/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.18266568]

SCO went down after Trump's declarations. I don't believe anything, oil prices are going down further.

Do you think it's a good time to buy the dip? I know it's risky.

[Anonymous No.18267203]

>>18266568
Oil has been a shambling corpse for years, the only reason it still has as much value as it does is essentially due to a literal conspiracy by people who profit from oil to sabotage any technological progress that undermines their monopoly on energy.

[Anonymous No.18267229]

>>18267203
Give Grimey a kiss for me Elon

[Anonymous No.18267240]

>>18267203
back to r*ddit

[Anonymous No.18267270]

>>18266568
Oil Anon called this being a dead cat bounce. Gave a comprehensive timeline of info and it sounds like oil's gonna keep going down until at least May barring someone finding a Unicorn

[Anonymous No.18267338]

>>18267270
How do I find this post? Do you have a link?

[Anonymous No.18267348]

>>18267203
What is plastic?

[Anonymous No.18267372]

>>18266568
I bought the dip yesterday and today. Have about 10% of portfolio invested

t under thirty

[Anonymous No.18267425]

>>18267203
Oil will always be in demand as long as it's available, it's superior to counter part

[OilAnon No.18267475]

>>18267203
This is actually true but not for the reasons you might think.
The short answer is major oil companies gib money to help prop up the green lobby in the "correct" direction.
Let me be blunt:
ExxonMobile has never worried about Solar or Wind energy becoming viable. They will always be 20 years away in most places as they are only environmentally viable(better then fossil fuels only) in a small section of the developed world and only economically viable in an even smaller subsection of that.
Pic related.
Outside the areas shown here they are either viable but to far away from a major population center to make the investment attractive due to transport cost, viable environmentally but not viable economically, breakeven environmentally but not viable environmentally or straight up a worse for the environment worse for your checkbook option.

>Worse for the environment how
3 reasons 1) consistency or lack there of for energy production + 2) inability to store excess meaning when they are in bad conditions to produce energy fossil fuels fill in that gap in Germany they have gone to using Lignite every time solar fails them(most of the time, Germany is not a sunny country) which is basically coal but worse. 3) There is an environmental cost for the raw materials needed to build these facilities and to manufacture the solar panels/wind turbines and their batteries(and also to maintain them).


Natgas and Shale have actually done more to lower US emissions then supposed renewable by 1) replacing coal 2) replacing normal crude particularly heavy and sour blends which are worse for the environment(on Shale) 3) Natgas is more environmentally friendly then oil period.
The only two renewables that actually threaten the industry 1) Hydro(which can't be scaled up due to there only being so many rivers and that damning all of them is a mistake that destroys your river system[vital for a country] so you can only damn some of them strategically be careful) 1/?

[Anonymous No.18267500]

>>18267229
>>18267240
Big Oil pays pretty good huh?

[Anonymous No.18267581]

>>18267475

Oil Senpai <3

[OilAnon No.18267680]

>>18267203
Continued from:
>>18267475
The problem with Hydro is its viable in both senses but you can't just throw it everywhere even if you have a river/body of water nearby.
Which leaves us with the only viable economical and environmental renewable for scaling and beating fossils:
Nuclear.
The problem with nuclear is purely a political one, it should take 2-3 years to build a nuclear plant it takes at least 15 best case scenario in the US(and by the time its finished its tech will be at least 10 years out of date). Nuclear has been due mostly to green lobby(funded by the oil lobby mind you) pressure regulated out of the market period.
The bottom line for nuclear energy production and cost wise is actually great the problem is it has been regulated out of entering market artificially by lawmakers.
You greens are useful fucking idiots for ExxonMobile and you don't even know it.
>But I own a TSLA
63% of US electricity production(what your TSLA runs on) is fossil fuels.
20% is Nuclear and this is DESPITE the fact that all of our plants are horrible outdated tech wise efficiency wise safety standards wise as the oldest were completed in the 70's maybe 80's if you find an anomaly. Most date back to the 50's and 60's. Upgrading them is a mess for purely political reasons(muh greens want to shut it down).
Despite this tech from the 1960's is still more viable then your fucking green pipe dreams.
And nuclear is 0 in its carbon footprint and contributes 0 greenhouse gases.
The remaining US electricicty production is all other renewable.
>Muh nuclear waste
There are solutions to this that are environmentally conscious and economically sound, this is still a net-zero greenhouse gas issue so this is deflection from muh green earth.
>But solar and wind are economically viable in some places
Mind you this takes into account that solar and wind receive massive subsidies that other industries do not and large grant money.
>Why would oil companies support this
2/?

