> Great for some. Not for others. Happy median would be nice. May I suggest a $65 deal?


There is no "everybody" wins. It will always cycle till the govt takes over then we all lose.

Sent from my Samsung S7 via Tapatalk


----------



## reba3825 (Feb 28, 2013)

jaime1982 said:


> There is no "everybody" wins. It will always cycle till the govt takes over then we all lose.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung S7 via Tapatalk


What do you mean "till the gvmt takes it over"?:headknock


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

I got nothin'.


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

24Buds said:


> Great for some. Not for others. Happy median would be nice. May I suggest a $65 deal?


You did not read "Art of The Deal", did you?

Really, happy median...the happy median between potted meat and bacon is a slice of baloney.

Thanks for the suggestion though


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

24Buds said:


> Great for some. Not for others. Happy median would be nice. May I suggest a $65 deal?


85 would be better.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Might be a good time to buy some oil ETF's like USO or more volatile depending on risk factor. Think oil got over 50$ last week, that price is a benchmark price on many different levels.


----------



## waterspout (May 21, 2004)

welcome to election year.. it's fixing to get uglier then just the media covering our idiots!


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

How many jobs would $100 oil create?


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Lagunaroy said:


> How many jobs would $100 oil create?


looking at the jobs lost from when the price crashed, couple million jobs created when oil is high.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Lagunaroy said:


> How many jobs would $100 oil create?


A LOT

It would be a boom for Texas.


----------



## 24Buds (Dec 5, 2008)

I know...I know. Everyone wants oil to go up to create jobs. I know a bunch of folks that got laid off when it was $4.25 a gallon. This will never make everyone happy. The business I am in thrives when oil is low, but yes, it did go too low. This is a never ending "discussion". I know a lot of friends who got smoked when oil fell like it did. It will never be a perfect market. It is what it is. I feel for those who have been effected. I truly do.


----------



## aquafowlr (May 21, 2004)

Y'all better save me one then. Last time we hit $100 almost closed the plant. Why buy local when you can buy from China cheaper.


----------



## JJGold1 (May 6, 2010)

Drill baby drill!!! Wait, you don't want them to drill because then there will be too much supply and the price will drop. What to do?


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

JJGold said:


> Drill baby drill!!! Wait, you don't want them to drill because then there will be too much supply and the price will drop. What to do?


Punt!


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

Lagunaroy said:


> How many jobs would $100 oil create?


Mine would be available....


----------



## Spots and Dots (May 23, 2004)

Lagunaroy said:


> How many jobs would $100 oil create?


I'd have a plant that'd employ a few thousand for several years, the. A few hundred for a long time.

Mine would be avail in 10 or 12 years....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

BretE said:


> Mine would be available....


Lol. Yep.


----------



## Johnny9 (Sep 7, 2005)

Been doing The Oil Business since 1976 and this is the final downturn for me. You younger Bucks can have it. Good Luck and hope it goes to $150/bbl.


----------



## BUDC (Feb 13, 2014)

If you guys really want to know what's going on in the oil, gas, lng and pipeline market google API or crude price. These are two no BS daily updates. They are not 100% correct but I get great info on these reports. Been in the drilling and equipment business since 1974 and owned my company since 1986. International and domestic. Thank God, still in the black.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

It's probably the most volatile and impactful commodity in the world. 

I'd like to see it hit about $90a barrel and just stay there for many years. A guy can dream right?


----------



## boltmaster (Aug 16, 2011)

Lagunaroy said:


> How many jobs would $100 oil create?


I hate for anyone to lose their job but How many will be hurt! ....no easy answer if your in the oil business then it's good if your not then the higher costs for fuel, heating and all that goes with it will hurt, some greatly some not so much but we will all pay the bill. Gas is already up about .70 cents a gallon since early March and food grocery prices are noticeably higher......a few hundred thousand will benefit for sure and it's very possible that millions will take the hit.
I certainly have no answer and having owned a business that benefited from increased business due to high oil but also had to absorb high costs for fuel, freight and replacement inventory that can't always be passed along ....its not all good news. $65 seems about a fair medium to me


----------



## jaime1982 (Aug 25, 2009)

juan said:


> Been doing The Oil Business since 1976 and this is the final downturn for me. You younger Bucks can have it. Good Luck and hope it goes to $150/bbl.


Why not $200bbl?

Sent from my Samsung S7 via Tapatalk


----------



## seabo (Jun 29, 2006)

Just what we need... more people


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)




----------



## Cody C (May 15, 2009)

Jolly Roger said:


> Might be a good time to buy some oil ETF's like USO or more volatile depending on risk factor. Think oil got over 50$ last week, that price is a benchmark price on many different levels.


UCO is twice leveraged and uwti is triple leveraged. 
Been a nice ride up for the last couple of months


----------



## 4 Ever-Fish N (Jun 10, 2006)

boltmaster said:


> I hate for anyone to lose their job but How many will be hurt! ....no easy answer if your in the oil business then it's good if your not then the higher costs for fuel, heating and all that goes with it will hurt, some greatly some not so much but we will all pay the bill. Gas is already up about .70 cents a gallon since early March and food grocery prices are noticeably higher......a few hundred thousand will benefit for sure and it's very possible that millions will take the hit....


Did the price of food or anything else except gasoline go down when oil prices went down? Always hear about prices rising cause of fuel prices rising but don't ever recall prices dropping with fuel prices drop.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

jaime1982 said:


> Why not $200bbl?
> 
> Sent from my Samsung S7 via Tapatalk


200.00 a bbl oil hurts many who can least afford it. While we are dreaming I would settle for 75.00 - 80.00 dollars a bbl. The industry can make money and grow but it still equates to a reasonable rate at the pump.

Price spikes just fuel a "derby" mentality in the industry and it eventually leads to a glut of crude on the market. I think most in the industry would prefer "stability" over wild price swings fueled by speculation.

With that being said crude is a global commodity traded all over the world in U.S. Dollars. It has always been cyclical and probably always will be.


----------



## JJGold1 (May 6, 2010)

This thread put the kiss of death on WTI in June but we're finally back at $50!


----------



## oc48 (Aug 13, 2005)

I just bought a new truck 3 weeks ago. I like the LOW gas prices!!!


----------



## redspeck (Jul 3, 2012)

Same here, getting 10 miles a gallon kills me when the gas goes up, It hurts the poor man.


----------



## Bobby (May 21, 2004)

So the speculators don't set the price of a gal of gas?? Its the price of a barrel of oil that sets the price of a gal of gas ?


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

redspeck said:


> Same here, getting 10 miles a gallon kills me when the gas goes up, It hurts the poor man.


Most 'poor men' don't drive $50-60+ thousand dollar trucks....:biggrin:


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*I'll take 100*

And my business will boom again - gas 3.50 a gallon, I make bank going and coming -


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

....or guys that don't like $650 truck payments.


----------



## redspeck (Jul 3, 2012)

Tortuga, have you been spying on me?


----------



## Shallow_Minded (Sep 21, 2004)

Keep it lowí ¾í´‘


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

redspeck said:


> Tortuga, have you been spying on me?


HaHa...nope...just saw you wuz from College Station..so I just figgered you 
wuz another one of them 'Rich Aggies'.....:biggrin:


----------



## Bobby (May 21, 2004)

Bobby said:


> So the speculators don't set the price of a gal of gas?? Its the price of a barrel of oil that sets the price of a gal of gas ?


crickets !!!!:biggrin:


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

Bobby said:


> So the speculators don't set the price of a gal of gas?? Its the price of a barrel of oil that sets the price of a gal of gas ?





Bobby said:


> crickets !!!!:biggrin:


OK, Bobby ..OK....

The price of oil is *A* factor in setting the price of a gallon of gas...

So ????.....:biggrin:


----------



## Sugars Pop (Jul 10, 2008)

Price goes up, disposable income goes down so the overall economy heads south. Overall Houston economy excluding people in the oil service industry is booming right now for that reason.
If I pay $60/week(2 fill ups) more for gas that's one less I take the family out for dinner so the small business guy takes the hit.
Oil companies are making good money at $45-$50.Exxon, Chevron, etc.


----------



## Mjhartz87 (Jul 29, 2014)

to be honest... i would just be happy if oil goes up some for career sustainability. what really needs to be dealt with is health insurance. 

ive been kicked in the nads pretty good this downturn and whats killing me the most is the BCBS insurance NOV switched over to. if rumors are true about BCBS for next years enrollment, then my health insurance will officially be more than my mortgage.


----------



## fy0834 (Jan 18, 2011)

Think of it maybe like this....

Does the shortage or oversupply of oranges affect the price of orange juice?


----------



## RRfisher (Mar 5, 2007)

yes


----------



## the toninator (Jan 19, 2016)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrw...discovery-what-you-need-to-know/#354cc43e33dd


----------



## Meadowlark (Jul 19, 2008)

Jolly Roger said:


> Might be a good time to buy some oil ETF's like USO or more volatile depending on risk factor. ...


Buy low and sell high...simple formula.

There's a running thread in the investments section called "2016 Best Growth?" that asks what's a good growth investment for 2016...my recommendation was (back when oil was $30 and everyone said the sky was falling) to buy USO.

70% growth and still growing.

Next time you see $30 oil, buy all you can...and relax while the price just goes up and up and up.


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*Disposable income*

Is what purchases the nice shiny new bling, beach homes, boats, vehicles, game leases, guides, new housing starts, tackle, tires, etc, and created EXTRA jobs --when the economy relies on static income EVERYONE suffers, things don't get built,

30 bbl or 100bbl

Gasoline 1.60 or 4.00 -- the average fuel bill for a 12,000 mile a year Texas driver based on 1000 gallons burned - at 30bbl fuel bill 1.60/gal $560/bux Vs $1440 @ $4/gallon

Sorry if you have to budget so tight, but OIL bidness IS the Texas Economic engine -- you can't say people are better off with cheap fuel - just cheaper


----------



## blaze 'em (Jun 4, 2012)

TrueblueTexican said:


> Is what purchases the nice shiny new bling, beach homes, boats, vehicles, game leases, guides, new housing starts, tackle, tires, etc, and created EXTRA jobs --when the economy relies on static income EVERYONE suffers, things don't get built,
> 
> 30 bbl or 100bbl
> 
> ...


Could you maybe reword or punctuate your math on the difference between 1.60 fuel and 4$? No disrespect meant but either your math is off or I'm not understanding the statement, could easily be the latter...

I will say this, 185 gallons of gas is a while lot less painful to deal with at 1.60 than 4$. I've been fishing my tail off this summer when it's not 5' seas...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*Just basing strictly on 1000 gallons use*



blaze 'em said:


> Could you maybe reword or punctuate your math on the difference between 1.60 fuel and 4$? No disrespect meant but either your math is off or I'm not understanding the statement, could easily be the latter...
> 
> I will say this, 185 gallons of gas is a while lot less painful to deal with at 1.60 than 4$. I've been fishing my tail off this summer when it's not 5' seas...
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


Would be a $2400.. difference (@1.60 VS $4 difference a year, was basing otherwise on the ratio )--

Creative end results is you carry 5 people offshore fishing instead of 3, OR carpool which makes freeways less crowded -

Its really confusing that as gas priced dropped, real income went down , because the cost of goods and services did NOT follow the drop -


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Bobby said:


> So the speculators don't set the price of a gal of gas?? Its the price of a barrel of oil that sets the price of a gal of gas ?


supply and demand sets the price of oil and the price of gas


----------



## Bobby (May 21, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> supply and demand sets the price of oil and the price of gas


Whe n gas was selling for $4 a gal and people on here were complaining about it, all the oil people were saying that the price of a barrel of oil had no effect on the price of gas. It was the speculaters that causes the price to go up.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Lagunaroy said:


> How many jobs would $100 oil create?


How many jobs will be lost with $100 oil?


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Bobby said:


> Whe n gas was selling for $4 a gal and people on here were complaining about it, all the oil people were saying that the price of a barrel of oil had no effect on the price of gas. It was the speculaters that causes the price to go up.


not sure who said that but they are wrong, NAT gas is supply and demand also. There has been a lot of supply for several years and for the most part NAT gas is not used as much world wide as oil. So supply gluts tend to have more effect on Nat gas prices.

Oil and Nat gas do have a relationship, all be it not direct. Both can be used to make power, but overall NAT gas is used more in developed countries more so. Countries like China and India that can drive up the price of Oil when there government buy big contracts of crude oil, do not have the same effect on NAT gas. People do not seem to understand who YOU are competing with when you buy a gallon of gasoline. There are countries that buy millions upon millions of barrels of crude all the time. The print there own money, when there economy is good they do not care what they are paying for the crude oil, they just want it.

If your way of thinking was correct, the price of oil or Nat gas would never go down. If speculators controlled the price of oil they could always make it go up. Since this is not the case most people with common sense have figured out long ago prices are driven by supply and demand. Usually only the Givemethat population who wants government to control everything blame factors other then supply and demand for the price of a gallon of gas. Not sure why, guess because there party hates big oil and lies to them. Or they just are not smart enough to see the prices fluctuate with supply and demand. I mean it is very simple, more supply and less demand the prices goes down. Economy booming and people buying oil at any prices pushing demand sky high the price goes up. For the most part people are very ignorant when it comes to why there gasoline cost so much. If they were showed a chart of how much in Taxes they actual paid for a gallon of gas compared to the profit made by oil companies or speculators most would figure it out. but there still would be some who just would not get it. A gallon of gasoline is one of the most taxed goods people buy, it is taxed 100s of times before it gets to your tank.


----------



## Bobby (May 21, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> not sure who said that but they are wrong, NAT gas is supply and demand also. There has been a lot of supply for several years and for the most part NAT gas is not used as much world wide as oil. So supply gluts tend to have more effect on Nat gas prices.
> 
> Oil and Nat gas do have a relationship, all be it not direct. Both can be used to make power, but overall NAT gas is used more in developed countries more so. Countries like China and India that can drive up the price of Oil when there government buy big contracts, do not have the same effect on NAT gas.
> 
> If your way of thinking was correct, the price of oil or Nat gas would never go down. If speculators controlled the price of oil they could always make it go up. Since this is not the case most people with common sense have figured out long ago prices are driven by supply and demand. Usually only the Givemethat population who wants government to control everything blame factors other then supply and demand for the price of a gallon of gas. Not sure why, guess because there party hates big oil and lies to them. Or they just are not smart enough to see the prices fluctuate with supply and demand. I mean it is very simple, more supply and less demand the prices goes down. Economy booming and people buying oil at any prices pushing demand sky high the price goes up.


Ok so now I am a Givemethat for asking a question. I understand supply and demand. I was just asking why it was being said when prices of a gallon of gasoline not natural gas was $4 a gal. I don't really feel like looking up the old post so what ever you say Jolly.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Bobby said:


> Ok so now I am a Givemethat for asking a question. I understand supply and demand. I was just asking why it was being said when prices of a gallon of gasoline not natural gas was $4 a gal. I don't really feel like looking up the old post so what ever you say Jolly.


not calling you anything, just pointing out who most often blames speculators for the price of gasoline.

