I've heard several times that falling oil prices are the result of SA producing more in an attempt to drive out higher priced oil production.
Is there any actual evidence that is what is happening?
Not sure if there's evidence, but it makes sense.
Quote from: Berkut on December 17, 2014, 01:46:36 PM
I've heard several times that falling oil prices are the result of SA producing more in an attempt to drive out higher priced oil production.
Is there any actual evidence that is what is happening?
It's not that SA is producing more.
It's that, traditionally, SA's production capacity was so large that they were a swing producer - when prices went low they would cut down on production in order to prop prices up.
But now, even with rapidly falling oil prices, Saudi Arabia has refused to cut production.
It's not that it's the work of the Saudis, but that the Saudis could do something about if they wanted to, and they aren't.
Quote from: derspiess on December 17, 2014, 01:47:16 PM
Not sure if there's evidence, but it makes sense.
I agree it is very plausible.
But I find these movements in commodities prices interesting, and I want to know WHY. And while this is a plausible explanation, that doesn't make it the right explanation.
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2014, 01:53:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 17, 2014, 01:46:36 PM
I've heard several times that falling oil prices are the result of SA producing more in an attempt to drive out higher priced oil production.
Is there any actual evidence that is what is happening?
It's not that SA is producing more.
It's that, traditionally, SA's production capacity was so large that they were a swing producer - when prices went low they would cut down on production in order to prop prices up.
But now, even with rapidly falling oil prices, Saudi Arabia has refused to cut production.
It's not that it's the work of the Saudis, but that the Saudis could do something about if they wanted to, and they aren't.
OK.
But that is radically different from the claim that the REASON prices are falling is a concerted effort by SA to engineer that fall.
There could be a thousand reasons why they don't want to cut production other than a plot to force other producers out...
Quote from: Berkut on December 17, 2014, 01:56:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2014, 01:53:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 17, 2014, 01:46:36 PM
I've heard several times that falling oil prices are the result of SA producing more in an attempt to drive out higher priced oil production.
Is there any actual evidence that is what is happening?
It's not that SA is producing more.
It's that, traditionally, SA's production capacity was so large that they were a swing producer - when prices went low they would cut down on production in order to prop prices up.
But now, even with rapidly falling oil prices, Saudi Arabia has refused to cut production.
It's not that it's the work of the Saudis, but that the Saudis could do something about if they wanted to, and they aren't.
OK.
But that is radically different from the claim that the REASON prices are falling is a concerted effort by SA to engineer that fall.
There could be a thousand reasons why they don't want to cut production other than a plot to force other producers out...
Yes there probably are more reasons they don't want to cut production other than that. But that doesn't mean that SA couldn't do something to try to attempt to reduce or reverse the fall.
SA probably knows that if oil-prices rise again the more expensive methods become profitable again and production of that type will come back.
As I understand it, global demand is falling, primarily due to the slow down in the growth of the Chinese economy and the knock on effects from that.
Additional factors I've heard mentioned as contributing the the lessening of demand is the continued growth of alternative energy sources and the fact that the Chinese have filled up their strategic oil reserve, which they'd been adding to over the last decade or so.
So basic supply and demand, really, set the stage for a drop in prices.
Then OPEC met to discuss lowering production to maintain prices - a month ago or so - as is their wont. I'm told the Saudis basically run OPEC, and OPEC decides not to cut production. Prices continue to fall as demand is still slowing down, while production remains at previous levels.
You could totally look at it as the work of the Saudis, because they apparently have the tools to counter the drop, but the underlying reason is a lessening of demand.
... is my understanding anyhow.
Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2014, 02:12:53 PM
As I understand it, global demand is falling, primarily due to the slow down the growth of the Chinese economy and the knock on effects from that.
Additional factors I've heard mentioned as contributing the the lessening of demand is the continued growth of alternative energy sources and the fact that the Chinese have filled up their strategic oil reserve, which they'd been adding to over the last decade or so.
So basic supply and demand, really, set the stage for a drop in prices.
Then OPEC met to discuss lowering production to maintain prices - a month ago or so - as is their wont. I'm told the Saudis basically run OPEC, and OPEC decides not to cut production. Prices continue to fall as demand is still slowing down, while production remains at previous levels.
You could totally look at it as the work of the Saudis, because they apparently have the tools to counter the drop, but the underlying reason is a lessening of demand.
... is my understanding anyhow.
:yes:
Combined with an increased supply, chiefly from the US.
The net effect is that it's the Russians who are really hurting from it. :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2014, 02:12:53 PM
Then OPEC met to discuss lowering production to maintain prices - a month ago or so - as is their wont. I'm told the Saudis basically run OPEC, and OPEC decides not to cut production. Prices continue to fall as demand is still slowing down, while production remains at previous levels.
You could totally look at it as the work of the Saudis, because they apparently have the tools to counter the drop, but the underlying reason is a lessening of demand.
... is my understanding anyhow.
The Saudis benefit by being the largest of the high production/low overhead members. They can withstand sustained low prices the longest, and as long as they benefit in the long term from low oil prices hitting the Russians, the Iranians, and the North American producers all at the same time, they are happy.
Now Nigeria, Mexico and Venezuela, they're not as fortunate, being low production/high overhead, but they have no pull anyway.
Quote from: Berkut on December 17, 2014, 01:46:36 PM
I've heard several times that falling oil prices are the result of SA producing more in an attempt to drive out higher priced oil production.
Is there any actual evidence that is what is happening?
All the inner workings of the Saudi state are nebulous. The motivation is inferred by the Saudis producing at full speed at a time when prices dip. Usually a price dip would be the ideal time to do well maintenance and upgrades. This is not happening, they are producing at full speed. The only thing up for discussion is if it is to screw over the russians, venezuelans and iranians who go bankrupt at 60-80 dollars or if it is to sabotage the nascent shale oil and tar sands production which often become unviable at 60-80 dollars.
So it's up to you to decide, who the Saudis hate more, Putin or George P. Mitchell (the pioneer of shale fracking).
Why would the Saudi's have a particular animus towards Putin?
And is there anything particular heated between the Saudis and Iran? Is it the ISIL thing in Syria?
Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2014, 07:57:55 PM
Why would the Saudi's have a particular animus towards Putin?
Syria, I'd guess.
Saudi Arabia sees itself as battling it out for sectarian and political supremacy in the region.
Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2014, 07:57:55 PM
Why would the Saudi's have a particular animus towards Putin?
And is there anything particular heated between the Saudis and Iran? Is it the ISIL thing in Syria?
He's supporting the infidels in Damascus and Teheran. They hate his guts and he hates them right back. Not all hatreds in the world involve americans or israelis.
Quote from: Viking on December 17, 2014, 07:59:50 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2014, 07:57:55 PM
Why would the Saudi's have a particular animus towards Putin?
And is there anything particular heated between the Saudis and Iran? Is it the ISIL thing in Syria?
He's supporting the infidels in Damascus and Teheran. They hate his guts and he hates them right back. Not all hatreds in the world involve americans or israelis.
Somehow that's reassuring :)
Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2014, 10:18:14 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 17, 2014, 07:59:50 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2014, 07:57:55 PM
Why would the Saudi's have a particular animus towards Putin?
And is there anything particular heated between the Saudis and Iran? Is it the ISIL thing in Syria?
He's supporting the infidels in Damascus and Teheran. They hate his guts and he hates them right back. Not all hatreds in the world involve americans or israelis.
Somehow that's reassuring :)
Every now and then we do need to remind our american brothers that other people are hated too.
Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2014, 07:57:55 PM
And is there anything particular heated between the Saudis and Iran? Is it the ISIL thing in Syria?
Yep. It's been referred to as a Middle Eastern cold war with the Saudis and the Iranians fighting through proxies in Syria, Iraq and Bahrain (with the added complication of Turkey-Qatar's role). They're also very alarmed at the possibility of a Western-Iranian rapprochement.
Quote from: Berkut on December 17, 2014, 01:46:36 PM
I've heard several times that falling oil prices are the result of SA producing more in an attempt to drive out higher priced oil production.
Is there any actual evidence that is what is happening?
My boss was yammering on about this yesterday, and that's his theory too.
Quote from: Caliga on December 18, 2014, 07:44:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 17, 2014, 01:46:36 PM
I've heard several times that falling oil prices are the result of SA producing more in an attempt to drive out higher priced oil production.
Is there any actual evidence that is what is happening?
My boss was yammering on about this yesterday, and that's his theory too.
I don't think it's his theory. People usually read some stuff somewhere and the first thing they read becomes "their theory". :P
Well ok, it's the theory that he happens to agree with. :sleep:
This is the OPEC sabotaging the fracking industry.
Language.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2014, 07:00:03 AM
Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2014, 07:57:55 PM
And is there anything particular heated between the Saudis and Iran? Is it the ISIL thing in Syria?