[Anonymous No.18267752]

>>18267680
Near term predictions on crude? Whats your thoughts on this oil war and Saudi, Russia, and America?

Thanks

[Anonymous No.18267773]

>>18267680
you do know oil is almost never used for power generation right?

[Anonymous No.18267851]

>>18267203
>>18267475
man, you faggots always have arguments for or against anything, even the most retarded arguments.

ever thought what would happen if there was no oil today? hint: >>18267348

also,
>solar not viable
you know you can (indirectly) store 90+% of the solar energy (extracted at an efficiency of ~25-30%) and transform it in alternating current electricity, and that PV and wind are not the only "green" alternatives, right?

[OilAnon No.18267895]

>>18267203
Continued from:
>>18267475
>>18267680
A note before I explain why oil is pro-solar and pro-wind.
Oil and nat gas are heavily taxed, solar and wind receive subsidies, buyers of green tech get tax breaks/credits and these techs get the big grant money due to the hype. Despite all of that oil and natgas are still more economically viable then your green memes.
Which brings me neatly to the interest of the oil companies and why they have supported the green movement covertly(with money) for decades:
None of the "Green solutions" could work in any reasonable timeframe. None of the "Green solutions" are things based in reality or viable in the real world.
Exxon is not afraid of some imaginary solar threat that will not materialize for at least 50-100 years.
They know the numbers they see the numbers you don't need to explain them the math they've seen it and run the numbers. They've never been scared b/c they have nothing to be scared of here.
And they understand there is something real here, in green frustration that is with fossil fuels both as a climate change issue(at least public perception of it being a huge deal) and as a more pressing and reasonable to the average person I don't like smog in my cities or polluted rivers.
There is a natural constituency and case for a green movement in any advanced society as there is for a labor movement even if one disagrees with it. Ergo if you get this movement that will have some political power that wants your industry dead what is in your best interest as a fossil fuel company?
Simple: Help them lead themselves down false paths.
So long as the Solar Wind meme(wind is the better of the two but still) persists it clouds out money and attention from the more viable and dangerous techs to the oil companies bottom line.
So Exxon supports the green lobby.
In return the Greens are anti nuclear.
3/?

[Anonymous No.18267950]

>>18267475
>>18267680

Words of reason.

So what are the plays for us Oilbros? Just keep averaging down the strongest companies for a long term long?

I'm into Canadian energy producers like WCP, and they're absolutely REKT, but I believe they will survive since they are low cost and well managed, and survived this price environment before in 2014.

[Anonymous No.18267975]

>>18267950
I’m bear short term. The demand is down and there is no end in sight of letting up. There is no telling if the airline industry will ever recover. People will be scared more than after 9/11

[Anonymous No.18268050]

>>18267975

Yeah, but the price crashed primarily because of OPEC fuckery and Russia refusing to cut production and apply stress on US shale producers.

Once you take off that factor, we're back up to $40 WTI in a week.

And Trump can really press on the Saudis to achieve this, by passing NOPEC bill, which would remove Saudi immunity from US anti-trust litigation.

He can also compel Russia to cut by removing the sanctions that were placed on Russia by the Kikes inside the State Department who are still pursuing Obama's and Hillary's policies.

[Anonymous No.18268133]

>>18267338
>>18235163 i gotchu nigga

[Anonymous No.18268169]

very based and informative thread a shame i didn't read any of it

[Anonymous No.18268211]

>>18268133
You're a real one thanks anon

[OilAnon No.18268266]

>>18267203
Continued:
>>18267475
>>18267680
>>18267895
The greens think this is an ideological issue, Exxon has no ideology they only see greenbacks.
We could've been 20% fossils(or less) by now if it was not for the anti-nuclear autism. The greens have been doing the interest of the oil companies for years.
As a personal anecdote I live in a very lefty area of the Northeast. My town a few years ago announced we are all being switched to renewable as our default energy source(this being America you could switch back).
In the letter we were sent notifying us of this change my dad and I sat down read it there were three options:
100% renewable(default).
50-50 mix.
Fossils only.
The fossils were cheapest(by a wide margin) we opted for fossils only.
My dad is a green, not ideological about it but he really dislikes the fossil fuels effect on the environment and he worries about climate change. He is also not some autist who would pay more for an identical endproduct.
If you want to convince normie to adopt your tech needs to be good for the pocketbook not some moral crusade. You will never convince a normie to pay more for electricity b/c muh reasons. It has to be economically viable see first post map.
Oh one last thing the oil crash has wiped out the balance sheets of renewable as they compete with fossils, they are eligible for a bailout under the last stimulus and got specific targeted subsidies from that very same bill. When greens say muh bailout why does oil need muh bailout you faggots have been living on govt teet the entire history of your industry and yet you still need a bailout and remain nonviable, this is the first time oil/natgas has ever needed govt help. Obama was anti-fracking and yet we still had a massive fracking boom. Your industry still has no real geopolitical significance whereas shale Oil and Natgas are a game changer for national security and geopoltiics. Oh and fossils are better for the American bottom line financially.
4/4