Think the price of gasoline has been investigated over 10 times by congress in the last 20 or so years. Each time it was started by the same political party, and every time it was found that supply and demand push prices up or down.

So this is not some made up BS, it has been proven over and over and over again at what I am sure was millions of tax payer money wasted to find out what was already known. The price bump up or DOWN you see are reactions to events that effect supply and demand. They are not pushing prices, they are reacting to events. Same thing if there was a hard freeze that killed the orange crop, prices would go up. This is how commodities work.

Crude oil is a commodity. Natural forces like hurricanes, cold winter, hot summers, etc... all effect pricing. Same as war, depressions, etc... nothing different from oil compared to any other commodity.


----------



## Cody C (May 15, 2009)

Meadowlark said:


> Buy low and sell high...simple formula.
> 
> There's a running thread in the investments section called "2016 Best Growth?" that asks what's a good growth investment for 2016...my recommendation was (back when oil was $30 and everyone said the sky was falling) to buy USO.
> 
> ...


USO, uco, uwti. 
I'm enjoying the direction things are moving 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

Only thing you can really bank on is OIL goes up and OIL goes down. Is it better to have it cost 4 bucs a gallon or 2 bucs a gallon. Oil people say 4. 
Overall I'd say split the difference. People will travel more and spend more money so more folks make money.


----------



## Garwood57 (Jul 1, 2007)

I think a price of $65 to $70 would be good, stabilized. Get drilling going, more jobs, but not get too crazy. Trouble is history says it goes up in wide swings and falls in wide swings. Too much political influence on a world commodity. But when some of the large Mideast Fields start declining and drilling won't sustain them (need water flood or EOR), the supply picture changes and prices go up. I retired after 36 years in the business this year. Enjoying it immensely, but may consult when prices go back up, maybe  . One thing I can say with certainty, no one can predict the oil price swings accurately! Good luck


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

ChuChu said:


> How many jobs will be lost with $100 oil?


None?


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

24Buds said:


> Great for some. Not for others. Happy median would be nice. May I suggest a $65 deal?


Agreed. !!:cheers:


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

24Buds said:


> Great for some. Not for others. Happy median would be nice. May I suggest a $65 deal?


Might just ease that up to $70, Bud.. That seems to be the break even point for the fracking wells.. Might get some of those rigs laying down back on their feet again...

Edit...Hot Dang.. Oil $50.41 this AM...:doowapsta


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> supply and demand sets the price of oil and the price of gas


Actually, it would be more correct to state that speculation about the future supply and demand for oil sets the current market price of oil and gas, since oil is traded as a futures commodity. Speculation definitely plays a huge role in the price of oil and gas.

For example, there is absolutely no reason oil should be trending upwards in price right now, as the world is pumping more oil now than ever before (Iran, Libya, and Nigeria have significantly ramped up exports over the last few months, and Saudi Arabia has also to a lesser extent) and demand is not increasing at anywhere near the same rate. However a possibility that oil supply MAY be capped at roughly today's production level has somehow resulted in an increase in futures contract value of over 10% in the last couple weeks.


----------



## Meadowlark (Jul 19, 2008)

ShadMan said:


> ... there is absolutely no reason oil should be trending upwards in price right now, as the world is pumping more oil now than ever before (Iran, Libya, and Nigeria have significantly ramped up exports over the last few months, and Saudi Arabia has also to a lesser extent) ....


Up strong today... just below $52 and headed upward. That investment in $30 oil sure is looking good right now.

The thing about buying an ETF like USO when oil falls is that you have an incredible hedge against price increases...not to mention investment benefits. So gas goes to $4...big deal, your hedge protects you and makes you ROI outstanding.

Buy it low and sell it high....and forget about trying to figure out all the reasons why, LOL.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

ShadMan said:


> Actually, it would be more correct to state that speculation about the future supply and demand for oil sets the current market price of oil and gas, since oil is traded as a futures commodity. Speculation definitely plays a huge role in the price of oil and gas.
> 
> For example, there is absolutely no reason oil should be trending upwards in price right now, as the world is pumping more oil now than ever before (Iran, Libya, and Nigeria have significantly ramped up exports over the last few months, and Saudi Arabia has also to a lesser extent) and demand is not increasing at anywhere near the same rate. However a possibility that oil supply MAY be capped at roughly today's production level has somehow resulted in an increase in futures contract value of over 10% in the last couple weeks.


it is still supply and demand driven, no matter how you say it or cut it. Speculation is just that. The demand for the product at delivery time sets the price, not the price the speculator paid for it. Future prices do not set the price.

Do not think you fully understand what speculation is, just because you bought oil for $80 a barrel today to sell in 30days does not mean that it will sell for $80 a barrel. Just not the way it works. Speculators can not drive the price up without the demand, same as they can not drive the price down by just bidding lower.

Actually OPEC came out last week and said they were cutting production. So your example is incorrect, in fact you have it completely backwards. Supply has been limited to some degree.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Jolly Roger said:


> it is still supply and demand driven, no matter how you say it or cut it. Speculation is just that. The demand for the product at delivery time sets the price, not the price the speculator paid for it. Future prices do not set the price.
> 
> Do not think you fully understand what speculation is, just because you bought oil for $80 a barrel today to sell in 30days does not mean that it will sell for $80 a barrel. Just not the way it works. Speculators can not drive the price up without the demand, same as they can not drive the price down by just bidding lower.
> 
> Actually OPEC came out last week and said they were cutting production. So your example is incorrect. Supply has been limited to some degree.


https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm

Supply is pretty flat right now, Us production is falling along with Canada but Opec is running wide open so overall it is pretty flat.
If you look at the chart, demand is up almost 2 MBPD. 
When all of this started, demand was almost 2 MBPD below production.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

bigfishtx said:


> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm
> 
> Supply is pretty flat right now, Us production is falling along with Canada but Opec is running wide open so overall it is pretty flat.
> If you look at the chart, demand is up almost 2 MBPD.
> When all of this started, demand was almost 2 MBPD below production.


Yeah demand has been creeping upward, and overall supply is at idle in the US. If there is a spike in demand for any reason weather/war/etc... there will be a lag in supply. Prices will spike. 
OPEC came out last week and said they were cutting supply, they are no longer running wide open. This moved the needle to some degree as anything the cartel does makes a difference.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

Meadowlark said:


> Buy it low and sell it high....and forget about trying to figure out all the reasons why, LOL.


LOL... Lark..would you mind sharing your 'secret formula' for 
deciding exactly what is "Low"....and what is "High" ???

Many men have tried and failed looking for the 'sweet spots'....:rotfl:


----------



## bassguitarman (Nov 29, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Meadowlark*  
_
Buy it low and sell it high....and forget about trying to figure out all the reasons why, LOL._



Tortuga said:


> LOL... Lark..would you mind sharing your 'secret formula' for
> deciding exactly what is "Low"....and what is "High" ???
> 
> Many men have tried and failed looking for the 'sweet spots'....:rotfl:


Easy - just do the opposite of what I do and you will never miss


----------



## Meadowlark (Jul 19, 2008)

Tortuga said:


> ....Many men have tried and failed looking for the 'sweet spots'....:rotfl:


Maybe that's a difference. I don't look for "sweet spots" but rely on plain old common sense....and it works well for me. Thanks for asking.


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> Actually OPEC came out last week and said they were cutting production. So your example is incorrect, in fact you have it completely backwards. Supply has been limited to some degree.


You're wrong. You need to re-read the "terms" of the deal they disclosed. It is not a cut in production at all. It is roughly a cap at current production levels or slightly higher.


----------



## jaime1982 (Aug 25, 2009)

Im just curious as to how much the people that say they wish for $100+bbl/$4+ per gallon actually have to gain. Just a job or do they have $100000s invested?

I dont mind the cheap gas.


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

jaime1982 said:


> Im just curious as to how much the people that say they wish for $100+bbl/$4+ per gallon actually have to gain. Just a job or do they have $100000s invested?


For me, the difference between today's prices and $100/bbl would be $40k-$50k difference in annual bonus and maybe $40k in investment gains. $130 would be much better. Haha! :cheers:

For many, it means a job versus no job, or a job making twice or three times what they are making currently.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

jaime1982 said:


> Im just curious as to how much the people that say they wish for $100+bbl/$4+ per gallon actually have to gain. Just a job or do they have $100000s invested?
> 
> I dont mind the cheap gas.


Jamie ,
I don't know who you are, and I don't know where you work. I don't know what industry you get a check from. But let me tell you something, this oil drop from 100 / bbl to 19 , and then up to 50/bbl, has been a once in a lifetime gut busting event. Hundreds of thousands of families have been decimated by this worldwide event , mostly along our Gulf Coast. 
I want to make you aware of something called the trickle down effect. When there is no profit in drilling for oil, and no profit from supplying oilfield equipment, and no profit from selling steel , supplies, rope , soap , portacans, transportation, housing, wire, labor, food , are you getting this yet?
Please , don't ask us a question like this again.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

jaime1982 said:


> Im just curious as to how much the people that say they wish for $100+bbl/$4+ per gallon actually have to gain. Just a job or do they have $100000s invested?
> 
> I dont mind the cheap gas.


Producers of the oil (the guys who drilled the well) would much rather sell it for $100/bbl than $40/bbl...and, yes..they do have hundreds of thousands invested in each well...

Also..Royalty owners love the higher prices since they are receiving a percentage of the value of oil produced and sold...and they may have hundreds of thousands invested in buying the royalty in the first place...

Also the guys working on the rig...if the price drops below what the cost to drill and pump the well is....the rig is laid down and they lose their jobs..and six figure paychecks are not unusual working the rigs....


----------



## jaime1982 (Aug 25, 2009)

Tortuga said:


> Producers of the oil (the guys who drilled the well) would much rather sell it for $100/bbl than $40/bbl...and, yes..they do have hundreds of thousands invested in each well...
> 
> Also..Royalty owners love the higher prices since they are receiving a percentage of the value of oil produced and sold...and they may have hundreds of thousands invested in buying the royalty in the first place...
> 
> Also the guys working on the rig...if the price drops below what the cost to drill and pump the well is....the rig is laid down and they lose their jobs..and six figure paychecks are not unusual working the rigs....


I understand all that, I was asking about the individuals NOT the companys side.


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

donf said:


> Jamie ,
> 
> I don't know who you are, and I don't know where you work. I don't know what industry you get a check from. But let me tell you something, this oil drop from 100 / bbl to 19 , and then up to 50/bbl, has been a once in a lifetime gut busting event. Hundreds of thousands of families have been decimated by this worldwide event , mostly along our Gulf Coast.
> 
> ...


Little rough on him, huh? Sounded like a reasonable question.

There's also a flip-side to your example where 100,000,000 drivers in this country are saving $100 or more each month on fuel right now and spending more money on goods and services, which creates jobs. It's not a one-sided equation.

Most economists believe somewhere in the $70-$85/bbl range is equilibrium that provides the greatest amount of economic benefit for the country.


----------



## blaze 'em (Jun 4, 2012)

jaime1982 said:


> I understand all that, I was asking about the individuals NOT the companys side.


Easy. Landowners receiving royalties.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

ShadMan said:


> You're wrong. You need to re-read the "terms" of the deal they disclosed. It is not a cut in production at all. It is roughly a cap at current production levels or slightly higher.


 Here is Russia about cut production along with OPEC

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-ready-to-freeze-or-even-cut-output-with-opec

Supply and demand. Demand is on steady increase, a freeze or cut both have the same effect on pricing they both limit supply. Opec had been on a steady increase in production, a freeze/cap right now from OPEC is a cut in production. It will cause demand to exceed current supply, others in the US can and will meet demand, so might work out good for us but our cost to produce is higher then OPEC so there will be a price increase in crude and gasoline. Always supply and demand.



jaime1982 said:


> Im just curious as to how much the people that say they wish for $100+bbl/$4+ per gallon actually have to gain. Just a job or do they have $100000s invested?
> 
> I dont mind the cheap gas.


for me, all three,more work, investments in the biz and royalties. but I do not wish for $100. Would like to see stable pricing at $60-70bbl. To high pricing makes for to much supply, then drives down prices and we get the big ups and downs. Oil needs to stabilize for some time let everything shake out.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

ShadMan said:


> Little rough on him, huh? Sounded like a reasonable question.
> 
> There's also a flip-side to your example where 100,000,000 drivers in this country are saving $100 or more each month on fuel right now and spending more money on goods and services, which creates jobs. It's not a one-sided equation.
> 
> Most economists believe somewhere in the $70-$85/bbl range is equilibrium that provides the greatest amount of economic benefit for the country.


 sounds great ! 400,000 wage earners are making nothing, spending nothing , some are facing foreclosure , we are talking about a trillion dollar industry , and the $100.00 a month in gas savings prompted a post?


----------



## mactx812 (Aug 1, 2011)

Lagunaroy said:


> How many jobs would $100 oil create?


$100 oil would mean energy companies would go back to aggressive drilling programs. In 2014 COP was a 12 rig program in EFS at $100 and increase to 20 rigs by mid 2015. Then we all know what happen then. Image each rig supports direct and indirect jobs of 4-5k jobs


----------



## That Robbie Guy (Aug 11, 2009)

Mjhartz87 said:


> if rumors are true about BCBS for next years enrollment, then my health insurance will officially be more than my mortgage.


Unfortunately for myself, that was this year's truth.


----------



## jaime1982 (Aug 25, 2009)

donf said:


> sounds great ! 400,000 wage earners are making nothing, spending nothing , some are facing foreclosure , we are talking about a trillion dollar industry , and the $100.00 a month in gas savings prompted a post?


It's a cyclic industry, that always has been. How many 400k earners do we have here?

My question was for the guys that always post they wish for 100 or 150 bbl and how much they actually have to benefit from it. Not the world wide, Gulf Coast economy. So far only 2 guys above answered.


----------



## Tennif Shoe (Aug 11, 2011)

This is one of the few subjects I disagree with most of 2cool about. Many people here advocate for doubling or tripling the price of something I use everyday. Mostly because they will get their jobs back. I understand here in Texas oil and gas is big, but come on guys. Let's talk about doing the same thing to a different industry, and most of y'all would not agree, because it does not improve your life. Try this on for size. Lets make electricity $1.00/kwh. Man that sure would help all of the electricians. They would make more money, then it would trickle down to us. That makes no more sense that calling for $150/bbl oil. Nobody on this forum has talked about coal. Oil is just in a downturn right now, our government is trying to make that industry obsolete.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

jaime1982 said:


> It's a cyclic industry, that always has been. How many 400k earners do we have here?
> 
> My question was for the guys that always post they wish for 100 or 150 bbl and how much they actually have to benefit from it. Not the world wide, Gulf Coast economy. So far only 2 guys above answered.