Yep. It's been referred to as a Middle Eastern cold war with the Saudis and the Iranians fighting through proxies in Syria, Iraq and Bahrain (with the added complication of Turkey-Qatar's role). They're also very alarmed at the possibility of a Western-Iranian rapprochement.
Yeah, I mean, I know they don't like each other. I was more wondering if there'd been any specific recent events that precipitated this. Perhaps it's more a matter of the demand for oil dropping and the Saudis seizing that opportunity, rather than a reaction specific events in the conflict? Or has the Iran side recently made some big moves requiring a response?
Quote from: Siege on December 18, 2014, 08:07:21 AM
This is the OPEC sabotaging the fracking industry.
If so, the sabotage would be mainly reputational one - as, apparently, fracking has much lower financial barriers of entry than drilling - so even if fracking companies go bust now, it won't be that difficult to re-start the business when prices go up again.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2014, 11:52:00 AM
If so, the sabotage would be mainly reputational one - as, apparently, fracking has much lower financial barriers of entry than drilling - so even if fracking companies go bust now, it won't be that difficult to re-start the business when prices go up again.
The Saudis don't necessarily need to keep the wells running night and day to deter fracking. The threat of doing so might be enough to dissuade a potential fracker.
Quote from: Jacob on December 18, 2014, 11:49:22 AM
Yeah, I mean, I know they don't like each other. I was more wondering if there'd been any specific recent events that precipitated this. Perhaps it's more a matter of the demand for oil dropping and the Saudis seizing that opportunity, rather than a reaction specific events in the conflict? Or has the Iran side recently made some big moves requiring a response?
I think your first suggestion's probably right. The specific event may be the fall in demand and increase in supply that allows the Saudis to fuck with the Iranians (and, possibly, the Qataris?). Of course one possible side effect is that there's already good noises from the Iranian nuclear talks if, in addition to sanctions, they're facing what looks like a prolonged period of low oil prices then the pressure to make a deal to reduce sanctions will increase which is, probably, something the Saudis wouldn't want to see.
Also I'd guess now would be the time for any Middle Eastern country to reform/abolish their fuel subsidies if they wanted to.
Do you mean the Iran nuke talks are going well? I've read they're dead.
Some American companies are already saying they're curtailing some fracking or offshore drilling plans due to the low price of oil. So the Saudi ploy is working, to some extent anyway. I would think some of the companies with larger numbers of fracking wells may be better off, not sure. Too bad that this happens as I'd rather see higher prices and less dependency of Mideast oil as it creates good paying jobs and would keep money here in the US. Same for Canada as well, I would think. I wonder if the US, Canada and Mexico could form a N. American Opec and work to supply mainly N. America and be self sustaining, if that's even possible with how fungible a product like oil is on the world market.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2014, 01:29:51 PM
Do you mean the Iran nuke talks are going well? I've read they're dead.
I think the talks are basically that Iran will get nukes, just a matter of how long they're willing to be stalled on it, or how long to talk us to distraction on the issue while they proceed.
Quote from: KRonn on December 18, 2014, 01:40:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2014, 01:29:51 PM
Do you mean the Iran nuke talks are going well? I've read they're dead.
I think the talks are basically that Iran will get nukes, just a matter of how long they're willing to be stalled on it, or how long to talk us to distraction on the issue while they proceed.
I think the question is if the Nukes the Iranians get will be of Israeli or Iranian design.
Quote from: Viking on December 18, 2014, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 18, 2014, 01:40:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2014, 01:29:51 PM
Do you mean the Iran nuke talks are going well? I've read they're dead.
I think the talks are basically that Iran will get nukes, just a matter of how long they're willing to be stalled on it, or how long to talk us to distraction on the issue while they proceed.
I think the question is if the Nukes the Iranians get will be of Israeli or Iranian design.
And whether they'll be built locally or delivered armed and at high velocity?
Quote from: Jacob on December 18, 2014, 01:59:25 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 18, 2014, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 18, 2014, 01:40:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2014, 01:29:51 PM
Do you mean the Iran nuke talks are going well? I've read they're dead.
I think the talks are basically that Iran will get nukes, just a matter of how long they're willing to be stalled on it, or how long to talk us to distraction on the issue while they proceed.
I think the question is if the Nukes the Iranians get will be of Israeli or Iranian design.
And whether they'll be built locally or delivered armed and at high velocity?
Precisely.
Gas was 2.19/gal today. So I filled a kiddie pool with it and bathed in it.
You sound depressed.
I don't listen to my body
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2014, 04:41:03 PM
Gas was 2.19/gal today. So I filled a kiddie pool with it and bathed in it.
Careful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Huc47Dqsg8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Huc47Dqsg8)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2014, 01:29:51 PM
Do you mean the Iran nuke talks are going well? I've read they're dead.
Yeah. Where'd you hear they were dead?
Incidentally I was drinking with a friend today and as he's an oil analyst I asked for his perspective.
He said the big reason is supply and demand. Libya's oil is back online and Iraq's is holding up far better than anyone expected, in addition to that there's booming shale production which means there's a lot of supply. In terms of demand there's been a slack for a while (China's slowing, the Eurozone is more bondage club than economic union and until recently US growth has been a bit hit-and-miss). This has been covered by countries like the US and China filling up their strategic reserves - they're both now apparently full, so that bit of demand has just vanished. In addition there've been various efficiency savings while oil prices were high - fuel efficiency on vehicles, using gas for some chemical processing. He compared it to the efficiencies made in the 70s which under-pinned low oil prices through the 80s even though there were a few boom years.
Then you get to OPEC. Basically there's a split between countries like Iraq and Libya that just need to produce as much as they can to pay for anything and try and save their countries, and countries like Venezuela, Iran and Nigeria who need to keep the price as high as possible. Trouble is none of the latter group are actually willing to cut their own production because they need the money and, even if they did, it wouldn't move the market that much. So it falls to the Saudis. The Saudis aren't necessarily trying to kill shale off, or to kill Russia off (though those are nice benefits) but they've got the reserves and the cash to sit through low prices for a while in an attempt to preserve their market share.
He also said, so far, no-one's entirely sure how long it'll last so a few future projects are being shelved especially the more expensive ones - mature fields in the North Sea (again the SNP would be fucked if they'd won) and, say, Arctic exploration. If it lasts it'll start having a bigger effect.
Define oil analyst.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fwonkblog%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F01%2FNasdaq-WTI.png&hash=ee01b984948db370a5b2581552685d4ffe7e7020)
As a commuter, of course, this short term gain makes me happy.
As one who has 60 per cent of his mutual funds in Canadian energy.....not so much.
Gas is down to $0.75 per litre. It must have been the 1990s when it was last this cheap at the pump.
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2015, 01:01:05 PM
Gas is down to $0.75 per litre. It must have been the 1990s when it was last this cheap at the pump.
still above 1.05€ (cheapest) and close to 1.2€ for highest official prices. Thank god the green and red communists aren't in power atm or there wouldn't have been a drop at all
1.125/l at the nearest gas station. That's really cheap for our standards.
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2015, 01:01:05 PM
Gas is down to $0.75 per litre. It must have been the 1990s when it was last this cheap at the pump.
Early 90s at least. I was travelling through Edmonton fairly regularly in 93-94 and I only recall it dipping below $1 once during a price war.
Quote from: Maximus on January 05, 2015, 03:03:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2015, 01:01:05 PM
Gas is down to $0.75 per litre. It must have been the 1990s when it was last this cheap at the pump.
Early 90s at least. I was travelling through Edmonton fairly regularly in 93-94 and I only recall it dipping below $1 once during a price war.
Just checked. Looks like in Edmonton gas prices went into the 60 cent range during the 2008 crash. I wasn't living here then.
And it's within the last 10-12 years that prices first broke the buck a litre price. It wsa amusing because gas stations didn't even have the extra digit in their signs.
It's still much more expensive here than it was in the mid/late 90s. We could get a gallon of gas for under a buck.
Well, I suppose that might be the same rate if inflation is factored in.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2014, 04:41:03 PM
Gas was 2.19/gal today. So I filled a kiddie pool with it and bathed in it.
1.98 last time I checked.
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2015, 03:10:48 PM
Quote from: Maximus on January 05, 2015, 03:03:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 05, 2015, 01:01:05 PM
Gas is down to $0.75 per litre. It must have been the 1990s when it was last this cheap at the pump.
Early 90s at least. I was travelling through Edmonton fairly regularly in 93-94 and I only recall it dipping below $1 once during a price war.
Just checked. Looks like in Edmonton gas prices went into the 60 cent range during the 2008 crash. I wasn't living here then.
And it's within the last 10-12 years that prices first broke the buck a litre price. It wsa amusing because gas stations didn't even have the extra digit in their signs.
Yea I think it was the 40-cent mark I am thinking of.
Figures. When I had a two-hour one-way commute, it was $4. Now that I'm sitting around staring at the cat, it's going to crash the $2 mark.
THANKS ABDULLAH
Canada has 18% fewer wells operating now than it had last week. Last week.