[OilAnon No.18268400]

>>18267270
Hello hello friend.
More specifically crude will return to ~20 slowly going a tad lower but not by much until we run out storage at which point prices fall of a cliff dramatically. To be fair I wasn't really clear how the price will move but that is my most likely scenario.(also what I meant by armageddon)
>>18267581
Morning to you my friend.
>>18267752
See above. On the oil war specifically
Trump will probably continue trying to hype this. Russians best case scenario agree to OPEC cuts(so minor they won't change anything). Saudi might be negotiated down to slightly harder then OPEC agreed. Both numbers are still millions of barrels short of Trumps tweet and millions short of what we need to prevent storage apocalypse.
Eventually the market realizes the cuts he is talking about are absurd that no one will agree to them and enforcement would be impossible even if we had agreement.
At which point crude returns to ~$20(pre-tweet prices). I don't see it going below ~$15(or even $17.50 really) in this period until we run out of storage at which point it veers depending on the glut when we run out of room to a ceiling of $10 probably lower consider the glut we will have at that time.

[Anonymous No.18268550]

>>18267500
Does elon pay well or do you just do it for the glory of Xi and china?

[OilAnon No.18268703]

>>18267773
Yes but natgas and coal are used in the US for electricity(natgas is replacing coal that is a good thing for the environment).
Also Oil is used in countries like Saudi for power generation. You are correct that stateside that rarely happens(0.5%).
It is used for electricity for our ships and our planes and this won't change unless we adopt nuclear(as both need a consistent energy supply and batteries are just insufficient) or figure out how to store natgas without it dissipating for cheap.
Only for cars/trucks(not for planes and ships) is the electric model viable rn and in the foreseeable future even then 38.4% of US electricity comes from natgas and 23.5% from coal.
See:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
The other uses for crude, petrochems in particular can only be substituted for economically in a viable fashion by either raw chemical extraction(but that has a rather severe environmental cost I'm personally thinking of the dead sea here but there are other examples and is only possible in certain places) or natgas(which has a much lower carbon footprint and at certain pricepoints is cheaper) in refineries or nuclear waste(this one has potential but we it is still not there).
Oil is not just about electricity.

[Anonymous No.18268977]

>>18268400
Thanks fren
>>18268050
Maybe you’re right. Who knows, but nice picture.

[Anonymous No.18269031]

>>18268266
>>18268400
>>18268703

Well fuck you too, for ignoring me.

[OilAnon No.18269057]

>>18267851
The no plastics thing is correct.
Greens will stupidly argue we can replace plastics.
If you take specifically the issue of plastic bags:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/to-tote-or-note-to-tote/498557/
Classic example.
Obviously plastics have other uses but again, we need alternatives that make fiscal sense and not just environmental sense(and even then the environmental sense has to be real and not bullshit hype) and whenever some environmental engineer gives us numbers we should have some real engineer with no stake in the matter check their math. At this point if you added up all the promised % efficiency boosts for solar and wind one solar farm would probably generate enough to power the entire planet. BTW another map(this one for where solar and wind are ideal not controlled for distance from population centers so its more generous)
>Store 90%
With Lithium batteries? I'm gonna need an actual source on that. Even if true this doesn't address the issue of it still not being viable(economically and in certain parts not even environmentally) outside of those areas where the conditions are correct(map related does not account for transport/distance from viable customer base). Reminder that transporting electricity does cost money.
>Other green energies
Geothermal is viable only in certain regions we have no easy way to transport proper electricity.
I already talked Hydro(which I'm personally fond of).
Biofuels have their own problems in terms of pollution and pricepoint they won't get us out of this mess.
The only scalable solution that could kill fossils fuels everywhere not just where you can build a damn without destroying the farmland or a solar/wind installation and actually make a good return is Nuclear.
My point is the Greens are anti-Nuclear(totally illogical considering their stated endgoals) and that it was the fossil fuel industry that helped push that stance for its own benefit.