What specifically are you asking?
If you are asking how many people here have lost their job or taken a significant hit in income, there are a lot of people here that will say yes.


----------



## capone (Feb 25, 2013)

Tennif Shoe said:


> This is one of the few subjects I disagree with most of 2cool about. Many people here advocate for doubling or tripling the price of something I use everyday. Mostly because they will get their jobs back. I understand here in Texas oil and gas is big, but come on guys. Let's talk about doing the same thing to a different industry, and most of y'all would not agree, because it does not improve your life. Try this on for size. Lets make electricity $1.00/kwh. Man that sure would help all of the electricians. They would make more money, then it would trickle down to us. That makes no more sense that calling for $150/bbl oil. Nobody on this forum has talked about coal. Oil is just in a downturn right now, our government is trying to make that industry obsolete.


The one and only thing that creates a strong economy is an individuals desire and will for self improvement (earning and creating wealth). The commodity or industry does not matter. The current subject just happens to be oil. Why would you not want your industry to have a high commodity price? Do you think that we should all pay low prices for oil? Do you even understand the amount of money and risk involved in exploration and field development? Do you understand how many companies are involved from the start of a well until you buy your food wrapped in plastic film at the grocery store? There are many reasons oil should be north of $100/bbl. My personal reason is so I can earn more money than the average Joe, and no I don't care that you make a lot less. The people that make these types of claims don't work in the industry and make a load of assumptions about how easy it is to earn money in the oil industry.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

On a macro level the worldwide economy does better with low crude prices. Everything costs less to make, manufacture or grow.

On a micro level Texas and Houston to better with higher priced oil.

Ideally a price around 70.00 would be perfect. Oil companies can grow and make money but fuel is still not oppressively high for the consumer. The problem is their is no way to set a perfect price. The oil business is either in full throttle "make money" while you can mode or "survival" mode.


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

donf said:


> sounds great ! 400,000 wage earners are making nothing, spending nothing , some are facing foreclosure , we are talking about a trillion dollar industry , and the $100.00 a month in gas savings prompted a post?


I was just pointing out there is a flip side and for those who don't work in O&G, I think his question was fair. First, there are not 400,000 people making nothing. Most have taken other jobs, albeit at much lower income. That said, people who, in many cases, didn't finish high school yet were making six figure incomes was an anomaly due to extremely high oil prices that should never have been that high and likely will not approach those levels again for decades, if ever.

If you assume 25% of those laid off are still out of work, that equates to 0.1% of the number of people who benefit from low oil prices, so the other 99.9% of people are benefiting, though at a much lower per person rate than those hurt by low oil prices. To put it another way, if 100,000,000 people save $100 per month, that is equivalent to 400,000 people losing $25,000 per month ($300k/year), which is way more than 99% of the oil jobs lost paid. So the current price is a significant net benefit to the country, even though it means lower income for you and I who work in O&G.


----------



## houtxfisher (Sep 12, 2006)

capone said:


> The one and only thing that creates a strong economy is an individuals desire and will for self improvement (earning and creating wealth). The commodity or industry does not matter. The current subject just happens to be oil. Why would you not want your industry to have a high commodity price? Do you think that we should all pay low prices for oil? Do you even understand the amount of money and risk involved in exploration and field development? Do you understand how many companies are involved from the start of a well until you buy your food wrapped in plastic film at the grocery store? There are many reasons oil should be north of $100/bbl. My personal reason is so I can earn more money than the average Joe, and no I don't care that you make a lot less. The people that make these types of claims don't work in the industry and make a load of assumptions about how easy it is to earn money in the oil industry.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have worked in the oil industry for 16 years, my wife and brother both work in the oil industry and I am fine with the current pricing. It is supply and demand. I am also fine when it goes up because higher prices [set by the market] drive technology advances that will ultimately lead to the next bust. If they finally perfect cold fusion and oil is $0/bbl I will be excited what that means for us as a country, not mad because my industry is going away. Similarly, if I was in the medical field, I would not wish for costs to rise for people so that I might keep my lucrative job. I would hope new cures [technology] would drive healthcare costs lower for more people.

See: Broken Window Fallacy


----------



## johnsons1480 (Jun 24, 2016)

Arguing that supply and demand controls oil prices AND that OPEC is controlling their supply to allow demand to increase prices is a little illogical isn't it? You're trying to argue that normal market forces are at work AND there is also a cartel operating that has 40 percent of the world's crude oil and controls 60 percent of the world's exports. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

When gas price goes over $2.50 a gallon, I cut back on travel, including just one day trips. Being on a set income, I have to manage my spending. So, when we cut back, it effects gas stations, restaurants, sight seeing facilities,(state parks,museums, etc.) Right now, we are going on another long drive thru the western states because the gas is about $2.00 a gallon. 
There are a lot of retirees that do the same. I worked in the oil business my whole career, and have endured many oil booms and busts. And I see the same thing every time. During the boom the money flows like water, and NO ONE plans for the bust that WILL happen. The Eagle Ford is an example. Companies and royalty owners both spent it all and when it got tight, companies went bankrupt and royalty owners were foreclosed on because the "mailbox" money dried up and they had over spent.


----------



## houtxfisher (Sep 12, 2006)

johnsons1480 said:


> Arguing that supply and demand controls oil prices AND that OPEC is controlling their supply to allow demand to increase prices is a little illogical isn't it? You're trying to argue that normal market forces are at work AND there is also a cartel operating that has 40 percent of the world's crude oil and controls 60 percent of the world's exports. You can't have it both ways.


No, not illogical at all. Perhaps your definition of "normal market forces" does not include cartels, terrorists bombing pipelines and unfriendly governments but that does not mean that they are magically not part of the supply side equation.


----------



## johnsons1480 (Jun 24, 2016)

houtxfisher said:


> No, not illogical at all. Perhaps your definition of "normal market forces" does not include cartels, terrorists bombing pipelines and unfriendly governments but that does not mean that they are magically not part of the supply side equation.


What I'm trying to say is, you cannot argue that supply and demand are operating in a free market fashion when there is a cartel controlling over half of the supply. The rules of the free market no longer apply because the supply is being artificially manipulated.


----------



## capone (Feb 25, 2013)

houtxfisher said:


> I have worked in the oil industry for 16 years, my wife and brother both work in the oil industry and I am fine with the current pricing. It is supply and demand. I am also fine when it goes up because higher prices [set by the market] drive technology advances that will ultimately lead to the next bust. If they finally perfect cold fusion and oil is $0/bbl I will be excited what that means for us as a country, not mad because my industry is going away. Similarly, if I was in the medical field, I would not wish for costs to rise for people so that I might keep my lucrative job. I would hope new cures [technology] would drive healthcare costs lower for more people.
> 
> See: Broken Window Fallacy


If you are fine with the current pricing then you do not understand what it takes to produce oil...tomorrow. It's not about what it costs to produce a bbl of oil today. How much money and technology is being put into tomorrow's production? Do you know that only 5% of oil is recovered from an eagle ford shake well? At some point those wells will dry up. Who is going to fund the rework or new exploration? It takes mass amounts of money to bring energy and petrochemical products to market.

If money cannot be made from a business, people will not invest, its that simple. Are you one of those people that believe modern medicine is a privilege?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## houtxfisher (Sep 12, 2006)

Ok, but supply is often (always?) manipulated. How is the oil cartel reducing supply different than say soybean farmers reducing crops they plant (supply)? These are exactly the rules of the free market. Farmers get together and decide to not plant XYZ to wait until demand [and therefore price] increases. Same for most commodities, mining, etc...


----------



## houtxfisher (Sep 12, 2006)

capone said:


> If you are fine with the current pricing then you do not understand what it takes to produce oil...tomorrow. It's not about what it costs to produce a bbl of oil today. How much money and technology is being put into tomorrow's production? Do you know that only 5% of oil is recovered from an eagle ford shake well? At some point those wells will dry up. Who is going to fund the rework or new exploration? It takes mass amounts of money to bring energy and petrochemical products to market.
> 
> If money cannot be made from a business, people will not invest, its that simple. Are you one of those people that believe modern medicine is a privilege?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Perhaps it is you that does not understand. What do you think will occur when there is nobody to fund the rework or invest in new exploration? Will we quit using oil?


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

Y'all still haven't separated upstream and down stream effects on pricing.

I don't have a problem with big oil, my problem is with big DAIRY!!

A gallon of 2% milk is $3.24 

To get oil, they have to go out, dig holes in the ground, sink a kajillion feet of pipe, pump up the oil, store it, separated by grade, transport it from the fields to a terminal (some times half way around the globe), fight corrupt politicians, environmentalist, warring pirates, ship it to a facility that is set up to process that specific grade of crude, process the heck out of it, deal with all the environmental regs there, put it into another terminal yard, truck it again to market.

Now Dairy. Well the dairy cows come up to the barn daily on a schedule to eat, you hook up a claw to the utters, pump the milk, pasteurize and transport. Ya, there is a little more to it, but NOTHING like what it takes to process a gallon of crude.

Where is all your outrage with the cost of milk?


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

johnsons1480 said:


> What I'm trying to say is, you cannot argue that supply and demand are operating in a free market fashion when there is a cartel controlling over half of the supply. The rules of the free market no longer apply because the supply is being artificially manipulated.


There is no such thing as a free market. Governments, own, regulate, tax and control prices on everything you buy, the examples are endless.

What we live in is a market economy, not a free market.

The cartel is a major part of the supply equation when it comes to oil. They bargain and debate there output, pricing, and future exploration often. All these have effects on supply, and any move positive or negative will be seen in the pricing.


----------



## johnsons1480 (Jun 24, 2016)

houtxfisher said:


> Ok, but supply is often (always?) manipulated. How is the oil cartel reducing supply different than say soybean farmers reducing crops they plant (supply)? These are exactly the rules of the free market. Farmers get together and decide to not plant XYZ to wait until demand [and therefore price] increases. Same for most commodities, mining, etc...


That's called price fixing, and it was made illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying it is illegal and not part of free market economics. I'm not delusional; I know that our economy doesn't operate as a completely free market. With that being said, a cartel that controls as much of the supply as OPEC does creates something that is no longer a free market.


----------



## johnsons1480 (Jun 24, 2016)

Jolly Roger said:


> There is no such thing as a free market. Governments, own, regulate, tax and control prices on everything you buy, the examples are endless.
> 
> What we live in is a market economy, not a free market.
> 
> The cartel is a major part of the supply equation when it comes to oil. They bargain and debate there output, pricing, and future exploration often. All these have effects on supply, and any move positive or negative will be seen in the pricing.


I think we're in agreement here. Prices are not set by straight up free market supply and demand. It's much, much more complicated than that.


----------



## BertS (May 21, 2004)

how many folks can say they truly suffered when gas prices were up?

lost your job?
lost your house?
had to take a lower paying job?

all because the price of a barrel of oil was $100?


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

johnsons1480 said:


> I think we're in agreement here. Prices are not set by straight up free market supply and demand. It's much, much more complicated than that.


prices are set by supply and demand. As with any product supply is controlled by the producers, if they cut back, supply is less and price will go up if the product is in demand. This is true for anything you purchase. This is how it works for all goods, not just oil.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

BertS said:


> how many folks can say they truly suffered when gas prices were up?
> 
> lost your job?
> lost your house?
> ...


I can say I suffer when gas price is high. I live on a set income, and when gas goes up, everything else does too. So yes, I suffer.


----------



## houtxfisher (Sep 12, 2006)

johnsons1480 said:


> That's called price fixing, and it was made illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying it is illegal and not part of free market economics. I'm not delusional; I know that our economy doesn't operate as a completely free market. With that being said, a cartel that controls as much of the supply as OPEC does creates something that is no longer a free market.


That is not price fixing. Choosing to not bring supply to market whether by not planting soybeans or not reworking a well does not constitute price fixing, you are mistaken.

Whether or not you call it a "market" or a "free market" is irrelevant. Supply and demand ultimately dictates price. As it should. Right now, big trucks and SUV's are selling and hybrids and efficient commuters are slow moving. When gas prices go back up (and they will) motorists will be crying about Exxon's profits again and the local news will again run "pain at the pump" segments. It is just how capital gets allocated in a "market"/"free market" economy.


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

ChuChu said:


> When gas price goes over $2.50 a gallon, I cut back on travel, including just one day trips. Being on a set income, I have to manage my spending. So, when we cut back, it effects gas stations, restaurants, sight seeing facilities,(state parks,museums, etc.) Right now, we are going on another long drive thru the western states because the gas is about $2.00 a gallon.
> There are a lot of retirees that do the same. I worked in the oil business my whole career, and have endured many oil booms and busts. And I see the same thing every time. During the boom the money flows like water, and NO ONE plans for the bust that WILL happen. The Eagle Ford is an example. Companies and royalty owners both spent it all and when it got tight, companies went bankrupt and royalty owners were foreclosed on because the "mailbox" money dried up and they had over spent.


That's an awfully broad brush you are painting with..."NO ONE".

Actually a lot of folks including myself planned for it, I quit driving to the mailbox in 2014, still just a short walk.

County tax revenues are down ~50% from last year due to low oil prices in the EFS. Think ISDs, something will have to be cut.

The folks that are really getting hurt are those young folks that were let go from good jobs in the patch, they have families. They were doing great, and then it all came down around them, it sucks.

You do know, that if oil was $0.00 per barrel, with no transportation costs, and gas was $0.00 from the refinieries with no transportation costs to the retailer, and the retailer would add no costs...gas would be $0.39 per gallon?


----------



## johnsons1480 (Jun 24, 2016)

houtxfisher said:


> That is not price fixing. Choosing to not bring supply to market whether by not planting soybeans or not reworking a well does not constitute price fixing, you are mistaken.
> 
> Whether or not you call it a "market" or a "free market" is irrelevant. Supply and demand ultimately dictates price. As it should. Right now, big trucks and SUV's are selling and hybrids and efficient commuters are slow moving. When gas prices go back up (and they will) motorists will be crying about Exxon's profits again and the local news will again run "pain at the pump" segments. It is just how capital gets allocated in a "market"/"free market" economy.


You are incorrect.

"An agreement to restrict production, sales, or output is just as illegal as direct price fixing, because reducing the supply of a product or service drives up its price."
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...itrust-laws/dealings-competitors/price-fixing


----------



## BertS (May 21, 2004)

ChuChu said:


> I can say I suffer when gas price is high. I live on a set income, and when gas goes up, everything else does too. So yes, I suffer.


suffering because you can't travel to see the country, isn't what I mean. or suffering because you can't fill the boat up with gas, so you have to adjust your fishing trip.

suffer, like not being able to put food on the table. suffer by losing your house.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

BertS said:


> suffering because you can't travel to see the country, isn't what I mean. or suffering because you can't fill the boat up with gas, so you have to adjust your fishing trip.
> 
> suffer, like not being able to put food on the table. suffer by losing your house.