SHIT JUST GOT REAL
Lower oil prices would normally not be a bad thing for countries that aren't Norway or Saudi-Arabia. Now, however, it seems the price isn't indicative of higher supply, but rather low demand and lower activity in general almost everywhere. This really bodes well for 2015, doesn't it? Any bubbles left to burst? Anyone? Anywhere?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 06, 2015, 06:05:09 PM
Canada has 18% fewer wells operating now than it had last week. Last week.
(developed in Canada)
Quote from: Norgy on January 06, 2015, 06:13:12 PM
Lower oil prices would normally not be a bad thing for countries that aren't Norway or Saudi-Arabia. Now, however, it seems the price isn't indicative of higher supply, but rather low demand and lower activity in general almost everywhere. This really bodes well for 2015, doesn't it? Any bubbles left to burst? Anyone? Anywhere?
Unless the GOP can produce another major loss next year, Fox News will likely see a major decline in viewership.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2015, 06:51:19 PM
Unless the GOP can produce another major loss next year, Fox News will likely see a major decline in viewership.
:huh:
They were getting the top ratings during the Bush years. They will continue as long as conservatives convince themselves all the other channels are biased against them, regardless of which party is in power.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 06, 2015, 07:09:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2015, 06:51:19 PM
Unless the GOP can produce another major loss next year, Fox News will likely see a major decline in viewership.
:huh:
They were getting the top ratings during the Bush years. They will continue as long as conservatives convince themselves all the other channels are biased against them, regardless of which party is in power.
Not if we get a nasty flu bug. The elderly are very susceptible to influenza.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 06, 2015, 07:09:41 PM
:huh:
They were getting the top ratings during the Bush years. They will continue as long as conservatives convince themselves all the other channels are biased against them, regardless of which party is in power.
In contrast to MSNBC, who's ratings are totally dependent on a Republican in the White House.
What news do all the left wingers watch when the Democrats are in the White House?
Lefties read Vox :weep:
Ugh.
QuoteDeep Debt Keeps Oil Firms Pumping
Producers Have Increased Their Borrowings by 55% Since 2010
By Erin Ailworth, Russell Gold and Timothy Puko
Jan. 6, 2015 8:33 p.m. ET
Wall Street Journal
American oil and gas companies have gone heavily into debt during the energy boom, increasing their borrowings by 55% since 2010, to almost $200 billion.
Their need to service that debt helps explain why U.S. producers plan to continue pumping oil even as crude trades for less than $50 a barrel, down 55% since last June.
But signs of strain are building in the oil patch, where revenue growth hasn't kept pace with borrowing. On Sunday, a private company that drills in Texas, WBH Energy LP, and its partners, filed for bankruptcy protection, saying a lender refused to advance more money and citing debt of between $10 million and $50 million. Neither the Austin-based company nor its lawyers responded to requests for comment.
Energy analysts warn defaults could be coming. "The group is not positioned for this downturn," said Daniel Katzenberg, an analyst at Robert W. Baird & Co. "There are too many ugly balance sheets."
The industry is also expecting a wave of asset sales and consolidations, though it may not gain momentum until the price of oil stabilizes and values become clearer. Bankers say companies are reluctant to get acquired with their stock prices under pressure, as they fear they could be selling low, and buyers don't want to overpay if prices fall further.
And mergers aren't a panacea.
"To be a consolidator of a company that has a large cash-flow hole, you have to have the ability to fulfill that cash-flow need," said Dennis Cornell, managing director and head of energy investment banking for the Americas at Morgan Stanley. "You can't expect two companies with big problems with their cash flows to come together and mitigate that problem."
Instead, the investment bank is "thinking of more creative ways of getting capital to clients," he said, for example through private injections of capital.
Before crude prices began falling, U.S. oil and gas producers were able to acquire leases and drill wells even if that meant outspending their incomes. Debt was used to bridge the cash shortfall so that companies could develop oil fields in Texas, North Dakota and newer locations including Colorado.
In 2010, U.S. companies focused on producing oil and gas had $128 billion in combined total debt, according to financial data collected by S&P Capital IQ.
As of their latest quarter, such companies had $199 billion of combined total debt. The group doesn't include Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. , which also make money from refining, chemicals and pipelines.
Oil and gas producers' revenues grew more slowly—rising 36% to $239.4 billion in the 12 months ended September 2014 versus $175.8 billion in 2010.
But oil is languishing at five-year lows—the U.S. benchmark fell to $47.93 on Tuesday—and natural-gas prices have fallen by 40% since June from about $4.70 per million British thermal units to less than $3.
Despite the cold winter, companies in the U.S. have been pumping enough gas to fill up storage around the country to high levels not seen in nearly five years.
Companies are focusing on cash conservation, balance sheet mending and meeting lending covenants.
"Having control of your debt and ensuring you have a good level of liquidity going into this commodity cycle is obviously important to us," said Harold Hickey, president and chief operating officer of EXCO Resources Inc. of Dallas. He said the company had been working to shore up its balance sheet since before the crude price collapse.
The company, which produces mostly natural gas, had revenue of $713 million for the 12 months ended September. It has long carried a heavy debt load, which hit nearly $1.9 billion at the end of 2013. Mr. Hickey said the company cut its long-term debt to $1.35 billion by September 2014, in part by selling some assets, and in December suspended its dividend. Even so, the company's shares have cratered, plunging from over $6 apiece last spring to under $2 on Tuesday.
While no energy company has defaulted on its bonds or other debt, CreditSights Inc. has identified about 25 at risk, because of small asset bases, high debt and low cash flow.
The list is headed by Sabine Oil & Gas LLC and Forest Oil Corp. —which merged last month into Sabine Oil & Gas Corp.—and closely held Venoco Inc., which focuses on California. None responded to requests for comment.
Quicksilver Resources Inc. would also be on the list except that it was already trying to restructure its debt out of court, said Brian Gibbons, the research firm's senior oil and gas analyst. Moody's downgraded Quicksilver deeper into junk status in September, noting the company had been failing at its attempts to sell assets in order to help it refinance and cut outstanding debt. Quicksilver didn't reply to a message seeking comment.
Lenders are already doling out tough love to companies, said Chad Mabry, an analyst who follows small and midsize producers for investment bank MLV & Co. Some lenders are asking producers to provide plans for how they will handle further drops in the price of crude, he said, while others are pressing for asset sales.
"The bear call has been right so far," Mr. Mabry said. "Without being able to really call a bottom yet, it's hard to have much conviction to the long side, to the bull case."
The upshot of cash conservation and higher borrowing costs will be less money spent on producing oil and natural gas. However, it is unclear whether overall U.S. output will decline, since some larger producers still expect to produce more oil and natural gas in 2015 than last year by focusing on their best drilling prospects.
Concho Resources Inc. said late Monday that it was cutting its capital spending budget by a third, to $2 billion. But the Midland, Texas, company estimates production will rise 16% to 20% over 2014's level.
Nothing helps falling prices like increasing production.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2015, 09:45:57 PM
QuoteDeep Debt Keeps Oil Firms Pumping
Producers Have Increased Their Borrowings by 55% Since 2010
By Erin Ailworth, Russell Gold and Timothy Puko
Jan. 6, 2015 8:33 p.m. ET
Wall Street Journal
American oil and gas companies have gone heavily into debt during the energy boom, increasing their borrowings by 55% since 2010, to almost $200 billion.
Their need to service that debt helps explain why U.S. producers plan to continue pumping oil even as crude trades for less than $50 a barrel, down 55% since last June.
But signs of strain are building in the oil patch, where revenue growth hasn't kept pace with borrowing. On Sunday, a private company that drills in Texas, WBH Energy LP, and its partners, filed for bankruptcy protection, saying a lender refused to advance more money and citing debt of between $10 million and $50 million. Neither the Austin-based company nor its lawyers responded to requests for comment.
Energy analysts warn defaults could be coming. "The group is not positioned for this downturn," said Daniel Katzenberg, an analyst at Robert W. Baird & Co. "There are too many ugly balance sheets."
The industry is also expecting a wave of asset sales and consolidations, though it may not gain momentum until the price of oil stabilizes and values become clearer. Bankers say companies are reluctant to get acquired with their stock prices under pressure, as they fear they could be selling low, and buyers don't want to overpay if prices fall further.
And mergers aren't a panacea.
"To be a consolidator of a company that has a large cash-flow hole, you have to have the ability to fulfill that cash-flow need," said Dennis Cornell, managing director and head of energy investment banking for the Americas at Morgan Stanley. "You can't expect two companies with big problems with their cash flows to come together and mitigate that problem."
Instead, the investment bank is "thinking of more creative ways of getting capital to clients," he said, for example through private injections of capital.
Before crude prices began falling, U.S. oil and gas producers were able to acquire leases and drill wells even if that meant outspending their incomes. Debt was used to bridge the cash shortfall so that companies could develop oil fields in Texas, North Dakota and newer locations including Colorado.