[Anonymous No.18269213]

>>18267475
Funny how many of the areas rated as unsuitable for solar have viable solar markets, while many of the "ideal" areas are too fucking hot to produce efficient photovoltaic power.

Almost like an oil industry shill made the picture.

[Anonymous No.18269290]

>>18269057
How about the deal just now? Russia and Arabia cutting 5 mil a day?

[OilAnon No.18269291]

>>18267950
>DCA the strongest companies for a long
Once Trump talks fall apart next week pretty much this.
My worry about Canadian energy is specifically that they need their government to allow specific projects the liberal govt is dragging its feet on, likewise they need the US to play along with said projects during that timeframe(so rightwing govts in both countries).
Meanwhile their industry is being priced out rn I worry for their survival. The main reason for their current stress is that they are in Canada and not the US, related:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnwPSPkC2j8
They are well-managed though but I personally can't put my money in them in good faith right now.
>>18267975
It'll take years but air traffic will recover.
>>18268050
Not really demand destruction has accelerated to such a degree that the supply increase by OPEC(Russia last minute revealed they are not going to increase production) is only a secondary reason for the current pricing structure.
We've increased production worldwide thusfar ~3 million it will top off to 5 million(with current announced increases). Demand has gone down more then 15 million.(estimates for this month are either ~15 million if we manage the virus this month and 22.3 million if we go full lockdown estimates will likely be revised up for both).
Surplus(demand destruction + supply increase) for this month is between 18 and 25 million depending on the scenario(likely to be revised upwards as demand destruction continues). We were at about even supply demand at crisis start.
Even if they go back to pre-oil war levels that is still 15-22.5 million deficit. Even if they agree to the OPEC terms Russia walked away from that is 1-2 million barrels at most. The Libyans(due to ceasefire) have gotten production back online they won't cut all of it(1 million of the newly added 3 in supply during this period).
We are still fucked.

[OilAnon No.18269366]

>>18268211
If you've got questions fren' by all means throw them at me.
>>18268550
Related:
>As a side note that is my prediction for TSLA, I don't know if they become the worlds largest car company or whatever, but they likely keep the hype train do very well up until China forces them out of the China market(through unfair practices) and bankrupts them with their own tech.
>>18269031
When I write a longpost I generally finish the longpost before answer replies. Otherwise I'll never finish it.
Once I finish it I then address questions addressed to me in the order they arrived. Didn't ignore you anon I was trying to stay on target fren'.

[OilAnon No.18269527]

>>18269213
You gonna sit here and argue that Germany is viable for solar when they have to use lignite to make up for their deficiencies in generation?
I live in the Northeast.
We have a "viable" solar market here.
That is to say massive govt subsidies and tax breaks and social pressure to adopt the technology and yet when one compares its pricepoint it is more expensive then fossils.
Viable economically as in it could survive without handouts at a competitive pricepoint.
And note there are two versions of that map one that controls for distance(transport costs) the one you are replying to and the one that shows only ideal area. see >>18269057
I will post the two maps these two are based on in my next replies but short answer calling everyone you don't like a shill doesn't change the numbers.
>>18269290
Russian total production is ~10.8 million a day Saudi precrisis was about 12.
You telling me both agreed or would agree to cutting almost half their production?(in addition to the production increases the Saudi's did)

[Anonymous No.18269628]

>>18269527
https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-russia-to-debate-oil-cuts-amid-price-war-11585906863
Hasn't happened yet, but they are working on it I guess?

[Anonymous No.18269632]

>>18269366
>If you've got questions fren' by all means throw them at me.
Opinions on getting in on oil shorts like DTO right at this moment?

[OilAnon No.18270199]