When I have to pay $75 to fill my truck, compared to $30, I suffer. I have to cut back on other things.


----------



## johnsons1480 (Jun 24, 2016)

Jolly Roger said:


> prices are set by supply and demand. As with any product supply is controlled by the producers, if they cut back, supply is less and price will go up if the product is in demand. This is true for anything you purchase. This is how it works for all goods, not just oil.


It's not as simple as saying prices are set by supply and demand. When you can manipulate the supply, then you are at least partially setting the prices. If a single producer of a homogeneous good cuts supply, then others can and will step in to fill that void if the selling price is right for them and the demand is there. When an entity controls how much each producer can produce, then we are no longer operating in a free or a market economy, we are operating under a cartel.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> prices are set by supply and demand. As with any product supply is controlled by the producers, if they cut back, supply is less and price will go up if the product is in demand. This is true for anything you purchase. This is how it works for all goods, not just oil.


It still boils down to supply and demand....and TIME....

The first half of my life..gasoline was ALWAYS between $.25 and $.50 / gallon...

Gold was a solid $35/ounce for decades...

Supply wuz always there...Demand wuz always there....

Live by my credo.... "*PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE.......THEN GET OVER IT !!!!!!"*


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

johnsons1480 said:


> It's not as simple as saying prices are set by supply and demand. When you can manipulate the supply, then you are at least partially setting the prices. If a single producer of a homogeneous good cuts supply, then others can and will step in to fill that void if the selling price is right for them and the demand is there. When an entity controls how much each producer can produce, then we are no longer operating in a free or a market economy, we are operating under a cartel.


You seem to give to much credit to OPEC. OPEC is not the single producer, OPEC is just a large supply, and OPEC is not single but a combonation of many nations that do not always follow what OPEC wants to do. But IF/WHEN OPEC does stop or slowed production, then US producers step in and fill the demand.

So we are back to supply and demand when it comes to oil. There are more producers then just OPEC. OPEC just controls the cheapest oil, they do not control the market.

OPEC tried to control the market, they failed badly. It almost destroyed OPEC.


----------



## BertS (May 21, 2004)

ChuChu said:


> When I have to pay $75 to fill my truck, compared to $30, I suffer. I have to cut back on other things.


lose your house or round steak, instead of rib eyes?


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Tortuga said:


> It still boils down to supply and demand....and TIME....
> 
> The first half of my life..gasoline was ALWAYS between $.25 and $.50 / gallon...
> 
> ...


wise as always


----------



## houtxfisher (Sep 12, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> You seem to give to much credit to OPEC. OPEC is not the single producer, OPEC is just a large supply, and OPEC is not single but a combonation of many nations that do not always follow what OPEC wants to do. But IF/WHEN OPEC does stop or slowed production, then US producers step in and fill the demand.
> 
> So we are back to supply and demand when it comes to oil. There are more producers then just OPEC. OPEC just controls the cheapest oil, they do not control the market.
> 
> OPEC tried to control the market, they failed badly. It almost destroyed OPEC.


Agree with this post. Are other people arguing that OPEC members failed to reach a consensus and are therefore producing too much causing prices to be too low? I am not really sure what the argument against OPEC is other than they are not effectively restricting output and inflating price.


----------



## johnsons1480 (Jun 24, 2016)

Jolly Roger said:


> OPEC is not single but a combonation of many nations


... which is called a cartel.



> *The Bottom Line **
> *
> 
> Theoretically, oil prices should be a function of supply and demand. When supply and demand increase, prices should drop and vice versa. But the reality is different. Oil's status as the preferred source of energy has complicated its pricing. Demand and supply are only part of the complex equation that has generous elements of geopolitics and environmental concerns.
> Regions that hold pricing power over oil control vital levers of the world's economy. The United States controlled oil prices for a majority of the previous century, only to cede it to the OPEC countries in the 1970s. Recent events, however, may end up with the pricing power swinging back towards the United States and Western oil companies.


http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/081315/opec-vs-us-who-controls-oil-prices.asp


Believe what you want; I'm going to keep saying it's more complicated that just supply and demand.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

johnsons1480 said:


> ..
> Believe what you want; I'm going to keep saying it's more complicated that just supply and demand.


no one claimed it was simple, but it is supply and demand

The supply and demand control part is very simple to see. When the demand was high and the supply was lacking we had 100+bbl, now that we have good supply and less demand the price is 50bbl.

not sure what about this hard for people to understand.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

BertS said:


> lose your house or round steak, instead of rib eyes?


When oil is high, every other consumer cost rises with it. When oil is low, every consumer price falls with it.
When oil is high, property taxes rise with it. When oil is low, the taxes stay the same and do not fall, due to bad planning on the taxing entities. 
So, when oil goes up. I pay more, when it goes down I get a little break on the consumer products, but still pay the elevated rate because of poor planning for the bust.

Are you retired and living on a set income? If not. you don't have a clue.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

houtxfisher said:


> Agree with this post. Are other people arguing that OPEC members failed to reach a consensus and are therefore producing too much causing prices to be too low? I am not really sure what the argument against OPEC is other than they are not effectively restricting output and inflating price.


The cartel tried to put Texas and other US producers out of business by flooding the market with cheap supply. OPEC failed, several OPEC nations and even Saudis economy started to collapse and many OPEC nations threatened to leave . OPEC decided to make a change. The damage is done, OPEC has proven to be much weaker then what was thought. OPEC did cause supply problems in other ways other then just cutting production. With the collapse of oil producing countries war tends to break out and the oil wells and refineries tend to be the first thing blown up.


----------



## johnsons1480 (Jun 24, 2016)

Jolly Roger said:


> no one claimed it was simple, but it is supply and demand
> 
> The supply and demand control part is very simple to see. When the demand was high and the supply was lacking we had 100+bbl, now that we have good supply and less demand the price is 50bbl.
> 
> not sure what about this hard for people to understand.


It's not controlled by supply and demand, it's controlled by collusion. There is a reason that cartels are illegal under US Antitrust laws. The formation of a cartel can create an oligopoly which is then allowed to set prices just like a monopoly can. Are you going to argue that monopoly prices are set by supply and demand?


----------



## BertS (May 21, 2004)

ChuChu said:


> When oil is high, every other consumer cost rises with it. When oil is low, every consumer price falls with it.
> When oil is high, property taxes rise with it. When oil is low, the taxes stay the same and do not fall, due to bad planning on the taxing entities.
> So, when oil goes up. I pay more, when it goes down I get a little break on the consumer products, but still pay the elevated rate because of poor planning for the bust.
> 
> Are you retired and living on a set income? If not. you don't have a clue.


and yet, none of that has cost you your house? or your means of income.

all it means, is you get less of the fun stuff. less of the selfish stuff.

the things you are relating, has very little to do with my question. you act like a rise in the price of a barrel of oil, has had dire consequences, when you yourself stated, you could only take short one day drives.....how is that even comparable to families losing their homes?


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

BertS said:


> and yet, none of that has cost you your house? or your means of income.
> 
> all it means, is you get less of the fun stuff. less of the selfish stuff.


I paid my house off before I retired, so it is not a part of any calculation. 
Again I ask. ARE YOU LIVING ON A SET INCOME?

You still do not have a clue.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

johnsons1480 said:


> It's not controlled by supply and demand, it's controlled by collusion. There is a reason that cartels are illegal under US Antitrust laws. The formation of a cartel can create an oligopoly which is then allowed to set prices just like a monopoly can. Are you going to argue that monopoly prices are set by supply and demand?


So, if this is collusion, why did they collude to drive prices so low and cast themselves billions of dollars?

If you look back 10-15 years and examine the World Oil supply/ Demand graphs, you will find that when there was a gap of 1,000,000 BPD one way or the other, prices were on the move and the market was very fluid. 
In 2005, we saw prices go sky high. Much of this was caused by the book "Twilight in the Desert" which convinced a lot of people that the Peak oil Theory was on us, and that the Middle East was running out of oil.
We saw oil go to $150/Bbl briefly. Then the recession happened and demand was cut drastically. Prices fell, then started a slow rebound.
The the US Shale Boom hit, along with the Canadians learning how to produce a lot of oil from their Tar sands. And of course, production went back up quicker than demand and once again, the prices fell. Each one of these events was primarily caused by supply and demand.
$150 oil would be bad for us, but $80 oil would be great for Texas. We will see it again.

https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

johnsons1480 said:


> It's not controlled by supply and demand, it's controlled by collusion. There is a reason that cartels are illegal under US Antitrust laws. The formation of a cartel can create an oligopoly which is then allowed to set prices just like a monopoly can. Are you going to argue that monopoly prices are set by supply and demand?


Controlled by supply and demad

OPEC is only called a cartel, it is not an actual cartel. They do not set prices, supply and demand sets the price.

I am not going to argue anything, going to try and explain it to you, but can not understand it for you.

With any goods you buy, suppliers like OPEC can flood the market and lower the prices of a product. Does not matter what it is, if there is a oversupply the prices does down. This is not a monopoly, just market forces at work .

But the same suppler can not force prices UP/HIGHER by limiting supply because there are other supplier that will step in and meet demand. This is what happens with oil, there is NO monopoly with oil way to many suppliers in the world.. OPEC can only make the price of oil go down with more SUPPLY. OPEC can not make it go up, OPEC can not make more DEMAND. If OPEC slows production other producers step in and supply the market to meet the demand.

OPEC can not control the price, they can only control some of the supply. OPEC only controls one aspect of supply, they can supply more then what is needed. But they can never supply less then what is needed because there are other suppliers, like Texas producers, of oil that can meet the demand. You will see price bumps when supply chains are interrupted, like OPEC slowing production. But these supply interruptions will be overcame by other oil producers and the price will settle again.

Oil prices are based on supply and demand.


----------



## BertS (May 21, 2004)

ChuChu said:


> I paid my house off before I retired, so it is not a part of any calculation.
> Again I ask. ARE YOU LIVING ON A SET INCOME?
> 
> You still do not have a clue.


no, not a set income, but a halfway intelligent person can see, we are talking two different things........

the things you suffer thru are wants.........the thing many oil patch workers are suffering are basic needs......

obviously, there will be no resolution with this, so I will politely let you have the last word.

I'm done with this.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

BertS said:


> no, not a set income, but a halfway intelligent person can see, we are talking two different things........
> 
> the things you suffer thru are wants.........the thing many oil patch workers are suffering are basic needs......
> 
> ...


Once again you don't have a clue. I don't suffer thru "wants", I simply want to maintain status quo. And if you knew me, you would say "he is a cheapskate". That's what the bi polar old broad says anyway. 
But you have a good day, because someday you will find or someone will buy you a clue and you will see for yourself.

PS. I would buy you a clue, but the price of gas is going up so I have to start cutting back on "wants".


----------



## Bobby (May 21, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> Controlled by supply and demad
> 
> OPEC is only called a cartel, it is not an actual cartel. They do not set prices, supply and demand sets the price.
> 
> ...


If OPEC decides to slow down supply to almost nothing then the prices won't change?


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Bobby said:


> If OPEC decides to slow down supply to almost nothing then the prices won't change?


Kinda like 1973?


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Bobby said:


> If OPEC decides to slow down supply to almost nothing then the prices won't change?


any instant and immediate change in the supply chain will have short term effects on pricing. Oil pipeline blown up, blockage of port, weather taking out deep sea producers, etc... but they are short term as supply is put online from other suppliers to make up for the supply lost.

supply and demand, one source get smaller or goes down, different source fills the gap. If OPEC was to slow down to almost nothing, price would spike then would come back down as the supply gap was filled. OPEC does not have an monopoly on the market, they are not the only supplier.

same can be said for more supply going online also, like we have had in the last couple years. Good supply or over supply the price goes down

Supply and demand



ChuChu said:


> Kinda like 1973?


supply chain is a LOT different now then in the 70s.


----------



## Jerry-rigged (May 21, 2004)

Bobby said:


> If OPEC decides to slow down supply to almost nothing then the prices won't change?


It will got up sky high for a while (low supply = high price)

Then west Texas and the Dakotas and Canada Tar sand and Russia and a few others that are hurting right now will come roaring back, and the price will drop back to reasonable levels.

Silly to say that OPEC has no influence over the price of oil. Also silly to say they control the price. It is all supply and demand. They control a large % of the world supply, so they have huge influence.

It is also silly to say they only want high prices, or low prices. When oil was above $100 OPEC was running wide open trying to get the price down.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> Supply and demand
> 
> supply chain is a LOT different now then in the 70s.


Not as much as folks might think, Roger.....

_*"In 2015, the United States imported approximately 9.4 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum"
*_


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Tortuga said:


> Not as much as folks might think, Roger.....
> 
> _*"In 2015, the United States imported approximately 9.4 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum"
> *_


Most of that comes from Mexico and Canada, in large part due to NAFTA. Canada is a large supplier of oil to the US.

Supply chain is a lot different now then the 70s.

here is a break down of imports by country
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6

OPEC nations only accounts for around 10% of the oil used in the US.


----------



## johnsons1480 (Jun 24, 2016)

The data doesn't support what I was saying, and I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong.


----------



## Bobby (May 21, 2004)

Jerry-rigged said:


> It will got up sky high for a while (low supply = high price)
> 
> Then west Texas and the Dakotas and Canada Tar sand and Russia and a few others that are hurting right now will come roaring back, and the price will drop back to reasonable levels.
> 
> ...


Sorry you think I am silly asking a honest question. I don't rely on oil for a living and know nothing about it since I have never worked in it except that one time in 1957 I worked at a gas station. Gas was $0.12 a gal then. Never knew then what oil was selling for a barrel.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Jolly Roger said:


> Most of that comes from Mexico and Canada, in large part due to NAFTA. Canada is a large supplier of oil to the US.
> 
> Supply chain is a lot different now then the 70s.
> 
> ...


Yep

This is why they wanted the pipeline built from Canada to Texas, to bring oil here for refining.
And why is the pipeline being blocked? Because some big donors to Obama have trucking companies that ship the oil.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

bigfishtx said:


> Yep
> 
> This is why they wanted the pipeline built from Canada to Texas, to bring oil here for refining.
> And why is the pipeline being blocked? Because some big donors to Obama have trucking companies that ship the oil.


And Buffett/Berkshire Hathaway own BNSF. The trains up there hauling crude are a mile long.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

duckmania said:


> And Buffett/Berkshire Hathaway own BNSF. The trains up there hauling crude are a mile long.


But they are running into problems on where to haul it. Lot of cities and states denying hauling permits for the "toxic crude oil".


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> Here is Russia about cut production along with OPEC
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-ready-to-freeze-or-even-cut-output-with-opec
> 
> Supply and demand. Demand is on steady increase, a freeze or cut both have the same effect on pricing they both limit supply. Opec had been on a steady increase in production, a freeze/cap right now from OPEC is a cut in production. It will cause demand to exceed current supply, others in the US can and will meet demand, so might work out good for us but our cost to produce is higher then OPEC so there will be a price increase in crude and gasoline. Always supply and demand.