In 2010, U.S. companies focused on producing oil and gas had $128 billion in combined total debt, according to financial data collected by S&P Capital IQ.
As of their latest quarter, such companies had $199 billion of combined total debt. The group doesn't include Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. , which also make money from refining, chemicals and pipelines.
Oil and gas producers' revenues grew more slowly—rising 36% to $239.4 billion in the 12 months ended September 2014 versus $175.8 billion in 2010.
But oil is languishing at five-year lows—the U.S. benchmark fell to $47.93 on Tuesday—and natural-gas prices have fallen by 40% since June from about $4.70 per million British thermal units to less than $3.
Despite the cold winter, companies in the U.S. have been pumping enough gas to fill up storage around the country to high levels not seen in nearly five years.
Companies are focusing on cash conservation, balance sheet mending and meeting lending covenants.
"Having control of your debt and ensuring you have a good level of liquidity going into this commodity cycle is obviously important to us," said Harold Hickey, president and chief operating officer of EXCO Resources Inc. of Dallas. He said the company had been working to shore up its balance sheet since before the crude price collapse.
The company, which produces mostly natural gas, had revenue of $713 million for the 12 months ended September. It has long carried a heavy debt load, which hit nearly $1.9 billion at the end of 2013. Mr. Hickey said the company cut its long-term debt to $1.35 billion by September 2014, in part by selling some assets, and in December suspended its dividend. Even so, the company's shares have cratered, plunging from over $6 apiece last spring to under $2 on Tuesday.
While no energy company has defaulted on its bonds or other debt, CreditSights Inc. has identified about 25 at risk, because of small asset bases, high debt and low cash flow.
The list is headed by Sabine Oil & Gas LLC and Forest Oil Corp. —which merged last month into Sabine Oil & Gas Corp.—and closely held Venoco Inc., which focuses on California. None responded to requests for comment.
Quicksilver Resources Inc. would also be on the list except that it was already trying to restructure its debt out of court, said Brian Gibbons, the research firm's senior oil and gas analyst. Moody's downgraded Quicksilver deeper into junk status in September, noting the company had been failing at its attempts to sell assets in order to help it refinance and cut outstanding debt. Quicksilver didn't reply to a message seeking comment.
Lenders are already doling out tough love to companies, said Chad Mabry, an analyst who follows small and midsize producers for investment bank MLV & Co. Some lenders are asking producers to provide plans for how they will handle further drops in the price of crude, he said, while others are pressing for asset sales.
"The bear call has been right so far," Mr. Mabry said. "Without being able to really call a bottom yet, it's hard to have much conviction to the long side, to the bull case."
The upshot of cash conservation and higher borrowing costs will be less money spent on producing oil and natural gas. However, it is unclear whether overall U.S. output will decline, since some larger producers still expect to produce more oil and natural gas in 2015 than last year by focusing on their best drilling prospects.
Concho Resources Inc. said late Monday that it was cutting its capital spending budget by a third, to $2 billion. But the Midland, Texas, company estimates production will rise 16% to 20% over 2014's level.
It's the most efficient allocation of resources, who knew.
Quote from: mongers on January 06, 2015, 10:05:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2015, 09:45:57 PM
QuoteDeep Debt Keeps Oil Firms Pumping
Producers Have Increased Their Borrowings by 55% Since 2010
By Erin Ailworth, Russell Gold and Timothy Puko
Jan. 6, 2015 8:33 p.m. ET
Wall Street Journal
American oil and gas companies have gone heavily into debt during the energy boom, increasing their borrowings by 55% since 2010, to almost $200 billion.
Their need to service that debt helps explain why U.S. producers plan to continue pumping oil even as crude trades for less than $50 a barrel, down 55% since last June.
But signs of strain are building in the oil patch, where revenue growth hasn't kept pace with borrowing. On Sunday, a private company that drills in Texas, WBH Energy LP, and its partners, filed for bankruptcy protection, saying a lender refused to advance more money and citing debt of between $10 million and $50 million. Neither the Austin-based company nor its lawyers responded to requests for comment.
Energy analysts warn defaults could be coming. "The group is not positioned for this downturn," said Daniel Katzenberg, an analyst at Robert W. Baird & Co. "There are too many ugly balance sheets."
The industry is also expecting a wave of asset sales and consolidations, though it may not gain momentum until the price of oil stabilizes and values become clearer. Bankers say companies are reluctant to get acquired with their stock prices under pressure, as they fear they could be selling low, and buyers don't want to overpay if prices fall further.
And mergers aren't a panacea.
"To be a consolidator of a company that has a large cash-flow hole, you have to have the ability to fulfill that cash-flow need," said Dennis Cornell, managing director and head of energy investment banking for the Americas at Morgan Stanley. "You can't expect two companies with big problems with their cash flows to come together and mitigate that problem."
Instead, the investment bank is "thinking of more creative ways of getting capital to clients," he said, for example through private injections of capital.
Before crude prices began falling, U.S. oil and gas producers were able to acquire leases and drill wells even if that meant outspending their incomes. Debt was used to bridge the cash shortfall so that companies could develop oil fields in Texas, North Dakota and newer locations including Colorado.
In 2010, U.S. companies focused on producing oil and gas had $128 billion in combined total debt, according to financial data collected by S&P Capital IQ.
As of their latest quarter, such companies had $199 billion of combined total debt. The group doesn't include Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. , which also make money from refining, chemicals and pipelines.
Oil and gas producers' revenues grew more slowly—rising 36% to $239.4 billion in the 12 months ended September 2014 versus $175.8 billion in 2010.
But oil is languishing at five-year lows—the U.S. benchmark fell to $47.93 on Tuesday—and natural-gas prices have fallen by 40% since June from about $4.70 per million British thermal units to less than $3.
Despite the cold winter, companies in the U.S. have been pumping enough gas to fill up storage around the country to high levels not seen in nearly five years.
Companies are focusing on cash conservation, balance sheet mending and meeting lending covenants.
"Having control of your debt and ensuring you have a good level of liquidity going into this commodity cycle is obviously important to us," said Harold Hickey, president and chief operating officer of EXCO Resources Inc. of Dallas. He said the company had been working to shore up its balance sheet since before the crude price collapse.
The company, which produces mostly natural gas, had revenue of $713 million for the 12 months ended September. It has long carried a heavy debt load, which hit nearly $1.9 billion at the end of 2013. Mr. Hickey said the company cut its long-term debt to $1.35 billion by September 2014, in part by selling some assets, and in December suspended its dividend. Even so, the company's shares have cratered, plunging from over $6 apiece last spring to under $2 on Tuesday.
While no energy company has defaulted on its bonds or other debt, CreditSights Inc. has identified about 25 at risk, because of small asset bases, high debt and low cash flow.
The list is headed by Sabine Oil & Gas LLC and Forest Oil Corp. —which merged last month into Sabine Oil & Gas Corp.—and closely held Venoco Inc., which focuses on California. None responded to requests for comment.
Quicksilver Resources Inc. would also be on the list except that it was already trying to restructure its debt out of court, said Brian Gibbons, the research firm's senior oil and gas analyst. Moody's downgraded Quicksilver deeper into junk status in September, noting the company had been failing at its attempts to sell assets in order to help it refinance and cut outstanding debt. Quicksilver didn't reply to a message seeking comment.
Lenders are already doling out tough love to companies, said Chad Mabry, an analyst who follows small and midsize producers for investment bank MLV & Co. Some lenders are asking producers to provide plans for how they will handle further drops in the price of crude, he said, while others are pressing for asset sales.
"The bear call has been right so far," Mr. Mabry said. "Without being able to really call a bottom yet, it's hard to have much conviction to the long side, to the bull case."
The upshot of cash conservation and higher borrowing costs will be less money spent on producing oil and natural gas. However, it is unclear whether overall U.S. output will decline, since some larger producers still expect to produce more oil and natural gas in 2015 than last year by focusing on their best drilling prospects.
Concho Resources Inc. said late Monday that it was cutting its capital spending budget by a third, to $2 billion. But the Midland, Texas, company estimates production will rise 16% to 20% over 2014's level.
It's the most efficient allocation of resources, who knew.
:bleeding:
Don't worry, Yi. I'm sure the rate of corporate Murders & Acquisitions will ramp up as things progress, making plenty of money for literally dozens of Americans.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2015, 10:06:59 PM
.....
:bleeding:
Sorry, I shouldn't have questioned your religion, I apologies. :hug:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 06, 2015, 06:05:09 PM
Canada has 18% fewer wells operating now than it had last week. Last week.
Conventional wells are easy to shutter (and many have declining production anyways).
Shit will get real if they start mothballing some oilsands projects - not the ones in planning stages, but ones with billions sunk into them already.
Quote from: mongers on January 06, 2015, 10:12:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 06, 2015, 10:06:59 PM
.....
:bleeding:
Sorry, I shouldn't have questioned your religion, I apologies. :hug:
You realize that losses are part of the system, right? That not every company can (or should) prosper?