>>18269628
Looking at these numbers they are from current production.
Precrisis production for Saudi was 12, Russia 10.8 UAE 3.1, Iran 3.99, Iraq 4.45, Kuwait 2.92 all million.
Production increases since crisis start:
Libya +1 million(due to ceasefire in civil war).
UAE 1 million promised total more then half that materialized thusfar.
Kuwait 500k promised over a longer period(majority has yet to materialize).
Saudi has thusfar delivered on an increase of ~1 million to 2 million.
Iran and Iraq have not increased production in any significant degree(Iran has plans to over the coming years tho) during the crisis as far as I'm aware. There are other players who have increased production but the big cuts promised here are Saudi, OPEC gulf states and Russia.
All cut % are from precrisis production not current production.
For the Russians this would be a 14% cut, for the Saudis a 16.6% cut from precrisis levels
Kuwait 45-50%(depending how much they had increased production since the oil war started).
Iraq ~33%.
Iran ~38%
UAE ~36-41%
>in the U.S., Canada, Brazil and others, would reduce output by about another 2 million barrels a day, they said
Is that each or total? B/C brazilian production is ~2.5 million, Canadian is 3.66 million
>Rest of the cuts by minor producers in OPEC
OPEC minors not mentioned together make 8.69 mil precrisis ~10 million now(mostly Libyan ceasefire).
These numbers would probably prevent crisis point. That said does anyone believe they are feasible(especially when companies like XOM are downright refusing to even consider it)?
>>18269213
Map related for solar, ideal defined as economically and environmentally sound, moderate as environmentally but not economically sound, low as environmental breakeven but not economically sound, negligible is not sound economically or environmentally.

[OilAnon No.18270229]

>>18269213
Here is the map for wind definitions of ideal, moderate, low and negligible are identical to that in the solar version.
The maps earlier were for ideal areas only(as most normies won't pay higher electricity bills even if it is to help muh environment)

[OilAnon No.18270349]

>>18269632
I think this deal falls apart before it gets finalized in which case oil prices return to ~20 a barrel.
At which point I'd pull out my money and consider getting back in before storage capacity is reached. Holding an ETN position for 2 months(unless we keep going down which is not happening here we will return to pre-deal prices maybe a bit lower and stay there until storage capacity is reached) is a bad idea even if the general direction is correct due to volatility being against the long position.
So as a short term play yes but the exact entrance point of the position is critical to maximize returns.
Crude will keep going up until the market realizes this deal is not possible so again when you enter is of vital importance. WTI's top rn is probably 28.5-30 range until we realize the deal is bs(if I had to guess).

[Anonymous No.18270395]

>>18270349
Was selling my USO today a good play? I'm thinking of staying cash through the weekend then see where the market goes on Monday.

[Anonymous No.18270521]

>>18270229
Hi oilanon, your advice is invaluable!
So, if you predict Trump's deal will fail, is SCO a good bet or will decay bit my ass?

[OilAnon No.18270538]

>>18270395
The issue with the deal is so long as it is perceived as possible the market will try and recover crude to ~30.(If confirmed higher).
The deal likely falls apart or be insufficient(say 5 million total barrels from precrisis levels) but who knows when. Selling now with a small profit is in my opinion the smarter move(simply because you can't predict when the deal falls apart and it crash. I personally think getting out of a bubble a day before a crash vs a week vs a month with a profit is always better then riding it down to a loss)
I think you made a good play.

[OilAnon No.18270584]

>>18270521
A good short term bet if you time entry correctly(crude goes up until deal collapses I think current ceiling is $30 if we get more deliverables that make the deal seem more likely that number goes up[So beware the Trump tweet wait to see the presser on it today]). Get out once crude returns to ~20.
Crude won't go much further then that until storage capacity is hit and the decay in the in between is not worth it.

[Anonymous No.18270786]

>>18270538
>>18270395
I got HAL, USO, and XOM all in double digit greens, HAL is up 24% for me right now. With all speculation going on I'm using and exit plan for every one of them though, put some stop loss orders in to make sure I still retain some profit if the deal goes south.

[Anonymous No.18270810]

>>18270786
>an* exit plan

[OilAnon No.18270864]

>>18270786
>Exit plan in case deal breaks apart
>Hold in case deal goes through
That sounds like a solid plan.

[Anonymous No.18270901]

>>18270786
If you look at the chances then you would cash out now. The only reason you choose this strategy is greed.

[Anonymous No.18270927]

>>18270901
The only reason I can chose this strategy is because I bought when people like you were panicking and I have a healthy margin for profit.
I'm making money regardless of what the market does, if the deal implodes my stop losses will trigger and I will still be in the green.

[Anonymous No.18270929]

>>18267475
On top of that, electricity cannot really replace most oil. Batteries are nowhere as energy dense (not could be physically) to make airlines, cargo ships, military, heavy industry, or cruise ships run on electricity.

Those things NEED oil. Hydrogen might help in some of those uses but it’s not economical at all.

[Anonymous No.18270961]

>>18270929
Motor oil for lubrication, gearboxes, oil makes synthetic fiber for clothing, rubber, whatever. Even if we invented magic electric motors tomorrow, we'd still use shitloads of oil

[Anonymous No.18271211]

what is the rundown/link to the deal Trump made?