Not to beat a dead horse, but again, the OPEC announced deal is not a cut. Yes, several OPEC members have agreed to cut around 900,000 bbl/month. However, Libya, Iran, and Nigeria are exempted from the deal, and they will continue to increase production to an amount that overshadows the cuts by the others before any of those cuts go into effect.

If Russia agrees to some cuts, that would great, and could make a real difference. However, 20 years ago Russia agreed to cuts and when everyone else cut production, they increased to take advantage of higher oil prices. I don't trust the Russians any further than I can throw them, and I believe they will use this as an opportunity to increase market share and take profits. We'll see what happens. We can always hope...


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Ultimately the price of crude is still driven by supply and demand. It is traded in good old U.S. dollars on markets worldwide.

There can be short-term peaks and valleys driven by speculators, supply disruptions and black swan events but in the end buyers have to take possession of the actual product.

OPEC is a thing of the past. There is no way to "enforce" the cuts they all "agree" on and everybody cheats.

In the end inventories have the final say. Which is why the spike we are experiencing is short term. We still have record storage at Cushing, on tankers sitting idle worldwide and even in decommissioned railroad cars that are no longer fit for the rails but still able to hold crude.

Until these inventories are used expect a very slow, painfully slow climb up over the next several years.


----------



## RedXCross (Aug 7, 2005)

bigfishtx said:


> Yep
> 
> This is why they wanted the pipeline built from Canada to Texas, to bring oil here for refining.
> And why is the pipeline being blocked? Because some big donors to Obama have trucking companies that ship the oil.


 and Buffet and Berkshire, Love me some Politics!


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

ShadMan said:


> Not to beat a dead horse, but again, the OPEC announced deal is not a cut. Yes, several OPEC members have agreed to cut around 900,000 bbl/month. However, Libya, Iran, and Nigeria are exempted from the deal, and they will continue to increase production to an amount that overshadows the cuts by the others before any of those cuts go into effect.
> 
> If Russia agrees to some cuts, that would great, and could make a real difference. However, 20 years ago Russia agreed to cuts and when everyone else cut production, they increased to take advantage of higher oil prices. I don't trust the Russians any further than I can throw them, and I believe they will use this as an opportunity to increase market share and take profits. We'll see what happens. We can always hope...


in two sentence you claim it was not a cut, then you explain how it was a cut.

You win, can not argue with that type of reasoning.


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

Jolly Roger said:


> in two sentence you claim it was not a cut, then you explain how it was a cut.
> 
> You win, can not argue with that type of reasoning.


I said it before, but here it is again.

THEY DID NOT AGREE TO ANYTHING!

they "came to an understanding" to cut production But they can't even agree to what numbers to use to establish what current production figures are.

And like was stated earlier in this thread, Iran JUST GOT BACK in the game and needs money.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Grumpy365 said:


> I said it before, but here it is again.
> 
> THEY DID NOT AGREE TO ANYTHING!
> 
> ...


In most cases when people agree to something they have came to an understanding...... call it whatever you want to an "understanding or an "agreement" it makes no difference it is still a cut in production that effects supply.

yall just silly, call it a cut then say it is not a cut, haha.. can not argue with that kind of reasoning


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

Jolly Roger said:


> In most cases when people agree to something they have came to an understanding...... call it whatever you want to an "understanding or an "agreement" it makes no different it is still a cut in production that effects supply.
> 
> But like I said before, yall win I can not argue with that kind of reasoning


 An understanding relates to an idea or *unofficial* agreement. 
An agreement would be a document that put forth on paper and agreed to by all parties involved.

Words mean thing and those 2 words are not synonymous.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Grumpy365 said:


> An understanding relates to an idea or *unofficial* agreement.
> An agreement would be a document that put forth on paper and agreed to by all parties involved.
> 
> Words mean thing and those 2 words are not synonymous.


hahaha, whatever

does make it obvious as to why people have a hard time understanding oil prices


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Interesting video about a few oil companies.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/insi...est-shrinking-companies/ar-BBx3YL2?li=BBnb7Kz


----------



## johnsons1480 (Jun 24, 2016)

Jolly Roger said:


> With any goods you buy, suppliers like OPEC can flood the market and lower the prices of a product. Does not matter what it is, if there is a oversupply the prices does down. This is not a monopoly, just market forces at work .
> 
> But the same suppler can not force prices UP/HIGHER by limiting supply because there are other supplier that will step in and meet demand. This is what happens with oil, there is NO monopoly with oil way to many suppliers in the world.. OPEC can only make the price of oil go down with more SUPPLY. OPEC can not make it go up, OPEC can not make more DEMAND. If OPEC slows production other producers step in and supply the market to meet the demand.
> 
> ...


They many not be able to today, but they have done it at least three times in the past.



> The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was founded in 1960 by five Persian Gulf nations who hosted ARAMCO, a joint venture set up in 1947 by the international oil companies for the exploration and development of the Middle East oil fields. ARAMCO set the price of crude oil and paid oil concession royalties used by the host nations to purchase back the ARAMCO assets. Controlling 80 percent of world petroleum output in 1973â€"1974, the OPEC members decided to restrain production in order to sustain a 400 percent increase in the price of crude oil from $3 to $12 per barrel. The OPEC I cartel was born. Saudi Arabia is the most influential member of this price-fixing cartel because of the tremendous size of its production capacityâ€"almost one-half of OPECâ€™s total output at the inception of OPEC and still 36 percent of OPEC output today. By the early 1980s, with the price of oil at $32 to $41 ($80 in 2006 dollars), covert price cutting was rampant. Nigeria, for example, engaged in secret price cutting by reducing income taxes for the oil companies working there. Other OPEC members bartered and extended payment terms for oil purchases, thereby reducing interest expenses on the funds required to finance the purchase. During this period (often referred to as OPEC II), Saudi Arabia regularly stabilized declining oil prices by acting as aâ€œswing producer,â€cutting its production to as low as 2 million barrels per day (bpd) in 1980 when its authorized quota was 4.35 million and its capacity was 10 million bpd. OPEC II ended effectively in October 1985, when Saudi Arabia reversed its policy and began increasing its output to as much as 6 million bpd. The equilibrium market price of crude fell as low as $12. Today OPEC controls less than 40 percent of world oil output, half of what they once did. Throughout the 1990s, production expanded in nontraditional oilproducing regions like Prudhoe Bay, Alaska; in Russia; and in the North Sea despite extraction costs three to five times higher than the $3-per-barrel exploration, development, and extraction cost in the Middle East. Venezuela has publicly challenged the role of Saudi Arabia as swing producer and price leader, especially in the western hemisphere. And Russia at 9.27 million bpd has posed the same challenge in other parts of the world. With production breaking out all over, in 1998 and early 1999, crude oil prices collapsed to $9.96 (see Figure 12.5). To stabilize the market, OPEC members agreed in March 1999 (and again in September 2000) to a production quota system. Saudi Arabia accepted a 585,000-barrel-per-day cutback, which equaled 7 percent of its February 1999 average daily production of 8.8 million barrels. Iran, with a 12 percent share, agreed to a 264,000-barrel cutback, which also equaled a 7 percent reduction of its 3.6-million-barrel output. Venezuela accepted a 125,000-barrel-per-day cutback, which equaled a 4 percent reduction of its 3.4-millionbarrel output. Crude oil prices responded almost immediately, rising more than threefold from a $10 trough to $33 per barrel in 15 months (again see Figure 12.5). The OPEC III cartel was in place, effectively restricting output to raise prices.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Jolly Roger said:


> in two sentence you claim it was not a cut, then you explain how it was a cut.
> 
> You win, can not argue with that type of reasoning.


I doubt it if Iran can increase production much at all. They have been going 100% for a long time and their fields are all in decline. There is more oil from Iran showing up on the market now, (they were selling undercover to China and India before) and they will get more for their product now with sanctions lifted.

The Saudi's have drilled more wells in the past two years than they did in the 10 years before, trying to offset the Gawhar Field decline, but, there are no more fields like that in Saudi Arabia. And much of what they produce now is heavy oil which is not in demand.

Going to be fun to watch for the next 2-5 years. People that can stand a lot of stress can make a lot of money buying up energy stocks. But it is not for the weak of heart.


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> in two sentence you claim it was not a cut, then you explain how it was a cut.
> 
> You win, can not argue with that type of reasoning.


You must have reading comprehension issues caused by ADD if you didn't get past the first two sentences, so I'll make sure I only use two sentences this time. If a few OPEC countries cut by a combined 900,000 barrels and three OPEC countries increase by a combined 1,200,000 barrels, is that a net cut by OPEC?


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

ISIS may be helping us.. Saw on news last night pix of them blowing up ALL producing wells as they are being driven back ....kinda like Saddam did on his little venture into Kuwait during the first Gulf War.. Scorched Earth policy...That WILL cut production for sure.. Took years to put those fires out and get the wells back on line...


----------



## rat race (Aug 10, 2006)

Keep it low. My business is booming with low oil prices....and I like cheep gas!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

ShadMan said:


> You must have reading comprehension issues caused by ADD if you didn't get past the first two sentences, so I'll make sure I only use two sentences this time. If a few OPEC countries cut by a combined 900,000 barrels and three OPEC countries increase by a combined 1,200,000 barrels, is that a net cut by OPEC?


nah, no problem with adding or reading.

curious what makes you think that those countires can increase to 1.2mil BBL, and where you got that number from? They are having a hard time making what they are doing now.



ShadMan said:


> Not to beat a dead horse, but again, the OPEC announced deal is not a cut. Yes, several OPEC members have agreed to cut around 900,000 bbl/month. ...





bigfishtx said:


> I doubt it if Iran can increase production much at all. They have been going 100% for a long time and their fields are all in decline. There is more oil from Iran showing up on the market now, (they were selling undercover to China and India before) and they will get more for their product now with sanctions lifted.
> 
> The Saudi's have drilled more wells in the past two years than they did in the 10 years before, trying to offset the Gawhar Field decline, but, there are no more fields like that in Saudi Arabia. And much of what they produce now is heavy oil which is not in demand.
> 
> Going to be fun to watch for the next 2-5 years. People that can stand a lot of stress can make a lot of money buying up energy stocks. But it is not for the weak of heart.


agree,

I am buying a lot of energy stocks, no stress about it from me just part of it. 33% chance will make money.


----------



## Tennif Shoe (Aug 11, 2011)

capone said:


> The one and only thing that creates a strong economy is an individuals desire and will for self improvement (earning and creating wealth). The commodity or industry does not matter. The current subject just happens to be oil. Why would you not want your industry to have a high commodity price? Do you think that we should all pay low prices for oil? Do you even understand the amount of money and risk involved in exploration and field development? Do you understand how many companies are involved from the start of a well until you buy your food wrapped in plastic film at the grocery store? *There are many reasons oil should be north of $100/bbl. My personal reason is so I can earn more money than the average Joe, and no I don't care that you make a lot less.* The people that make these types of claims don't work in the industry and make a load of assumptions about how easy it is to earn money in the oil industry.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Then don't be mad when I say, I don't care that you are making less now. I would like to keep it that way.


----------



## RedXCross (Aug 7, 2005)

Jolly Roger;19145698**
I am buying a lot of energy stocks said:


> Curious as to what you feel is a lot of energy stocks?


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

RedXCross said:


> Curious as to what you feel is a lot of energy stocks?


that number is dependent on the overall portfolio as you do not want all eggs in one basket, for me at this current time it is around 50k. Before my divorce this year, and me in the middle of trying to close on a house where I pulled a lot of investments out, that number would have been much higher


----------



## the toninator (Jan 19, 2016)

Oil rig count up by 4!

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/13/international-oil-prices-dip-on-production-cut-doubts.html


----------



## the toninator (Jan 19, 2016)

Jolly Roger said:


> that number is dependent on the overall portfolio as you do not want all eggs in one basket, for me at this current time it is around 50k. Before my divorce this year, and me in the middle of trying to close on a house where I pulled a lot of investments out, that number would have been much higher


Some how I lucked out and dump at the peak a few years back, I'm ready to buy back in.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

the toninator said:


> Some how I lucked out and dump at the peak a few years back, I'm ready to buy back in.


Good play,

I offer no advice, figured out long time ago people just argue with me on the interweb. I am buying heavy not into producers as much. I do not see an up swing in there money for some time to much supply, but the people who have to move it make more money with more demand no matter what the price of oil is.


----------



## blaze 'em (Jun 4, 2012)

^^^bingo.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## SolarScreenGuy (Aug 15, 2005)

Go Go Go! Put our people to work! We will all benefit!
www.solarscreenguys.com


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> nah, no problem with adding or reading.
> 
> curious what makes you think that those countires can increase to 1.2mil BBL, and where you got that number from? They are having a hard time making what they are doing now.


Libya


----------



## Shallow_Minded (Sep 21, 2004)

rat race said:


> Keep it low. My business is booming with low oil prices....and I like cheep gas!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ditto!


----------



## rat race (Aug 10, 2006)

Shallow Minded said:


> Ditto!


10 Billion in profits last year. Low oil price is good for the plastics business.

Contrary to popular beliefs, Texas economy is not all oil and energy. That said I do wish the oil business would turn around so many could go back to work. But hey if not we are going to hire about 350 people in Texas and Louisiana for our new plants.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

ShadMan said:


> Libya


hahaha, you would be one of the few to believe that

The US is bombing parts Libya for the last few days, not exactly the place to be ramping up production of anything except terrorist. That place is nothing but war all the time and going to stay that way for some time in the future.

this on Drudge today,

http://www.france24.com/en/20161017-war-weary-libyans-miss-life-under-kadhafi


----------



## the toninator (Jan 19, 2016)

I'm not in oil and our business and not affected by it one way or another but it looks like they will be offshoring a chunk of our business after we spent a couple of years onshoring most of it. It's a bummer. I either have a jorb until Feb of 2017 or a jorb until Feb of 18. Will know in the next couple of weeks.


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> hahaha, you would be one of the few to believe that
> 
> The US is bombing parts Libya for the last few days, not exactly the place to be ramping up production of anything except terrorist. That place is nothing but war all the time and going to stay that way for some time in the future.
> 
> ...


They are expected to nearly double their oil production from current levels by the end of the year. 3 months ago they were producing 310,000 bbl/day, now they are at 550,000 and expecting to hit 900,000 by end of the year. They were producing 1.6M bbl/day 5 years ago, and have capacity that exceeds that amount. They are truly the wildcard in the oil markets right now. Anyone who isn't thinking about that doesn't know much about the oil market.

To put it in perspective, OPEC was talking about a decrease of up to 900,000 bbl/day when Libya was producing 330,000 (September figures). If Libya hits 900,000/day, there goes 2/3 of the "decrease", not including the ramping up occurring in Iran and Nigeria. I've also seen that Iraq may be allowed to increase production slightly as well.