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 06, 2015, 06:19:52 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 06, 2015, 06:05:09 PM
Canada has 18% fewer wells operating now than it had last week. Last week.
(developed in Canada)
What would happen now to the languishites advised to go to the Dakotas to seek their fortune?
They would pat themselves on the back for not doing so, perhaps.
Maybe LaCroix will have to start looking at law firms in Minneapolis. :(
Quote from: alfred russel on January 07, 2015, 12:04:53 AM
What would happen now to the languishites advised to go to the Dakotas to seek their fortune?
They would leave with ONE BILLION DOLLARS in their checking accounts.
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2015, 08:51:47 PM
What news do all the left wingers watch when the Democrats are in the White House?
Comedy Central.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2015, 10:09:12 PM
Don't worry, Yi. I'm sure the rate of corporate Murders & Acquisitions will ramp up as things progress, making plenty of money for literally dozens of Americans.
:licklips:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 07, 2015, 12:04:53 AM
What would happen now to the languishites advised to go to the Dakotas to seek their fortune?
They'd be getting laid off about now and have two hundred grand in the bank. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 07, 2015, 12:19:29 AM
They would pat themselves on the back for not doing so, perhaps.
True, they are avoiding losing by never taking chances. :)
QuoteIn oil boomtown Fort McMurray, 'it's like the place has gone dead'
JOSH WINGROVE
FORT MCMURRAY, ALTA. — The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Jan. 12 2015, 9:20 PM EST
Debbie March calls it, affectionately, Fort McMurray's Newfie restaurant – Ms. B's, popular among the Newfoundland and Labrador diaspora who came to Alberta for work as the oil sands boomed. She is one of them, and the manager.
Lately, things have not quite been the same here as the price of oil has continued to slide. Ms. B's is among many local businesses where sales have fallen off.
"It's like the place has gone dead," Ms. March says of Fort McMurray. At the downtown restaurant, she is sending servers home early, amid empty tables. "...The past couple of weeks, I've never seen it this bad here at the restaurant."
The falling oil price triggered layoffs last week at Shell, and on Monday, cuts in forecast capital spending and production growth at another oil producer, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL). Local retailers report slumping sales, charter plane traffic is down, and last month, two residential work camps closed. The price drop was on the agenda as the Chamber of Commerce board met late Monday, a day the price of oil plunged another 5 per cent.
However, business and labour leaders are preaching caution, saying Fort McMurray has been through dips before – and that it is too soon to know what the impact of sub-$50 oil will be.
Stores across Fort McMurray say they have noticed a slide. At Mark's Work Wearhouse, sales of heavy-duty boots and other gear have fallen off since about October, manager Derek Estabrooks says. "There's no new hires, that's our biggest problem," he said. "...Our business thrives on that."
There have been early indications of cutbacks and cancelled projects in the oil sands, but the impact here is expected to be two-tiered – temporary construction, contracting and fly-in jobs affected first, as opposed to salaried jobs based in Fort McMurray. Many here see contractor and construction cuts as a bellwether, but the picture is murky. Layoffs over the holidays are routine in construction jobs, with call-backs in January. In weighing the impact of $50 oil, Fort McMurray is still waiting to see if those construction workers, and hospitality and other staff that support them, come back this month.
"It's bad timing, because we don't know if it's oil [prices] or Christmas layoff. We do have a number of job orders on the board to send people back to work," said Ian Robb, president of Unite Here Local 47, a union representing food and hospitality workers at work camps around Fort McMurray. He is not panicking. "I have confidence the industry will pick up again. We look at it this way – yep, another hiccup in the Fort McMurray drama."
Last week, word spread of about 200 layoffs at Shell's Albian Sands mine, one of the major producers. The move affected less than 10 per cent of the Albian work force, and the company remains on solid footing, even with the price of oil at about $50. Canadian synthetic crude production costs about $38 per barrel, according to its 2013 annual report.
However, some saw the Shell move as significant because it went beyond contractor and construction jobs.
"That's kind of spread the rumours around there could be more layoffs," says Ken Smith, president of Unifor Local 707-A, representing workers at another major mine, Suncor, which has not announced layoffs. "...It's been a long time since we've seen layoffs at the major plants, like Shell."
On Monday, CNRL – citing commodity prices – trimmed its projected capital spending this year to $6.2-billion, down from $8.6-billion. The company said its oil production is still set to increase seven per cent this year, although it had originally estimated 11 per cent growth.
The Bank of Canada's latest business outlook survey, published on Monday, found the outlook for companies "linked directly or indirectly to the energy sector has deteriorated," and that firms in the Prairies or linked to energy now "anticipate a moderation in the pace of sales growth in the wake of falling oil prices."
Businesses are looking for ways to be more efficient, but say the current drop feels like the price decline of 2008, Chamber president Nick Sanders said in an interview after Monday's meeting.
"They're feeling it's very similar [to 2008], they're thinking maybe it could potentially hang around a little bit longer," he said. Some businesses have noticed people are buying "needs, not wants," he said, but Christmas sales were solid and businesses are hesitant to scale back or lay off in case the price rebounds. "It's about becoming more effective, right-sizing [a company] and making sure you still have the right skill-set sitting around the table when things turn around," he said.
Other early signs hint at stagnation rather than decline. The Fort McMurray airport had a banner year last year and traffic has surged. The latest figures, however, show November traffic was flat compared to November, 2013, while the number of people travelling on charter flights, often hired by major companies, dropped 23 per cent from the previous November. Charter flight traffic at Fort McMurray's airport has dropped, from the previous year, in four of the past six months.
The municipality has used utility consumption in the past to figure out how many people live in Fort McMurray, including the "shadow population" of short-term workers. The municipality was unable to provide recent water-use figures. One power provider, Direct Energy, says consumption last month in Fort McMurray was down 13 per cent from December, 2013, but stressed weather was a major factor and commercial power use is relatively unchanged. The Alberta Electric System Operator said average power demand in Fort McMurray for November, the most recent data available, was up 10.6 per cent from the previous November.
There have also been closings – two camps for workers owned by Civeo Corp., which said the move came amid cuts in oil companies' capital spending. Mr. Robb of the union representing hospitality workers said it was more related to failed lease negotiations and one of the two lodges being outdated. "The price of oil really didn't affect those two closures," Mr. Robb argued. "...Everybody will be doing this blame game, [saying] 'it's all on the price of oil.' Some will be."
Nonetheless, many say things seem slower this month. On Franklin Avenue, Fort McMurray's main drag downtown, entrepreneur Pius Poitras owns Chow's Varieties, selling lottery tickets, fishing and hunting supplies and other goods. He noticed business drop, in particular at his second location in a more residential part of town.
"It's hard to pinpoint exactly what it is, but sales overall are down," he said. That's a problem in a community where the boom has sent wages and lease rates soaring, a challenge for business owners. He hopes one day to sell and retire with his wife, but keeps an eye on the oil price. "I watch it every day," he said. "More for curiosity than anything else."
Where Ft Mac leads, the rest of the province will follow. :(
Spotted gas prices of $0.70 per litre this morning. :blink:
The wife read a thing where some Saudi Prince or other was quoted as saying "you won't see $100+/barrel oil prices for decades. Whenever we cut production, we lose market share so we're not going to do that."
90m barrels a day and $60 price reduction, I make that a benefit of $5.4bn a day for users of oil and a corresponding minus amout for rent-seeking oil sheiks, Russian oligarchs etc etc
1,08€/l in the cheapest pump in the area. I wonder if I will see sub-1€ gas prices again.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/01/13/national-gas-prices-to-drop-below-2-a-gallon/21686963/
QuoteCrude oil's global collapse is now expected to soon push the national average U.S. price for gasoline below $2 a gallon for the first time since early 2009.
The unprecedented sell-off in crude - which has pushed benchmark West Texas Intermediate and Brent Crude down more than 55% since mid-2014, has yet to run its course, says Tom Kloza, a leading energy analyst for the Oil Price Information Service.
Nationally, regular unleaded gasoline currently averages about $2.12 a gallon, down 46 cents from just four weeks ago and $1.01 cheaper than year-ago levels.
Gas prices are also expected to fall more than previously forecast for the full year.
Quote from: celedhring on January 13, 2015, 01:01:38 PM
1,08€/l in the cheapest pump in the area. I wonder if I will see sub-1€ gas prices again.
There are already a few places in Spain where diesel costs less than a € per litre.
I wish I could install a giant 1000 gallon unleaded tank in my garage so I could just buy all my fuel now.
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2015, 12:53:50 PM
The wife read a thing where some Saudi Prince or other was quoted as saying "you won't see $100+/barrel oil prices for decades. Whenever we cut production, we lose market share so we're not going to do that."
Maybe Martim Silva could go out to a dinner with that Prince so he can get that confirmed.
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2015, 12:53:50 PM
The wife read a thing where some Saudi Prince or other was quoted as saying "you won't see $100+/barrel oil prices for decades. Whenever we cut production, we lose market share so we're not going to do that."