[OilAnon No.18271246]

>>18270929
>>18270961
To the average green this industry is all about electricity, you gotta remember most people(not just greens) don't even know that the first Oil boom was not as an energy source for vehicles/machinery but as a source for lighting and heating to replace whale blubber among other things.
Gasoline was a useless byproduct for decades until Rockfellers autism led to the discovery of an actual use for it.

[Anonymous No.18271322]

>>18267680
based post

[Anonymous No.18271350]

>>18266568
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx2gvHjNhQ0

[Anonymous No.18271359]

>>18271246
No amount of wishful thinking will make an airplane with hundreds of people plus baggage fly from San Francisco to Tokyo or NYC to London on batteries.

The energy density is just not there. Without oil the airlines will die outside trips under 100 miles with small planes.

[Anonymous No.18271392]

>>18268169

[OilAnon No.18271412]

>>18271359
I agree with you on batteries. The only replacement theoretically feasible right now is popping a nuclear reactor in the planes but even if the tech is there that is politically impossible outside of maybe the military.

[Anonymous No.18271435]

What happens if a deal is reached that is worse than the 10M trump promised? Let's say 5M, a relief or still a dump?

[Anonymous No.18271439]

>>18271412
Imagine a nuclear 9/11, jesus christ. Also nice talking to you last night anon, I am keeping eye on the portofilo picks you recommended to see if Trump can dump this before monday.

[Anonymous No.18271461]

>>18267851
>extracted at an efficiency of ~25-30%

The average efficiency is below 20%, and most of the energy is only captured at around noon. It can't provide consistent enough power to be a reliable long term power source.

[OilAnon No.18271669]

>>18271439
It's not as bad as you are thinking.
The only type of nuclear that is feasible for a plane is Thorium Molten Salt which doesn't make a bomb unless you really know what you are doing and try immensely hard(and even then its a shit bomb).
Practically speaking there is no way to hit such a plane to trigger a chain reaction(with current tech). I'd agree with you if the proposal was uranium or plutonium but that will likely never happen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Reactor_Experiment
The reactor itself was later proven viable for energy production(on the ground) they had also proven the reactor could manage under pressure changes in the air and take hits without exploding/melting down/causing a chain reaction with disastrous effects.
They cancelled the project due to budget concerns and it taking longer then expected(mostly because it was a tougher project then a sub or carrier). The theoretical were actually finished at the time. The practicals were proven later on but never implemented b/c the DOD never reopened the project. Feels bad man.

[Anonymous No.18271871]

>>18271669
Do you think trumps tariff is gonna happen?

[Anonymous No.18271941]

>>18271435
I think a Monday is already priced in today. I’m selling my CL Apr’20 calls, made about 1000 or so. Even if I miss out on another rally Monday, I doubt it will cross past 30.

[Anonymous No.18271997]

>>18269057
plastics was only 1 example. the world would stop today if we didn't have oil. that's our current reality.

I'm not attacking oil or any alternatives, though. nuclear would be awesome if they found a way to avoid its most pressing issues. supposedly there are good alternatives, but people won't trust blindly...

>plastic bags
I agree, the ban on disposable plastic bags is retarded if there are no accompanying measures. it was done as political marketing

>Store 90%
batteries, molten salts, pumped hydro, compressed air, ... there are alternatives, and I bet there will be more.

>>18271461
from google:
>Most CSP technologies will have an efficiency somewhere between 7 and 25 percent. To compare this to the electricity conversion efficiencies of other renewable energy technologies, wind turbines can achieve up to 59 percent efficiency, and hydropower systems can have efficiencies of up to 90 percent.
and molten salts can be stored for all-day use

[Anonymous No.18272116]

OilAnon, thoughts on TOT as a long term buy and hold?

[Anonymous No.18272177]

>>18268050
The world is shut down, so demand will be flat. There is oversupply, I just don’t see 40 any time soon.

[Anonymous No.18272582]

>>18271439
there is no way for that to happen. the bomb that starts the nuclear reaction has to be very very big. a plane crash can not do that.
look up broken/fallen arrows. many many bombs and accidents have happened around nukes. so many they stopped reporting them

[OilAnon No.18272627]

>>18271871
Tariffs is very possible considering its Trump. I have no clue if it happens though.
We will have to wait and see.
>>18271997
>90% storage
For solar its batteries and the from your source:
>7-25%
Wouldn't that back up what >>18271461 was saying? What is the median?
>People won't trust blindly
That is fair considering the PR nightmare but I will remind MSR are safe.
>>18272116
A solid buy even at current price. I don't think we've hit bottom though and they won't recover until markets stabilize(their big discovery with Apache in Suriname is great and with Apache potentially going bust they can grab up a bigger share of that).
Also they bring solid dividends.
If you agree with my thesis that this is not bottom but a dead cat bounce wait at least for the deal to collapse to buy in. Current price is still a good price. Bottom will be if I'm right when we run out of storage.