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Libyan-Oil-Production-Exceeds-550000-Bpd.html


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

ShadMan said:


> They are expected to nearly double their oil production from current levels by the end of the year. 3 months ago they were producing 310,000 bbl/day, now they are at 550,000 and expecting to hit 900,000 by end of the year. They were producing 1.6M bbl/day 5 years ago, and have capacity that exceeds that amount. They are truly the wildcard in the oil markets right now. Anyone who isn't thinking about that doesn't know much about the oil market.
> 
> To put it in perspective, OPEC was talking about a decrease of up to 900,000 bbl/day when Libya was producing 330,000 (September figures). If Libya hits 900,000/day, there goes 2/3 of the "decrease", not including the ramping up occurring in Iran and Nigeria. I've also seen that Iraq may be allowed to increase production slightly as well.
> 
> http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Libyan-Oil-Production-Exceeds-550000-Bpd.html


if pigs could fly....

yeah no where near the 1.2million you claimed. You have to many "IF's" in your thinking, much less dependent on a country at civil war. To say your outlook is exceedingly optimist would be an understatement. The cuts are real no "If's" about them, your view is not real only a possibility among the millions of possibilities.


----------



## TA_Fab (Aug 20, 2016)

I've got a lot of buddies from the oil industry without jobs. But I also have a lot of friends in commercial construction and it's busy as ever. I personally haven't noticed any trickle down effect. My industry (Marine Engineering) is doing great and we do see a decent amount of project cargo dealing with the industry (mud pumps for example). Granted I'm in my little bubble and not saying there is no effect but I personally have not seen any negative trickle down from lower gas prices. It is hard having buddies losing jobs but most of them have moved to different industries and aren't looking back. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> if pigs could fly....
> 
> yeah no where near the 1.2million you claimed. You have to many "IF's" in your thinking, much less dependent on a country at civil war. To say your outlook is exceedingly optimist would be an understatement. The cuts are real no "If's" about them, your view is not real only a possibility among the millions of possibilities.


You're funny. Seems like I recall a half dozen times over the last 18 months where OPEC was going to cut production and it hasn't happened. Yet, those cuts are "real" already in your mind even though OPEC just set another oil production record AFTER deciding on "cuts", but Libya doubling their production in the last two months (which is a FACT) and planning to double it again in the next three is somehow a fairytale likelihood? I guess you haven't heard that Libya has control of its port again. That was the only factor keeping them from producing more...they simply couldn't export it, so they slowed production until they could. Now they can.

Listen, I hope you're right. I'm optimistic, though a bit skeptical. I don't trust OPEC, and I **** sure don't trust Russia. With the knowledge that the USA can easily increase our production by 1M bbl/day within 2 months, I just can't see why OPEC would be wiling to give up another 5% of global market share for no gain. If I were OPEC, I'd be doing this as a head-fake...let oil top $55/bbl and all the USA producers start investing again, then you flood the market again and let oil drop into the low $20s, and you put another 25% of USA shale drillers out of business because they just spent every bit of available capital getting back online and don't have the liquidity to survive.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

ShadMan said:


> You're funny. Seems like I recall a half dozen times over the last 18 months where OPEC was going to cut production and it hasn't happened. Yet, those cuts are "real" already in your mind even though OPEC just set another oil production record AFTER deciding on "cuts", but Libya doubling their production in the last two months (which is a FACT) and planning to double it again in the next three is somehow a fairytale likelihood? I guess you haven't heard that Libya has control of its port again. That was the only factor keeping them from producing more...they simply couldn't export it, so they slowed production until they could. Now they can.
> 
> Listen, I hope you're right. I'm optimistic, though a bit skeptical. I don't trust OPEC, and I **** sure don't trust Russia. With the knowledge that the USA can easily increase our production by 1M bbl/day within 2 months, I just can't see why OPEC would be wiling to give up another 5% of global market share for no gain. If I were OPEC, I'd be doing this as a head-fake...let oil top $55/bbl and all the USA producers start investing again, then you flood the market again and let oil drop into the low $20s, and you put another 25% of USA shale drillers out of business because they just spent every bit of available capital getting back online and don't have the liquidity to survive.


I saw one analyst say just that. Natural gas prices are predicted to crash too when oil production comes back on line. It's a vicious cycle.

If production would come back slow, maybe , just maybe.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

ShadMan said:


> You're funny. Seems like I recall a half dozen times over the last 18 months where OPEC was going to cut production and it hasn't happened. Yet, those cuts are "real" already in your mind even though OPEC just set another oil production record AFTER deciding on "cuts", but Libya doubling their production in the last two months (which is a FACT) and planning to double it again in the next three is somehow a fairytale likelihood? I guess you haven't heard that Libya has control of its port again. That was the only factor keeping them from producing more...they simply couldn't export it, so they slowed production until they could. Now they can.
> 
> Listen, I hope you're right. I'm optimistic, though a bit skeptical. I don't trust OPEC, and I **** sure don't trust Russia. With the knowledge that the USA can easily increase our production by 1M bbl/day within 2 months, I just can't see why OPEC would be wiling to give up another 5% of global market share for no gain. If I were OPEC, I'd be doing this as a head-fake...let oil top $55/bbl and all the USA producers start investing again, then you flood the market again and let oil drop into the low $20s, and you put another 25% of USA shale drillers out of business because they just spent every bit of available capital getting back online and don't have the liquidity to survive.


You have way to many what if's

OPEC had been talking about cuts for some time, they did not agree to it until last week. Maybe them talking about it is what you are recalling and mistaking it for actual cuts.

OPEC learned the very hard way that US producers are much stronger then they thought. OPEC almost destroyed themselves fighting US producers. Needless to say even they are not stupid enough to do what you claim. OPEC nations are hurting bad, some in total destruct mode. The last couple of years has proven OPEC is not as strong as everyone thought, OPEC hurt themselves bad. Movements in supply from OPEC will still have effects on pricing, but no where near the the effect it had a few years ago. New age in oil, OPEC is just a big supplier now days.


----------



## goatchze (Aug 1, 2006)

ChuChu said:


> I saw one analyst say just that.* Natural gas prices are predicted to crash too when oil production comes back on line*. It's a vicious cycle.
> 
> If production would come back slow, maybe , just maybe.


This is going to be the case for a long time. Right now, natural gas production is almost entirely a by-product of liquids production, whether it be oil or condensate. No one has drilled pure gas wells for a while, and it's unlikely we'll see many in the short to mid term. Natural gas truly is an abundant resource and it will keep the price below $4/MMBTU for a long time. (My prognostication)

As for OPEC, keep in mind that they have more or less lost control on the price of oil. They can certainly affect it, but they can no longer really control it. The major effect they have now is psychological. Take this "cut" for example. By simply stating that they're no longer going to "produce at the maximum possible", the Saudis have already affected the price of oil.

But unlike OPEC, US producers behave on a pure market principles. And they have been very resilient. If OPEC cuts production to try and push up the price of oil, that share will more than likely get gobbled up by US shale. However, if OPEC tries to boost production to push the price of oil down, they'll soon start running out of money themselves. With shale plays, production declines are much steeper than in the past, so even in a contracting market, US shale reacts fairly rapidly. Certainly more so than in the past.

All this to say: OPEC is starting to run out of options trying to bankrupt US shale. They're getting in trouble themselves in this game of chicken, and they're unlikely to continue (my prognostication). This is why we're likely to see oil bouncing between $40 and $60 for the next 18-24 months as OPEC allows the market to rebalance. In this range, growth of US shale is in check (i.e. slow-to-flat growth) while OPEC can get enough revenue to run their respective countries.

That's my 02.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

goatchze said:


> This is going to be the case for a long time. Right now, natural gas production is almost entirely a by-product of liquids production, whether it be oil or condensate. No one has drilled pure gas wells for a while, and it's unlikely we'll see many in the short to mid term. Natural gas truly is an abundant resource and it will keep the price below $4/MMBTU for a long time. (My prognostication)
> 
> As for OPEC, keep in mind that they have more or less lost control on the price of oil. They can certainly affect it, but they can no longer really control it. The major effect they have now is psychological. Take this "cut" for example. By simply stating that they're no longer going to "produce at the maximum possible", the Saudis have already affected the price of oil.
> 
> ...


I would expect a three stag cut from OPEC, next one coming next year.

Saudi economy is going into recession and other OPEC nations are about to destroy themselves. OPEC played the game and lost.


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> You have way to many what if's
> 
> OPEC had been talking about cuts for some time, they did not agree to it until last week. Maybe them talking about it is what you are recalling and mistaking it for actual cuts.


Like I said, I hope I'm wrong and you're right. I just don't think the Saudis are stupid. They have little to gain from a production cut and a lot to lose.
Russia **** sure will not cut production, regardless of what they say they will do.


----------



## rosetejas (Aug 1, 2014)

*Disaster for America - High oil prices*

Wan't going to bother with this until I saw BERTS comment. Can you be any more ignorant and nasty? You are SO WRONG. Millions of people lost homes when oil prices spiked and the rate of foreclosures did not fall until the oil prices tumbled. Everyone with a scintilla of sense knows that high energy cripples American businesses and consumers. Of course if you do not give a d..n about your country and fellow Americans, then just stay ignorant.


----------



## BertS (May 21, 2004)

rosetejas said:


> Wan't going to bother with this until I saw BERTS comment. Can you be any more ignorant and nasty? You are SO WRONG. Millions of people lost homes when oil prices spiked and the rate of foreclosures did not fall until the oil prices tumbled. Everyone with a scintilla of sense knows that high energy cripples American businesses and consumers. Of course if you do not give a d..n about your country and fellow Americans, then just stay ignorant.


you probably should have listened to your first gut instinct.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- Across a Mideast fueled by oil production, low global prices have some countries running on empty and scrambling to cover shortfalls, even as more regional crude is on tap to enter the market.

While some Gulf nations rest on ample reserve funds, embattled Iraq is desperate to scrounge up more money for its fight against the extremist Islamic State group as protesters demand repairs to its failing power grid. Contrast that to neighboring Iran, whose nuclear deal with world powers positions it to re-enter the global oil market and make long-needed repairs to its fields to increase its daily production.

The possibility of more supply entering the market has analysts already lowering their forecast price for oil into the next year. And even if the price rises, industry experts say U.S. production quickly could ramp up and keep prices low for years to come, challenging the power of OPEC.


----------



## goatchze (Aug 1, 2006)

rosetejas said:


> Wan't going to bother with this until I saw BERTS comment. Can you be any more ignorant and nasty? You are SO WRONG. Millions of people lost homes when oil prices spiked and the rate of foreclosures did not fall until the oil prices tumbled. Everyone with a scintilla of sense knows that high energy cripples American businesses and consumers. Of course if you do not give a d..n about your country and fellow Americans, then just stay ignorant.


Very high energy prices can hurt our economy, but you've got the tail wagging the dog here. The oil price spike in 2008 was a result of the housing collapse, not a cause.



ChuChu said:


> DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- Across a Mideast fueled by oil production, low global prices have some countries running on empty and scrambling to cover shortfalls, even as more regional crude is on tap to enter the market.
> 
> While some Gulf nations rest on ample reserve funds, embattled Iraq is desperate to scrounge up more money for its fight against the extremist Islamic State group as protesters demand repairs to its failing power grid. Contrast that to neighboring Iran, whose nuclear deal with world powers positions it to re-enter the global oil market and make long-needed repairs to its fields to increase its daily production.
> 
> The possibility of more supply entering the market has analysts already lowering their forecast price for oil into the next year. And even if the price rises, industry experts say U.S. production quickly could ramp up and keep prices low for years to come, challenging the power of OPEC.


It's not just Iraq that's in trouble:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...d-to-sell-record-17-5-billion-sovereign-bonds

And the "analysts" that your article mentioned must have been the overly optimistic ones, predicting $70-80 oil in 2017. I don't know the date of what you quoted, but nothing in there is something we didn't know six months ago, and nothing in it changes my opinion on where the price of oil is going next year (no where).


----------



## Part Timer (Jul 2, 2012)

rosetejas said:


> Wan't going to bother with this until I saw BERTS comment. Can you be any more ignorant and nasty? You are SO WRONG. Millions of people lost homes when oil prices spiked and the rate of foreclosures did not fall until the oil prices tumbled. Everyone with a scintilla of sense knows that high energy cripples American businesses and consumers. Of course if you do not give a d..n about your country and fellow Americans, then just stay ignorant.


I wasn't going to post till i saw this! lol

You should watch "The Big Short". Its a Movie so you don't have to read. Then you can understand why the housing market collapsed.

Do i think Oil should be $100+ a barrel? NO

But you have to have no common sense to think that $70/barrel drop is a "good" thing for the country. Tell that to all the good people i know that lost their jobs.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

ShadMan said:


> Like I said, I hope I'm wrong and you're right. I just don't think the Saudis are stupid. They have little to gain from a production cut and a lot to lose.
> Russia **** sure will not cut production, regardless of what they say they will do.


Saudis are the ones pushing for production cuts, in fact they are pushing hard for them.

Got to look past the BS and do the simple money math, Saudi hurt themselves with wide open production. They figured it out and no longer want to produce wide open. There control of the market is weaker, there economy is failing, OPEC is falling apart, etc.... all due to them producing wide open.

here is some info about it, from yesterday

http://calgaryherald.com/business/e...spell-end-to-two-years-of-hell-for-oil-majors



goatchze said:


> And the "analysts" that your article mentioned must have been the overly optimistic ones, predicting $70-80 oil in 2017. I don't know the date of what you quoted, but nothing in there is something we didn't know six months ago, and nothing in it changes my opinion on where the price of oil is going next year (no where).


I fully expect 60-70$ oil next year just for the simple fact demand is growing and supply is flat lined.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

goatchze said:


> Very high energy prices can hurt our economy, but you've got the tail wagging the dog here. The oil price spike in 2008 was a result of the housing collapse, not a cause.
> 
> It's not just Iraq that's in trouble:
> 
> ...


Where in my post do they predict $70-$80 oil? The article is from this morning. And I read it to say oil prices will be lower over the next few years.


----------



## goatchze (Aug 1, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Saudis are the ones pushing for production cuts, in fact they are pushing hard for them.
> 
> Got to look past the BS and do the simple money math, Saudi hurt themselves with wide open production. They figured it out and no longer want to produce wide open. There control of the market is weaker, there economy is failing, OPEC is falling apart, etc.... all due to them producing wide open.
> 
> ...


I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see it. You get int he $60-70 range, supply will no longer be flat in the US. Too many DUCs out there.


ChuChu said:


> Where in my post do they predict $70-$80 oil? The article is from this morning. And I read it to say oil prices will be lower over the next few years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

goatchze said:


> I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see it. You get int he $60-70 range, supply will no longer be flat in the US. Too many DUCs out there.