That was the Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/23/news/economy/saudi-oil-minister-100-dollar-oil/
Quote from: Zanza on January 13, 2015, 02:29:49 PM
That was the Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/23/news/economy/saudi-oil-minister-100-dollar-oil/
Sounds about right.
Quote from: Berkut on January 13, 2015, 02:16:08 PM
I wish I could install a giant 1000 gallon unleaded tank in my garage so I could just buy all my fuel now.
You bet.
11B has already filled the above-ground pool.
Quote from: Berkut on January 13, 2015, 02:16:08 PM
I wish I could install a giant 1000 gallon unleaded tank in my garage so I could just buy all my fuel now.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: celedhring on January 13, 2015, 01:01:38 PM
1,08€/l in the cheapest pump in the area. I wonder if I will see sub-1€ gas prices again.
.997€ was lowest in region I know of
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2015, 12:53:50 PM
The wife read a thing where some Saudi Prince or other was quoted as saying "you won't see $100+/barrel oil prices for decades. Whenever we cut production, we lose market share so we're not going to do that."
good, when prices rise the money will be going to the west while their well's a big bit dryer
Quote from: Berkut on January 13, 2015, 02:16:08 PM
I wish I could install a giant 1000 gallon unleaded tank in my garage so I could just buy all my fuel now.
You could buy oil futures to hedge future fuel purchases.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 13, 2015, 04:47:19 PM
You could buy oil futures to hedge future fuel purchases.
I'm guessing the minimum contract is larger than 20 gallons.
Quote from: The Larch on January 13, 2015, 01:27:32 PM
Quote from: celedhring on January 13, 2015, 01:01:38 PM
1,08€/l in the cheapest pump in the area. I wonder if I will see sub-1€ gas prices again.
There are already a few places in Spain where diesel costs less than a € per litre.
Diesel is under 1€ over here, but I was talking about gasoline.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2015, 04:50:29 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 13, 2015, 04:47:19 PM
You could buy oil futures to hedge future fuel purchases.
I'm guessing the minimum contract is larger than 20 gallons.
If only there was a way to make long term investmensts in oil without out using the swimming pool. :(
Quote from: celedhring on January 13, 2015, 05:41:42 PM
Diesel is under 1€ over here, but I was talking about gasoline.
Your diesel is less money/unit than gas? Interesting, diesel always leads premium by a bit over here. Regular gas for me is about $2.25/gallon (so roughly.50€/L) , but diesel is still $2.70-2.99 (.63-.68€/L).
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 13, 2015, 06:17:00 PM
Quote from: celedhring on January 13, 2015, 05:41:42 PM
Diesel is under 1€ over here, but I was talking about gasoline.
Your diesel is less money/unit than gas? Interesting, diesel always leads premium by a bit over here. Regular gas for me is about $2.25/gallon (so roughly.50€/L) , but diesel is still $2.70-2.99 (.63-.68€/L).
I believe we had discussed something here about "gas" term generally being applied to diesel in other countries and what we call diesel, they have as some variation of benzene. All of that to say, it would seem that diesel vehicles are more common to use in Europe than here?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2015, 04:50:29 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 13, 2015, 04:47:19 PM
You could buy oil futures to hedge future fuel purchases.
I'm guessing the minimum contract is larger than 20 gallons.
If he is worried about 2020 fuel purchases, I'm guessing he is planning on purchasing more than 20 gallons in 2020.
I've got gas.
The Saudi prince is right, and he was right some months ago when he said oil prices were essentially an illusion. They were predicated on the belief that OPEC wouldn't let oil drop much below $100, the reality is they did. The moment that happened traders reacted very rapidly and oil price cratered to where it should be given what can only be described as a massive oversupply of crude.
Are there political aspects to it that make SA happy? Sure, but I think the reality is SA realizes that it doesn't benefit SA to artificially keep oil prices at $100/bbl. SA doesn't necessarily run OPEC, but they're the biggest producer and the only one that doesn't blatantly ignore OPEC production limits (most of the rest cheat OPEC.) Since they're the only real lever that gets moved in OPEC, if they don't agree to a move then OPEC is meaningless. In fact for most intents and purposes OPEC is now meaningless because any of its members that aren't the low cost gulf producers are so far out of alignment economically with the gulf states that there is really no way for them to act collectively without one group screwing the other. Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria just have a very different oil economy and for the Saudis and smaller gulf states like Kuwait or UAE to artificially prop up prices for the benefit of those countries really makes no sense. It's arguable that OPEC as an entity really isn't valuable anymore for its members.
Where the Saudi prince is being prescient is I think he knows that there has been a permanent loss of market share, not to other producers, but to alternative energy or just to increased efficiency in much of the Western world. CAFE standards are not going anywhere and are likely to continue to get stronger, a growing number of individuals are making a political decision to move to either ultra-high efficiency hybrids or plug-in electrics. Given the tax credits incentivizing this and the political climate around it that's not a trend I see going away in the West. Saudi Arabia probably correctly realizes that what helped push people this way was the $4/gallon gasoline. Gas being so expensive for so long has caused a societal shift in the West that is not going back the other way, ever.
I suspect on the long horizon SA sees China, which is a major polluter but to be honest more progressive on the environment than you would expect (and showing an interest in becoming more so), and wants to have really cheap oil on the market so that China doesn't go down the same path as the West and get too obsessive over efficiency and the environment. But, to be honest I think in the longer run all governments are going to want to move away from fossil fuels, and because of that being a reality it's unlikely the price will spike as high as it was in an era of heightened demand.
I don't think SA is particularly concerned about striking at American "energy independence", something conspiracy theorists are claiming. SA has savvy oil market analysts, they know that fracking wells aren't like huge oil sands projects or deep sea projects which take billions of dollars and sometimes up to a decade to get pumping. I don't think they have a short-term "knock frackers out, then jack up prices, profit" strategy, I think they know they can't really do that. If oil stays below $50 for long enough then most new fracking will stop and old wells will only continue until they are unproductive (the life span of a shale fracked well isn't super long.) But when all the companies like Chesapeake which have expanded solely through crazy indebtedness go out of business the big guys like Exxon will just buy up the drilling rights they had for pennies on the dollar and quietly hold them in their portfolio. If/when prices go up they can easily ramp up production at that point.
What will particularly hurt some of the shale players is many of them, once they get a well drilled and pumping they spin a bunch of wells off as an MLP or Royalty Trust and get a big lump sum for it, but they have to by agreement keep pumping the wells typically until a certain amount of barrels or cubic feet (for gas) has been extracted. So these agreements can mandate they keep contributing to the supply glut even as it drives them into bankruptcy.
Very informative - thanks Otto :cheers:
Just like the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones, the oil age won't end because we run out of oil, but because we find something better.
As Otto says, there has already been a shift in the western world. And China has an extremely high interest to make electric cars etc. work. They have no oil and they could become the center of the electric car industry for the world if they do it right. There are massive incentives for electric cars in China right now.
They would need to steal some battery technology first.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2015, 02:34:48 PM
They would need to steal some battery technology first.
... a bunch of it is available, patent free.
Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2015, 07:26:58 PM
Very informative - thanks Otto :cheers:
I agree. Posts like this are the reason I come back to Languish. That, and shit-flinging about conspiracy theories.
China is subsidizing the hell out of electric and hybrid cars right now. Whatever tech they needed, they already stole it. I think the CCP is itchy about the environment because it's a big in your face problem with smog that people have to deal with all the time. Pun intended. But I think it's bad enough to make the country look bad so they want to fix it. I think it's the same reason they did the pipeline deals with Putin a couple months ago. Get gas to those coal fired plants instead.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 14, 2015, 05:33:31 PM
China is subsidizing the hell out of electric and hybrid cars right now. Whatever tech they needed, they already stole it. I think the CCP is itchy about the environment because it's a big in your face problem with smog that people have to deal with all the time. Pun intended. But I think it's bad enough to make the country look bad so they want to fix it. I think it's the same reason they did the pipeline deals with Putin a couple months ago. Get gas to those coal fired plants instead.
IMO, the environment is not just a big face problem for the CCP. It's a big concrete problem that directly impacts the populace in a way that shows up clearly in both data and personal experience. In fact, I don't think they care how they look outside of the country at all.
The reality in China is that the environment has been degraded so quickly and so noticeably that everyone knows. Death rates are up for a number of reasons that are clearly discernible. There are enough old people, for example, that die from smog related breathing problems that you can't just deny it; and everyone can see that they can't see due to the smog. There are enough scandals from pollution and unsafe practices that everyone knows there's a problem.
So it's a real, concrete problem, not just a "reputation" thing.
The difference, I think, is that in North America through a combination of a low population density and significant importing, much of the environmental impact happens elsewhere. Sure, we may know and care about it if that's our thing, but it's a matter of reading about it and seeing pictures, not living it. So it's fairly easy to push aside for more immediate concerns.