[OilAnon No.18272677]

>>18271211
Rundown is here:
>>18270199

[Anonymous No.18272957]

Oil target buy price is $8-$10 wait and it'll get there.

[Anonymous No.18273003]

>>18267240
Wtf?

[Anonymous No.18273018]

>>18270927
and what if the deal implodes premarket?

[Anonymous No.18273030]

>>18269366
>>As a side note that is my prediction for TSLA, I don't know if they become the worlds largest car company or whatever, but they likely keep the hype train do very well up until China forces them out of the China market(through unfair practices) and bankrupts them with their own tech.

>tfw slowly but surely building up a strong position in NIO

Yep, I see whats coming and im gonna be at the top of the fucking wave.

[Anonymous No.18273052]

>>18273018
It's a gamble, what do you want me to say?

[OilAnon No.18273360]

>>18273030
You think its gonna be NIO and not any of the other Chinese EV makers?
This because of their self-driving edge or something else?
Also be careful with the Chinese stocks whereas the underlying company may go big the issue with Chinese companies(Baidu is the classic example) is their U/L never goes nearly as far up due to shareholder controls over lack of actual input/ownership. As a growth stock even if the company grows the stock will just lag behind unfortunately. (Or maybe I am wrong what do you think)

[Anonymous No.18273457]

>>18268400
OilBro, I'd like to stay in touch. Would you create a telegram chat or if one exists, share a link?

[Anonymous No.18273467]

>>18273360
Question real quick...
Let's say, for the sake of example, that I bought shares of DTO at 90 and it's now at 55. Would the best strategy be to hold and hope for deals to go bad, then sell when it pops? Would it be to sell now and wait for it to get lower before buying back in? Something else maybe?

[Anonymous No.18273491]

>>18270927
I also made a profit, difference is I cashed out. There is like a 90% chance that there will be no deal in the next week and the price will fall. So if you think rationally you would cash out. But you take this 10% chance to hold because of your greed.

[Anonymous No.18273713]

>>18273467
I’m with you on sco. I’m holding how and bought more today.

[Anonymous No.18273774]

>>18273467
Also if anyone knew the answer that’d be rich. If you think the deal falls through it’s good to hold. If the deal goes through it’d be better not to hold.

[Anonymous No.18273915]

this is a based thread. i think ill scoop up some good oil producers with solid dividends and hold long term. gunna wait to see what happens with this "deal" on monday though...

[OilAnon No.18273920]

>>18273457
Is there a messaging service I could preserve my anonymity with(Looking into Telegram, similar to whatsapp it is tied to ones phone)?
B/c if yes and it was practical I'd have to consider it.
I'm in no rush I'll be following whatever oil threads pop on during the duration of this crisis.
>>18273467
That is a 35 dollar loss which is painful.
Even if oil moves back down the 33% to $20 U/L goes to 91.2 which is breakeven. That assumes we don't keep rallying.
It's ultimately a prediction of when the hype deal will break and I wouldn't take those odds.
I'd probably say cut your losses and get out. Even if the deal goes bad you barely profit. If the deal sticks for one weak you lose money anyway. Reinvesting it when we think the deal has broken down(on it or some other play) is a better move in terms of profits(simply because it will be a better % return) I would get out of that short the moment oil hits the ~20 mark b/c at that point it will only go further down in force when storage capacity hits. It's still got further down to go as this whole faux deal continues. I would get out find your position when for when deal breaks down enter it when you see the signal and then exit it when crude reaches $20. (After that prepare for storage pocalypse positions)

>>18273491
This a good profit is always respectable. Especially to something that is extremely volatile like an ETN or an option. Especially for a bubble going up or down. Selling to early at profit is always better then selling to late.
>>18273774
The issue is again one of this being with a multiplied volatility(so its inherently against you long run). The deal talks may last a week before they break down. Meanwhile the losses will not only become deeper but the climb back up to profit harder(due to being a % thing).
Trump should speak soon if it hasn't broken down by the end of him speaking I would sell and reenter at a better date. Just my 2 cents.