We will see. The charts are calling for it, the demand is there and climbing, talks of supply caps and cuts all point to higher prices in the coming months.

US is very limited on export of crude oil, so while US producers can easily meet any demand increase for the US, they can not fill supply gaps overseas for crdue. Demand in markets outside the US will drive the price up, and this is what the Saudis are banking on.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

I think the Saudis are aiming for about $65.......Sounds like $70 is about the break even point for the new shale/fracked oil the US can produce and they want to keep that off the market...

.02


----------



## JJGold1 (May 6, 2010)

$51.70


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Tortuga said:


> I think the Saudis are aiming for about $65.......Sounds like $70 is about the break even point for the new shale/fracked oil the US can produce and they want to keep that off the market...
> 
> .02


I hear $35-40 for West Texas break even and around $50-$55 for Eagle Ford.


----------



## Mad Mike (Dec 28, 2005)

bigfishtx said:


> I hear $35-40 for West Texas break even and around $50-$55 for Eagle Ford.


I've heard the same.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

There are some companies in the pb that will drill and operate at $35 per bbl, $40 seems to be the happy spot for most. There is quite a bit of work going on out there right now. EF needs about $65 to make a little money on most projects, $75 is the sweet spot.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Break even is probably even lower now since drilling coast and lease cost have gone down. The service contractors are all getting beat up pretty bad on prices too.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Yep, I've got some family in the drilling business, rig day rates are off $6k, that puts them at about break even. Fracking and completion is quite a bit more in the EF than out in the PB, at least from what I've been told. I would love to see it get back to a normal, not crazy, just normal.


----------



## reelthreat (Jul 11, 2006)

duckmania said:


> There are some companies in the pb that will drill and operate at $35 per bbl, $40 seems to be the happy spot for most. There is quite a bit of work going on out there right now. EF needs about $65 to make a little money on most projects, $75 is the sweet spot.


Ha, if those were the prices to break even or "make a little money" all of the eagleford and permian operators would be out of business.


----------



## goatchze (Aug 1, 2006)

There is no single "break even" point. What price makes a well profitable varies dramatically, not just from play-to-play, but even within a given play.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

reelthreat said:


> Ha, if those were the prices to break even or "make a little money" all of the eagleford and permian operators would be out of business.


There's roughly 175 rigs working in the PB last time I checked, and oil is a little over $45.


----------



## reelthreat (Jul 11, 2006)

duckmania said:


> There's roughly 175 rigs working in the PB last time I checked, and oil is a little over $45.


Exactly, the so called break even point is a lot lower in the Texas plays than what people think. Furthermore, the lower the price of oil the more efficient an operator has to become to keep the doors open.

If a company only had PB or EF assests I would think they could operate successfully at $20 and $30, respectively.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

reelthreat said:


> Exactly, the so called break even point is a lot lower in the Texas plays than what people think. Furthermore, the lower the price of oil the more efficient an operator has to become to keep the doors open.
> 
> If a company only had PB or EF assests I would think they could operate successfully at $20 and $30, respectively.


That's pretty low bud, but like you said, depends upon the lease and completion cost, and how much cash you had.


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

goatchze said:


> There is no single "break even" point. What price makes a well profitable varies dramatically, not just from play-to-play, but even within a given play.


Yep, here is some fairly recent data...https://www.ft.com/content/0a7a817a-4863-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab And a chart...


----------



## reelthreat (Jul 11, 2006)

duckmania said:


> That's pretty low bud, but like you said, depends upon the lease and completion cost, and how much cash you had.


A major operators lifting cost in PB was a little lower than $11 and in the EF was around $24 in Q2 of this year. Not saying every operator could do it but if one can, others can.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Have you seen any kind of financials on some of the major Independents operating in the Shale?
They are showing tremendous losses. And many of them have been forced to sell assets to stay afloat.



reelthreat said:


> Ha, if those were the prices to break even or "make a little money" all of the eagleford and permian operators would be out of business.


----------



## reelthreat (Jul 11, 2006)

bigfishtx said:


> Have you seen any kind of financials on some of the major Independents operating in the Shale?
> They are showing tremendous losses. And many of them have been forced to sell assets to stay afloat.


Yes, I understand the financials... I over simplified my post because I am typing on a phone and don't have the patiences to it all out.

Most are showing losses because they were over leveraged, Chesapeake for example. The EF is keeping Chesapeake a float and oil at $65 (as the post that made me comment) to "make a little profit" would have had them in the history books. So, Chesapeake is making money in the EF at less than $40 and using the profits to average losses from other plays and to pay of debt. They also have to sell assets to pay off debt but you don't see them selling the prime EF assets because that is their bread and butter right now.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

reelthreat said:


> Yes, I understand the financials... I over simplified my post because I am typing on a phone and don't have the patiences to it all out.
> 
> Most are showing losses because they were over leveraged, Chesapeake for example. The EF is keeping Chesapeake a float and oil at $65 (as the post that made me comment) to "make a little profit" would have had them in the history books. So, Chesapeake is making money in the EF at less than $40 and using the profits to average losses from other plays and to pay of debt. They also have to sell assets to pay off debt but you don't see them selling the prime EF assets because that is their bread and butter right now.


Hmmmm


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

Halliburton is seeing a change...surprises CEO. http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/10/19/...-profit-as-the-oil-bust-begins-to-fizzle-out/

Just sayin


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Lagunaroy said:


> Halliburton is seeing a change...surprises CEO. http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/10/19/...-profit-as-the-oil-bust-begins-to-fizzle-out/
> 
> Just sayin


Good to see. Although 6Mil on 3.5bil in revenue is.....sad, it shows that they are manuerving through the slump. They didn't say if it was below or above ebitda, but it's enough to make shareholders breathe a littler easier.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

reelthreat said:


> Yes, I understand the financials... I over simplified my post because I am typing on a phone and don't have the patiences to it all out.
> 
> Most are showing losses because they were over leveraged, Chesapeake for example. The EF is keeping Chesapeake a float and oil at $65 (as the post that made me comment) to "make a little profit" would have had them in the history books. So, Chesapeake is making money in the EF at less than $40 and using the profits to average losses from other plays and to pay of debt. They also have to sell assets to pay off debt but you don't see them selling the prime EF assets because that is their bread and butter right now.


Thanks for the clarity.


----------



## rat race (Aug 10, 2006)

Part Timer said:


> I wasn't going to post till i saw this! lol
> 
> You should watch "The Big Short". Its a Movie so you don't have to read. Then you can understand why the housing market collapsed.
> 
> ...


You are basing your assumptions on a small segment of the population that lost their jobs because they belong to a certain segment of the economy. Others segments of the economy are doing just fine. As I posted earlier my business is making record profits right now, partly due to low oil prices. I personally don't think it is a fair assessment to say oil should he high so my buddy can get his job back. What does high oil price mean to the larger percentage of the population who does not work in the oil field? It means high fuel prices. I don't know about you but when gas was $4 a gal personally I didn't go fishing as much, or make trips to the deer lease. It was too expensive and these are nice to dos not needs. We even cut back on holiday trips to the in laws. Just too expensive. Ultimately high fuel prices will result in increased prices at the store as well. Brand owners are not going to pay the higher fuel cost to ship their products. They pass that along to the consumer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Part Timer (Jul 2, 2012)

rat race said:


> You are basing your assumptions on a small segment of the population that lost their jobs because they belong to a certain segment of the economy. Others segments of the economy are doing just fine. As I posted earlier my business is making record profits right now, partly due to low oil prices. I personally don't think it is a fair assessment to say oil should he high so my buddy can get his job back. What does high oil price mean to the larger percentage of the population who does not work in the oil field? It means high fuel prices. I don't know about you but when gas was $4 a gal personally I didn't go fishing as much, or make trips to the deer lease. It was too expensive and these are nice to dos not needs. We even cut back on holiday trips to the in laws. Just too expensive. Ultimately high fuel prices will result in increased prices at the store as well. Brand owners are not going to pay the higher fuel cost to ship their products. They pass that along to the consumer.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I was replying to the fact that the housing market collapse was not solely based on the price of oil. It had a lot more going on behind the scenes.

And that big spending and money going back into the economy goes both ways. When oil is high and guys are out buying and blowing, that goes to everyone. Not just people in oil and gas. You're right though, I'm biased because of my location and career. But now that oil is low and your buisness is booming, that would make you biased against higher oil prices. So we can just agree to disagree. I would like a happy medium though.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## goatchze (Aug 1, 2006)

reelthreat said:


> Yes, I understand the financials... I over simplified my post because I am typing on a phone and don't have the patiences to it all out.
> 
> Most are showing losses because they were over leveraged, Chesapeake for example. The EF is keeping Chesapeake a float and oil at $65 (as the post that made me comment) to "make a little profit" would have had them in the history books. So, Chesapeake is making money in the EF at less than $40 and using the profits to average losses from other plays and to pay of debt. They also have to sell assets to pay off debt but you don't see them selling the prime EF assets because that is their bread and butter right now.


A lot of them are mostly losing money "on paper" as well as they mark down assets, Exxon being the exception as they claim to "not do mark downs".

Showing losses on a balance sheet from mark downs isn't the same as cash flow or debt issues.


----------



## rat race (Aug 10, 2006)

Part Timer said:


> I was replying to the fact that the housing market collapse was not solely based on the price of oil. It had a lot more going on behind the scenes.
> 
> And that big spending and money going back into the economy goes both ways. When oil is high and guys are out buying and blowing, that goes to everyone. Not just people in oil and gas. You're right though, I'm biased because of my location and career. But now that oil is low and your buisness is booming, that would make you biased against higher oil prices. So we can just agree to disagree. I would like a happy medium though.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


I agree 100%. I think $60 - $70 per barrel is not excessive and should put a lot if folks back to work.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rat race (Aug 10, 2006)

goatchze said:


> A lot of them are mostly losing money "on paper" as well as they mark down assets, Exxon being the exception as they claim to "not do mark downs".
> 
> Showing losses on a balance sheet from mark downs isn't the same as cash flow or debt issues.


Exxon also has a plastics business that is booming with low feedstock prices due to low oil. They win coming and going. They are the worlds second largest polyethylene producer behind us.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Tortuga said:


> I think the Saudis are aiming for about $65.......Sounds like $70 is about the break even point for the new shale/fracked oil the US can produce and they want to keep that off the market...


Jim, this is very old data. In the Permian, some shale drillers are profitable at ~$40/bbl. In some higher cost shale areas, $50-$55 is more typical.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

ShadMan said:


> Jim, this is very old data. In the Permian, some shale drillers are profitable at ~$40/bbl. In some higher cost shale areas, $50-$55 is more typical.


Guess I'm out of date, Shaddy.(no surprise there..lol)..Link below is pretty good up to date info on what's going on.. Looks like $100 days are gone.. at least for the next few years... Oh, well..It was fun while it lasted. O/G has always been a game for gamblers..sometimes chicken..sometimes just feathers...

http://www.worldoil.com/news/2016/1...n-50-to-60-range-as-shale-offsets-opec-action


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Yeah, personally I don't foresee oil ever hitting $100 again. $70 would be good for everyone, though.


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

Nobody foresaw $140 oil several years back and nobody foresaw $28 oil recently. It's probably the most unpredictable commodity out there....


----------



## pknight6 (Nov 8, 2014)

ChuChu said:


> When oil is high, every other consumer cost rises with it. When oil is low, every consumer price falls with it.
> When oil is high, property taxes rise with it. When oil is low, the taxes stay the same and do not fall, due to bad planning on the taxing entities.
> So, when oil goes up. I pay more, when it goes down I get a little break on the consumer products, but still pay the elevated rate because of poor planning for the bust.
> 
> Are you retired and living on a set income? If not. you don't have a clue.


At the risk of being called a troll again, I am retired and living on a fixed income. And I would rather cut back on a few luxuries than see thousands of families having to sell houses and possessions to make ends meet. When oil is high, everyone hurts a little. When oil is at rock bottom, a lot of people hurt a lot.


----------



## rat race (Aug 10, 2006)

pknight6 said:


> At the risk of being called a troll again, I am retired and living on a fixed income. And I would rather cut back on a few luxuries than see thousands of families having to sell houses and possessions to make ends meet. When oil is high, everyone hurts a little. When oil is at rock bottom, a lot of people hurt a lot.


I would say the exact opposite. Especially for someone in your situation on a fixed income. As gas prices increase your disposable income drops dramatically. Another way to look at it is as a percentage. When gas is high the percentage of you income you spend on fuel increases. Leaving you with a smaller percentage to spend on things other than your needs (call them luxury if you want but I never bought the first Mercedes). Remember grocery store prices move with fuel prices, and that is far from luxury. Brand owners hate to pay for shipping. That cost is passed to the consumer as much as possible.

So when oil is high, and gas is high many hurt a lot (I know my family budget suffered), and a few benefit. When oil is low and gas prices drop many benefit and a few suffer.

Part of capitalism, the good thing is we all have the ability to choose a different line of work.

Again not bashing or trying to troll. Just presenting a different opinion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

Everyone who is loving the low oil prices shouldn't have to worry for some time. Oil isn't ready to run yet, but when it does, hold on because 4.00 a gallon gas will be a fond memory. 
This low price that some love is going to cause a rebound effect like no one has ever seen. 100's of Trillions of dollars in projects have been cancelled or are on hold. That's a boat load of production that would have started coming on in 2018 but wont be there.


----------



## goatchze (Aug 1, 2006)

Calmday said:


> Everyone who is loving the low oil prices shouldn't have to worry for some time. Oil isn't ready to run yet, but when it does, hold on because 4.00 a gallon gas will be a fond memory.
> This low price that some love is going to cause a rebound effect like no one has ever seen. *100's of Trillions of dollars* in projects have been cancelled or are on hold. That's a boat load of production that would have started coming on in 2018 but wont be there.


Um, you may want to check your magnitude there.

US GDP is only $17T or so.


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

goatchze said:


> Um, you may want to check your magnitude there.
> 
> US GDP is only $17T or so.


Haha my bad. Meant to say billions. 
Over 100 billion in projects shelved here in Australia alone.


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

rat race said:


> I would say the exact opposite. Especially for someone in your situation on a fixed income. As gas prices increase your disposable income drops dramatically. Another way to look at it is as a percentage. When gas is high the percentage of you income you spend on fuel increases. Leaving you with a smaller percentage to spend on things other than your needs (call them luxury if you want but I never bought the first Mercedes). Remember grocery store prices move with fuel prices, and that is far from luxury. Brand owners hate to pay for shipping. That cost is passed to the consumer as much as possible.
> 
> So when oil is high, and gas is high many hurt a lot (I know my family budget suffered), and a few benefit. When oil is low and gas prices drop many benefit and a few suffer.
> 
> ...