The Chinese are like that with things that don't impact them directly - they don't give a fuck about overfishing, f. ex., or if they do it's about the same as we do - but pollution from fuel consumption and heavy industry? Those chickens have been roosting right where they live, and they feel the results.
Yeah--not so much a how they look abroad thing as how they look to their own citizens. It's a daily reminder and potentially destabilizing.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 07, 2015, 12:19:29 AMMaybe LaCroix will have to start looking at law firms in Minneapolis. :(
the worthwhile minneapolis firms look down on us. :(
a professor mentioned today that oil and gas lawyers do well even in economic downturns. people start bickering and the
money lawsuits roll through. should the price continue to drop and stay low for some time, though, that could be an issue. if oil prices remain below $55/barrel for five consecutive months, north dakota will step in and save the poor oil companies with pretty significant tax breaks. greedy farmers with their 20% royalty provisions don't help matters. :mad:
Quote from: LaCroix on January 14, 2015, 07:31:41 PM
a professor mentioned today that oil and gas lawyers do well even in economic downturns.
Of course they do, especially during economic downturns. It's prime Murders & Acquisition season.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 14, 2015, 05:52:23 PM
Yeah--not so much a how they look abroad thing as how they look to their own citizens. It's a daily reminder and potentially destabilizing.
I've been to a lot of different cities in the world. The air quality in China is in its own league. Compared with China, places like Tokyo, Seoul, Munich, London, Bangkok and Paris are all paradises. It is not an image problem at all. It is a real public health disaster.
In China, there are dedicated farms that supply safe and high quality food for the top leaders. But that's not practical for things like air. So there are very personal reasons for the top leaders to improve air quality :contract:
Quote from: Monoriu on January 14, 2015, 11:29:02 PMIn China, there are dedicated farms that supply safe and high quality food for the top leaders. But that's not practical for things like air.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXWKnr1l.gif&hash=26228d6b5495d15240ddaa40a786f30a25fa0a8f)
Quote from: Syt on January 15, 2015, 12:17:10 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXWKnr1l.gif&hash=26228d6b5495d15240ddaa40a786f30a25fa0a8f)
Dammit, Syt, why didn't you tell me my ass was so big?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2015, 07:34:13 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 14, 2015, 07:31:41 PM
a professor mentioned today that oil and gas lawyers do well even in economic downturns.
Of course they do, especially during economic downturns. It's prime Murders & Acquisition season.
Admiteddly, one of the bigger deals I have done during the recent downturn was between two large oil companies. :P
Quote from: Martinus on January 15, 2015, 03:18:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2015, 07:34:13 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 14, 2015, 07:31:41 PM
a professor mentioned today that oil and gas lawyers do well even in economic downturns.
Of course they do, especially during economic downturns. It's prime Murders & Acquisition season.
Admiteddly, one of the bigger deals I have done during the recent downturn was between two large oil companies. :P
:yeahright:
Quote from: Martinus on January 15, 2015, 03:18:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2015, 07:34:13 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 14, 2015, 07:31:41 PM
a professor mentioned today that oil and gas lawyers do well even in economic downturns.
Of course they do, especially during economic downturns. It's prime Murders & Acquisition season.
Admiteddly, one of the bigger deals I have done during the recent downturn was between two large oil companies. :P
:worthy:
Quote from: Monoriu on January 15, 2015, 06:24:00 AM
:worthy:
One of these days, you will get yours. Hard.
He'll die of heart disease in his bed.
Crude back up to $50 this morning. A five buck gain on USO.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 15, 2015, 09:26:09 AM
Crude back up to $50 this morning. A five buck gain on USO.
It's over.
THANKS OBAMA
Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2015, 04:25:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2015, 02:34:48 PM
They would need to steal some battery technology first.
... a bunch of it is available, patent free.
There have been a few very promising battery developments as well coming out of universities and such, that are likely to replace Li-ON, Li-S (Lithium Sulfur) batteries are the most promising that is likely to roll out before 2020, and promise higher energy density than Li-ON and lower cost. There are some safety/materials science stuff that will have to be a little more fine tuned most likely.
Battery tech of course has continually improved throughout the 20th and early 21st century, but the sort of financial incentive for improved battery technology is unprecedented now, with everyone using smartphones, tablets, the growth of hybrid and all electric cars, there's no reason to assume unprecedented financial incentive won't see a boom in battery technological development.
Battery tech, however, has yet to see a real, practical, transformative advance in...well, my lifetime?
It is all extremely incremental, from what I can tell.
Is there a next gen/step in technology that's in the offing? One that's affordable by everyone, not just the super rich like I think hydrogen power is. Something that could replace fossil fuels and have much better efficiency than batteries. I've seen it said that batteries are a stop gap until other alternatives for autos are created.
On another note, I'd love to see some sort of power source that can be used in homes/businesses without relying totally on the power companies. That would also have the huge benefit of making it impossible to shut down the power grid. But that tech is certainly very far off. Has anyone heard of anything like it as a possibility? I thought I've read of something like it and maybe it's not all that far off.
It's difficult because we all live in such an energy intensive civilisation; I think it takes .03-.04 of a Kwh to boil just enough water to make a mug of tea/coffee.
Yet I've got a substantial laptop battery to hand rated at 6600mAh at 7.4v, which is what(no pun intended) nearly 50Wh, so that would be pretty much drain boiling just that small amount of water.
Quote from: KRonn on January 15, 2015, 02:51:33 PM
Is there a next gen/step in technology that's in the offing? One that's affordable by everyone, not just the super rich like I think hydrogen power is. Something that could replace fossil fuels and have much better efficiency than batteries. I've seen it said that batteries are a stop gap until other alternatives for autos are created.
On another note, I'd love to see some sort of power source that can be used in homes/businesses without relying totally on the power companies. That would also have the huge benefit of making it impossible to shut down the power grid. But that tech is certainly very far off. Has anyone heard of anything like it as a possibility? I thought I've read of something like it and maybe it's not all that far off.
The trick is to get things like this mass produced so that costs are lowered.
http://www.ballard.com/fuel-cell-products/cleargen-multi-mw-systems.aspx
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2015, 03:05:08 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 15, 2015, 02:51:33 PM
Is there a next gen/step in technology that's in the offing? One that's affordable by everyone, not just the super rich like I think hydrogen power is. Something that could replace fossil fuels and have much better efficiency than batteries. I've seen it said that batteries are a stop gap until other alternatives for autos are created.
On another note, I'd love to see some sort of power source that can be used in homes/businesses without relying totally on the power companies. That would also have the huge benefit of making it impossible to shut down the power grid. But that tech is certainly very far off. Has anyone heard of anything like it as a possibility? I thought I've read of something like it and maybe it's not all that far off.
The trick is to get things like this mass produced so that costs are lowered.
http://www.ballard.com/fuel-cell-products/cleargen-multi-mw-systems.aspx
Yep, that's a good one. Some of this tech is out there now, just too expensive or not yet practical for widespread use.
Quote from: Berkut on January 15, 2015, 01:48:29 PM
Battery tech, however, has yet to see a real, practical, transformative advance in...well, my lifetime?
It is all extremely incremental, from what I can tell.
Battery tech has advanced a good bit, however it isn't close to as fast as computing power/memory advances which are proceeding much faster. To some extent those gains have included reduced power consumption, but they are still resource hogs. You could probably build a computer with a form factor of a small phone that could chew through a battery 5 times its size in short order.
My buddy works for Schlumberger in Houston, which announced 9,000 layoffs this morning. Not sure if this is the layoff he was talking about on the phone a couple days ago or a second round. If it's the latter, I hope he didn't get the axe.
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 10:52:08 AM
My buddy works for Schlumberger in Houston, which announced 9,000 layoffs this morning. Not sure if this is the layoff he was talking about on the phone a couple days ago or a second round. If it's the latter, I hope he didn't get the axe.
QuoteThe company tells Eyewitness News they're in the process of reducing their workforce by 9,000 jobs. The reduction represents about 7.3 percent of the Houston-based company's total global workforce.
The layoffs started in the last quarter of last year, and will continue through 2015. No word yet on which specific jobs will be affected.
One would think that, in the oil sector, the first jobs to go would be the front-end production ones. But that's not what layoffs are about.
My buddy is in the Geophysics division that does geological surveying. So his workload is determined by the number of clients that want to know how much oil is "down there" and whether it's feasible to drill. Obviously that is going to drop off a bit, but I would think that some companies would still want to continue to poke & prod just to have an idea of where they could drill, should it become economically feasible to do it at some point in the future.
Yeah, I don't see the R&D types in the energy sector getting the axe of a minor market contraction. Corporate Security, though...:P
Or Marketing. Took me two layoffs to figure out I needed to get out of that racket.
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 02:43:42 PM
My buddy is in the Geophysics division that does geological surveying. So his workload is determined by the number of clients that want to know how much oil is "down there" and whether it's feasible to drill. Obviously that is going to drop off a bit, but I would think that some companies would still want to continue to poke & prod just to have an idea of where they could drill, should it become economically feasible to do it at some point in the future.