You're opinion is wrong when you start talking about price extremes. Yes, a drop from $100/bbl to $60/bbl is a net positive for the overall economy. A drop to $28/bbl is not a net positive. Most people believe the balance point where the net positive is highest is between $60-$80/bbl. When you drop below $60/bbl, the 
net benefit begins dropping by orders of magnitude and quickly becomes a net negative to the economy.


----------



## longhornbubba (Jul 7, 2006)

ShadMan said:


> You're opinion is wrong when you start talking about price extremes. Yes, a drop from $100/bbl to $60/bbl is a net positive for the overall economy. A drop to $28/bbl is not a net positive. Most people believe the balance point where the net positive is highest is between $60-$80/bbl. When you drop below $60/bbl, the
> net benefit begins dropping by orders of magnitude and quickly becomes a net negative to the economy.


Why are Haliburton and FMC showing a profit for their third quarter earnings at 50 dollars a barrel then?


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

When the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries started its price war, the U.S. shale boom looked doomed.

Two years and one OPEC policy U-turn later, executives at the annual Oil & Money conference in London painted an upbeat outlook for shale, with giants like Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips saying the industry hasnâ€™t just survived the bust, but will continue to have a global influence.

â€œWe have confirmed the viability of a very large resource base in North America,â€ said Exxon Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson. â€œNever bet against the creativity and tenacity of this segment of our industry.â€

The consequences will reverberate through the energy industry and the world economy. A cohort of shale producers ready to boost output when prices rise could cap any recovery at about $60 a barrel for the next couple of years, regardless of any OPEC moves to cut production.

Instead of falling victim to the Saudi-led battle for market share, Tillerson said the industry will provide the â€œspare capacityâ€ to meet future demand.

That puts Tillerson at odds with some of the industryâ€™s powerful voices, including Khalid Al-Falih, the Saudi energy minister, and Patrick Pouyanne, the CEO of French oil giant Total SA. Both warned two years of low prices and investment cuts have left the industry ill equipped to supply enough oil by the end of the decade.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

longhornbubba said:


> Why are Haliburton and FMC showing a profit for their third quarter earnings at 50 dollars a barrel then?


they are not producers The wells still have to be maintained, and the oil still has to be moved and stored even with low prices. There price to do this does not change much with the price of oil.

Fire enough people you will get back positive if you have work. Halliburton has let 1000s go.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Oct 21 (Reuters) - Schlumberger Ltd, the world's No.1 oilfield services provider, said there were early signs of recovery in most parts of the world, following a two-year slump in oil prices that put the brakes on global drilling activity.

The company, which derives more than three-fourths of its revenue from international operations, had called the bottom of the cycle in the second quarter.

"The only place where we don't see any signs of recovery at this stage is in Asia", Chief Executive Paal Kibsgaard said on a post-earnings call on Friday.

The company reported a quarterly profit that topped analysts' expectations on Thursday, helped by cost cuts and a ramp up in drilling activity in North America.

Schlumberger said it expects "solid growth" in the Middle East and Russia in 2017 on a full-year basis, adding that it was also seeing an uptick in investment and activity in Latin America, Europe and Africa.

However, the increase in Latin America, Europe and Africa is not likely to be significant on a full-year basis, the company said.


----------



## JJGold1 (May 6, 2010)

duckmania said:


> There's roughly 175 rigs working in the PB last time I checked, and oil is a little over $45.


This week the total U.S. oil rig count increased by eleven with all of the new rigs located in the Permian.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4014010-weekly-u-s-oil-rig-count-go


----------



## Lee T (Jun 15, 2016)

ChuChu said:


> Oct 21 (Reuters) - Schlumberger Ltd, the world's No.1 oilfield services provider, said there were early signs of recovery in most parts of the world, following a two-year slump in oil prices that put the brakes on global drilling activity.
> 
> The company, which derives more than three-fourths of its revenue from international operations, had called the bottom of the cycle in the second quarter.
> 
> ...


Anybody that knows anything about Oil knows to not ever, never quote Schlumberger. SLB is a completely and absolutely reactionary company many years now. The only people that think Schlumberger is anything, much less a Leader have not worked in the Monkey cage. Well, there were some new kids working there that were told their's didn't stink.

:texasflag:brew2::brew2::brew2::brew2::bounce::bounce::clover::mpd:


----------



## goatchze (Aug 1, 2006)

Pretty good statement. Reflects more or less where I am on my opinion:

Exxon's Rex Tillerson, also speaking at Oil & Money, said it was "difficult" to see a supply shortage in the next three to five years. That's based on an assumption that a big part of U.S. shale oil supply is viable at $60 a barrel, which may well be where Saudi Arabia is comfortable seeing oil prices end up (the view of one Saudi Aramco director at the conference).

http://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-23/all-hail-saudi-arabia-oil-victory


----------



## JJGold1 (May 6, 2010)

JJGold said:


> $51.70


I think I called the top! Now dropping like a rock below $48.50.


----------



## reelthreat (Jul 11, 2006)

JJGold said:


> I think I called the top! Now dropping like a rock below $48.50.


Awesome, you want an award? :biggrin:


----------



## JJGold1 (May 6, 2010)

JJGold said:


> I think I called the top! Now dropping like a rock below $48.50.


Drop it like it's hot! $43.89


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Saudi Arabia is threatening to flood the oil market and force prices lower.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-saudis-threaten-raise-oil-121234606.html


----------



## roundman (May 21, 2004)

*Largest discovery of recoverable oil found in Texas*

*MIDLAND, Texas (AP)* - A vast field of shale rock in West Texas could yield 20 billion barrels of oil, making it the largest source of shale oil the U.S. Geological Survey has ever assessed, agency officials said.
The Wolfcamp Shale geologic formation in the Midland area also contains an estimated 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, the agency said in a release.

The discovery is nearly three times larger than the shale oil found in 2013 in the Bakken and Three Forks formations in the Dakotas and Montana, said Chris Schenk, a Denver-based research geologist for the agency.
Geologists explain that oil recovered from shale rock is considered unconventional compared to other oil found in the ground because extracting it requires advanced drilling or recovery methods, such as hydraulic fracturing.

The Wolfcamp Shale is part of the sweeping and energy-rich Permian Basin, which includes a series of basins and other geologic formations in West Texas and southern New Mexico. It's one of the most productive oil and gas regions in the U.S.
Ken Medlock, director of an energy-studies program at Rice University in Houston, said it seems "likely that we're seeing the birth of a new Permian Basin." The advent of horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing and other advancements will allow for the removal of shale oil at a volume that will make the basin "the dominant onshore platform for oil production," he said.

"The fact that this is the largest assessment of (unconventional) oil we have ever done just goes to show that, even in areas that have produced billions of barrels of oil, there is still the potential to find billions more," Walter Guidroz, coordinator of the agency's energy resources program, said in the release.

Medlock explains that there are multiple shales that interlock, with Wolfcamp being just one, so it's expected that future drilling will unlock other oil fields that will be comparable to this week's assessment by the Geological Survey.
There are a number of factors that will determine how quickly oil is extracted from the Wolfcamp Shale, he said, but it will likely take years before any significant amount is gathered. The rate of production largely depends on technology, the cost to drill and oil prices, he said.

While the speed of production remains a question mark, what Medlock doesn't doubt is the economic benefit that will follow.
"The revival of the Permian Basin is going to last a couple of decades," he said.

http://www.fox26houston.com/news/218363788-story


----------



## JJGold1 (May 6, 2010)

Appears an OPEC deal is imminent with a cut of 1.4, also looks like Russia will cut as well. They're in a closed door meeting right now. 


WTI futures trading at $48.00 + $2.80 in Europe


----------



## RRbohemian (Dec 20, 2009)

roundman said:


> *Largest discovery of recoverable oil found in Texas*
> 
> *MIDLAND, Texas (AP)* - A vast field of shale rock in West Texas could yield 20 billion barrels of oil, making it the largest source of shale oil the U.S. Geological Survey has ever assessed, agency officials said.
> The Wolfcamp Shale geologic formation in the Midland area also contains an estimated 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, the agency said in a release.
> ...


I always knew Texas was God's favorite.


----------



## HoustonKid (Dec 29, 2005)

roundman said:


> *Largest discovery of recoverable oil found in Texas*
> 
> *MIDLAND, Texas (AP)* - A vast field of shale rock in West Texas could yield 20 billion barrels of oil, making it the largest source of shale oil the U.S. Geological Survey has ever assessed, agency officials said.
> The Wolfcamp Shale geologic formation in the Midland area also contains an estimated 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, the agency said in a release.
> ...


That should make prices skyrocket. Not. Where is my sarcasm emoji?


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Oil is already up $3.80 a barrel.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/opec...mid-deep-disagreement-072102398--finance.html


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

The OPEC deal has been in the works for some time, there are other factors at play that are not getting much air time in the US. Japan is on a oil buying spree, they keep it hid good for a few months but the cat got out of the bag this week. Demand from different sources like Japan, Trump, etc.. combined with the OPEC deal being finalized will drive prices for some time.


----------



## Centex fisher (Apr 25, 2006)

Up over $4 now


----------



## Warlock1 (Jun 17, 2016)

Russians cutting some production as well in the deal...


----------



## TTUfisher (Jun 14, 2016)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...as-ministers-meet-to-salvage-deal-on-oil-cuts

Some good news


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

Sit back and enjoy the ride. Kinda ironic, the price of January 2017 oil, hmmm something else happening in that month also.


----------



## Centex fisher (Apr 25, 2006)

GONE!


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Gas price jumped $0.16 today.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Sell oil short! 

Historically OPEC has never been able to enforce production cuts. Every member of OPEC cheats and it's a joke. West Texas producers just made billions on the news and will just produce more and add to the surplus.

While there are commodity traders that can influence the market in the short term the ultimate law of supply and demand still applies. 

The market is way oversupplied with oil. Nothing but a decrease in supply or an increase in demand can change that. Does anyone think that the Wolfcamp, Eagleford and Bakken shale plays can't come back to life in an instant if the price goes up above say 60.00?


----------



## teckersley (May 25, 2004)

Here is my take on it. How many times have we seen this type of reaction when OPEC "announces" and agreement on a cut? Too many. The problem is really supply and demand. The real answer here is how long will this increase in price last. My opinion is only short term. Too many times we have seen an spike on news like this. The reality is that there are a lot of countries that are NOT part of OPEC (and even some that are) that could give a rats *** about their agreement and will love an increase in price. They will just open more spigots because they need the revenue. OPEC just doest have the market power they once did and i feel this is a temporary trade-on-the-news reaction.

My $0.02


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*New or (old) proven reserves in US*

We will NEVER run out of oil, the peak oil was just BS. The Wolfcamp field in Midland is predicted to supply over 50 billion barrels of oil, that's just one spot -

Oil prices are manipulated in many ways, supply and demand just one, taxes on the producers another, state taxes at the pump, federal excise taxes, EPA mandates-OPEC farts etc.

This time next year we likely will be back around 70/bbl. If we could get EPA, state/fed taxes out - a gallon of refined gas would be worth about $1.60.


----------



## goatchze (Aug 1, 2006)

Its Catchy said:


> Sell oil short!
> 
> Historically OPEC has never been able to enforce production cuts. Every member of OPEC cheats and it's a joke. West Texas producers just made billions on the news and will just produce more and add to the surplus.
> 
> ...


That's kind of what we're hoping for.


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

TrueblueTexican said:


> We will NEVER run out of oil, the peak oil was just BS. The Wolfcamp field in Midland is predicted to supply over 50 billion barrels of oil, that's just one spot -
> 
> Oil prices are manipulated in many ways, supply and demand just one, taxes on the producers another, state taxes at the pump, federal excise taxes, EPA mandates-OPEC farts etc.
> 
> This time next year we likely will be back around 70/bbl. If we could get EPA, state/fed taxes out - a gallon of refined gas would be worth about $1.60.


And YES....$65 a barrel would do wonders for the economy while not breaking our backs at the pump.

The theory that oil comes from dead dinosaurs is false. Crude is produce in the inner earth and known as an abiotic. As long as the sun shines and rains C60 molecules on the Earth, the earth will convert that to crude.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Timemachine said:


> And YES....$65 a barrel would do wonders for the economy while not breaking our backs at the pump.
> 
> The theory that oil comes from dead dinosaurs is false. Crude is produce in the inner earth and known as an abiotic. As long as the sun shines and rains C60 molecules on the Earth, the earth will convert that to crude.


Ummmm. Did you study geology in Russia, because they are the only ones that hold that theory.


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

bigfishtx said:


> Did you study geology in Russia, because they are the only ones that hold that theory.


Hmmmm, ...So your telling me that the theory of abiotic which was actually first intruduced the the 16th Century by a German is really a Russian theory? Interesting.

(WIKIPEDIA: An abiogenic hypothesis was first proposed by Georgius Agricola in the 16th century and various additional abiogenic hypotheses)


----------



## JJGold1 (May 6, 2010)

Its Catchy said:


> Sell oil short!


Nice, you're already down $20,000 on 10 contracts. 

In other news, Mexico back OPEC with a 215,000 Bpd output cut
http://www.economiccalendar.com/201...deal-announces-215000-bpd-output-cut-in-2017/


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Timemachine said:


> And YES....$65 a barrel would do wonders for the economy while not breaking our backs at the pump.
> 
> The theory that oil comes from dead dinosaurs is false. Crude is produce in the inner earth and known as an abiotic. As long as the sun shines and rains C60 molecules on the Earth, the earth will convert that to crude.


I always wondered how those dinosaurs got 8500 feet of dirt on top of them.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Timemachine said:


> Hmmmm, ...So your telling me that the theory of abiotic which was actually first intruduced the the 16th Century by a German is really a Russian theory? Interesting.
> 
> (WIKIPEDIA: An abiogenic hypothesis was first proposed by Georgius Agricola in the 16th century and various additional abiogenic hypotheses)


No, I am saying about the only geology schools that teach that "controversial" theory are in Russia and they are pretty much the only ones that preach this theory.

Tell it to a Geologist in the US and he will laugh at you.

I am not saying it cannot hold some merit, but, it is far from being proven science.

You still find oil in area's with source rock.


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Timemachine said:


> The theory that oil comes from dead dinosaurs is false. Crude is produce in the inner earth and known as an abiotic. As long as the sun shines and rains C60 molecules on the Earth, the earth will convert that to crude.


I've never heard that theory before. The commonly accepted theory is that oil is formed from decayed plant and animal matter from tens of millions of years before dinosaurs roamed the earth.


----------



## Meadowlark (Jul 19, 2008)

JJGold said:


> Nice, you're already down $20,000 on 10 contracts.
> 
> In other news, Mexico back OPEC with a 215,000 Bpd output cut
> http://www.economiccalendar.com/201...deal-announces-215000-bpd-output-cut-in-2017/


Never, ever take investment advice such as "Sell oil short" off an internet forum....only if you want to loose your shirt.


----------



## JJGold1 (May 6, 2010)

Dec futures +$1.03 to $53.67


----------