Or since new well development is not going to be feasible at these prices, they may decide it's not worth to keep a big surveying operation at the moment.
Geomancy isn't real anyway.
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2015, 02:51:41 PM
Geomancy isn't real anyway.
Save it for the break room, Captain Atom.
Quote from: celedhring on January 16, 2015, 02:50:32 PM
Or since new well development is not going to be feasible at these prices, they may decide it's not worth to keep a big surveying operation at the moment.
Yep, who knows.
By the way, do failing oil prices in any way affect the viability of the Keystone pipeline construction?
No. Obama would veto it under any market condition, I think.
Quote from: Martinus on January 17, 2015, 03:33:32 PM
By the way, do failing oil prices in any way affect the viability of the Keystone pipeline construction?
No. It's politics now. The Senate spent a large amount of time debating a pipeline that at current prices would barely ever be used :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2015, 12:10:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 17, 2015, 03:33:32 PM
By the way, do failing oil prices in any way affect the viability of the Keystone pipeline construction?
No. It's politics now. The Senate spent a large amount of time debating a pipeline that at current prices would barely ever be used :lol:
That isn't accurate. If anything low prices make a low cost method of transporting oil more important. Although the environmental argument that the pipeline will contribute to carbon release is stronger in a low price environment because of the economics of transporting oil by more costly methods such as rail.
Good point, cc. The pipelines have been busier if anything during the glut and price bottom in natural gas in recent years. But Warren Buffet doesn't own the Keystone, he owns the railroad.
We need the pipeline. The spice must flow!!
The spice will flow no matter if there is a pipeline or not.
It will just use trains instead.
The entire pipeline idiocy is useful to show that even in the world of the Tea Party, where the dumbshit right has most of the spotlight for being ignorant dumbasses, there is still room for the dumbshit left to get in there and show how moronic they can be as well.
So Berkut are you pro- or anti-pipeline?
I'm pro-pipeline, generally have zero environmental impact after a few years; cycled past a substantial one today and I'm probably the one in a hundred people who know its there, one place a week ago kids were playing on part of it's above ground structure and I bet they or their parents didn't know what it was either.
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2015, 03:45:50 PM
So Berkut are you pro- or anti-pipeline?
I think it is safe to assume, if he is excoriating the idiotic left for opposing the pipeline, that he is pro pipeline. Just a hunch.
Quote from: Martinus on January 17, 2015, 03:33:32 PM
By the way, do failing oil prices in any way affect the viability of the Keystone pipeline construction?
Unless it goes to some kind of ridiculous extreme, no.
The main reason for Keystone is that there is a significant price differential between western Canadian crude and many of the other benchmarks. Because oil from Alberta is more difficult to get to the world market, it sells for a discount compared to your baseline west texas intermediate. Refineries in Texas would love to get their hands on that cheaper oil.
If TransCanada, the company building it, gets into financial trouble that could effect it's viability, but TC is a pipeline company, not a producer, so it's less effected by falling oil prices.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 20, 2015, 04:11:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2015, 03:45:50 PM
So Berkut are you pro- or anti-pipeline?
I think it is safe to assume, if he is excoriating the idiotic left for opposing the pipeline, that he is pro pipeline. Just a hunch.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthatsthejoke.net%2Fthatsthejoke.jpg&hash=7dddb809ff03853c31ec48e578d55925108686a5)
Quote from: Habbaku on January 20, 2015, 04:11:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2015, 03:45:50 PM
So Berkut are you pro- or anti-pipeline?
I think it is safe to assume, if he is excoriating the idiotic left for opposing the pipeline, that he is pro pipeline. Just a hunch.
That was my guess, but given that his main message was "everyone is a dumbshit but me" I wasn't sure.
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2015, 05:47:11 PM
That was my guess, but given that his main message was "everyone is a dumbshit but me" I wasn't sure.
:huh: I think he thinks you are a dumbshit, too.
I'm probably a dumbshit for thinking that was funny. :sleep:
So my little brother works for an oilfield service company. He was asked the other day if he would consider taking a demotion, rather than being laid off. No new work is coming in anymore. I imagine scenes like that are happening throughout Alberta. :(
I could not care less one way or the other about the pipeline. We have lots and lots of pipelines already - what is so special about this one anyway?
I guess I am pro-pipeline to the extent that I am pro letting businesses do business, and from what I've seen the objections to this are strictly emotional and political.
But I don't have any vested interest either way.
The existing pipeline network from Western Canada lacks sufficient capacity. So the XL would lower transport cost for Alberta oil and it is a pretty fat pipe - lots of capacity. If current prices stick it could have more marginal impact on oil sand production than it would have if prices were still at 120+ (at which point production is a no brainer even if carried by two mules and Sister Sarah).
The fucker already runs through Missouri. I see no problem running it through Texas Jr.
XL is supposed to have a capacity of about 800K bpd.
Let's assume that absent XL none of that get produced. Which is a very big assumption.
Assume also that oil sand oil has 15% greater carbon impact than regular oil.
Then the carbon impact of XL is equivalent to about 120K additional bpd of oil burned.
Total world oil consumption is around 90 million so that is an incremental effect of about 0.13 percent.
But oil is only one contributor to human caused carbon emission. Let's say 1/3 (pretty generous given coal is out there). Then the impact of XL on global carbon is less than 0.05 percent.
That doesn't seem huge but OTOH carbon emission control is all about what can be done at the margins. So an extra 0.05% may not seem such a huge deal but it is one more thing that will have to be offset.
My own 2c is that we need carbon taxation to control emissions and that a sufficient carbon tax would probably render XL uneconomic. So in this ideal world XL wouldn't get built. But it doesn't make sense to block XL on that theory when in fact there is no tax on the horizon.
Now assume that instead of XL it all goes by train.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2015, 05:32:31 PM
Now assume that instead of XL it all goes by train.
I am not sure that is economical given current oil prices or at least it is a lot less economical than it used to be and as a result transport by rail has dropped off significantly in this country. Good news for our grain farmers who can finally get their products shipped in a more timely manner.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2015, 06:12:26 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2015, 05:32:31 PM
Now assume that instead of XL it all goes by train.
I am not sure that is economical given current oil prices or at least it is a lot less economical than it used to be and as a result transport by rail has dropped off significantly in this country. Good news for our grain farmers who can finally get their products shipped in a more timely manner.
Heck, in the US we've dismantled a lot of our railroads.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2015, 06:12:26 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 28, 2015, 05:32:31 PM
Now assume that instead of XL it all goes by train.
I am not sure that is economical given current oil prices or at least it is a lot less economical than it used to be and as a result transport by rail has dropped off significantly in this country. Good news for our grain farmers who can finally get their products shipped in a more timely manner.
And some Quebecers might tell you about the danger in transporting combustibles by train in large quantities (though pipelines have been known to explode too).
Alberta cabinet announced a 5% cut in their own salaries. Anyone want to give me the odds they announce wage rollbacks for public sector employees? <_<
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2015, 10:42:00 AM
Alberta cabinet announced a 5% cut in their own salaries. Anyone want to give me the odds they announce wage rollbacks for public sector employees? <_<
Yeah, that sounds very likely.
Smart of them to start by cutting their own salaries first.
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2015, 10:42:00 AM
Alberta cabinet announced a 5% cut in their own salaries. Anyone want to give me the odds they announce wage rollbacks for public sector employees? <_<
Would you rather face a wage cut or the risk of a pink slip?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2015, 04:37:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2015, 10:42:00 AM
Alberta cabinet announced a 5% cut in their own salaries. Anyone want to give me the odds they announce wage rollbacks for public sector employees? <_<
Would you rather face a wage cut or the risk of a pink slip?
I would rather the price of oil not be $44 today. <_<
But of course it doesn't matter what I think about either issue. :(
The gaol must flow.
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2015, 10:42:00 AM
Alberta cabinet announced a 5% cut in their own salaries. Anyone want to give me the odds they announce wage rollbacks for public sector employees? <_<
It is going to be interesting to see how the recent SCC decisions on collective bargaining rights will influence events. The unions will likely argue that government can no longer pass legislation which alters rights which were collectively bargained. And even for public employee groups the RCMP case shows there are significant rights which attach to collective bargaining even outside the context of a union.
Quote from: Barrister on January 30, 2015, 04:46:42 PM
But of course it doesn't matter what I think about either issue. :(
It does to me. :)
I dunno Yi. I'm conflicted on this stuff. My inner right-winger is frustrated that this province was running even modest deficits back when we had $100 oil. I don't want to see higher taxes, which pretty much just leaves spending cuts, and obviously government employees are a big part of government expenses. But I know how tight my family's money is, and with both Mrs B and I earning government paycheques we'd both take a hit.
And while I'm optimistic I would not be laid off due to having both years of service, and great reviews for my work, but Mrs B is just on a term and would probably lose her job if there are job losses.
Mostly I'm just bitching and moaning here.