[Anonymous No.18273972]

>>18268400
thanks, anon

does it mean that russia is destined to fail as a state short-term? their economy breathes oil, and they cannot compete with the saudis in free market conditions

[Anonymous No.18273998]

>>18268400
also, do you see the german effort to force a shift towards renewables as pointless?

mind you, the alternative is to import oil at volatile prices forever, since nuclear isnt coming back anytime soon and coal isnt economically viable in high-wage countries either.

[Anonymous No.18274074]

>>18273920
telegram is fully anonymous , get yourself an account and lets have a daily oil group discussion, what is your position on the brent now ? a deal seems unlikely to me, the will be forced to cut production anyway, looks like a trump stunt

[OilAnon No.18274090]

>>18273774
To be clear on ETN's now is a respectable time to enter if one agrees that the deal is basically impossible(as the ceiling is 30 without a confirmed deal $41 with the deal).
>>18273972
Russia has enough cash reserves to outlast the Saudi's here. They have slightly larger reserves and a much more diverse economy.
They also have a stronger state to draw back on.
They also produce less oil so they are taking less of a loss right now then the Saudi's are. Meaning all in all the Saudi's can survive current conditions(assuming no storage break) for at most 2 years whereas the Russians can 5-10 years depending on how they play it.
Russia is betting they can drive the competition out of market and if they succeed the current pain would have been be well worth it.(as they expand market share and see prices rise and their geopolitical situation improve)

Assuming they get a deal the presumed price for Russian production cuts is an end to sanctions. Russian sanctions are worth around $100 billion euros.
Granted the kind of cuts being asked are worth 10.95 billion at crude $20, and ~$84 billion at crude $80. (that is assuming no increase in Russian production) It is also ~$63 billion at $60 crude(where Russia believes crude would be if they bankrupt US shale companies). Post crisis that would make crude over $100 if the bankrupt US shale companies with an expanding Russian share.

Short term they bleed from this, long term the oil war is a good play on the part of the Russians(well-timed too).

[Anonymous No.18274170]

>>18273491
Be greedy when others are fearful.

[Anonymous No.18274198]

>>18274090
Thanks. But is this "temporary dumping" truly any way to get rid of your competition while still maximizing profits?

Look at it like this: to drive any competitors out of the markets, the Russians would need to keep oil low as possible for 2-3 years. During this time, they reserves melt, living standards decline, investment into oil stops, etc.

After they've achieved their goal, theyre the only ones standing and prices go back up ... but here's the main issue: prices coming back up means that the issues Saudis and American shale companies had are gone. They ramp production up again, Saudi Arabia stabilizes again as the money flow comes back in, etc.

Everything starts from anew, and what the Russians had from all of it were several years of politically dangerous economic depression.

[Anonymous No.18274252]

>>18274198
the shale companies go bankrupt which means that the russian companies could simply buy up those fields?

[Anonymous No.18274256]

>>18274090
is it too late to get in to oil with the impending deal?

[OilAnon No.18274278]

>>18273998
The German effort to shift to renewable has been a disaster for business and for the environment. Their primary drive was increasing solar(a mistake).

Solar provides no consistent price structure, Germany is precisely the wrong place geographically to invest in Solar. Every time they get a hole in the system it is plugged by lignite. If Germany wanted renewable it is much better suited for wind then solar, it actually has some great rivers to dam(only worry about doing so is that these rivers are vital to the German economy). The French have consistently lower energy prices with nuclear and a much much smaller carbon footprint as a result. For all the failures of the French they have at least figure out their electricity(high cost low cost nothing is worse then massive fluctuations between high and low cost if you run a business) there is consistent in cost. You can plan for consistent costs(of course consistent low costs is ideal). Nuclear provides that the French a great deal of security. The Germans meanwhile are totally reliant on Russian oil. Overall the Germans fucked up not because renewable energy is impossible(it's not) not even because it is impossible in Germany(it's not) but because they chose a meme that didn't fit the reality of their country.

Short of it:
They should've done a push in wind hydro and nuclear(which they are trying to phase out also) cocktail if they wanted renewable energy, every euro spent on solar(in Germany) was a euro wasted.

[Anonymous No.18274309]

>>18274252
Dunno, by the same logic as the dividend value of Gazprom and Co. is tumbling, foreigners could increase their ownership if they see it as wise.

The recent drop in oil prices hurt the stock of Russian state oil companies MUCH more than it hurt Saudi Aramco, just check the recent stock market graphs.

[OilAnon No.18274370]

>>18274074
I'm not personally betting on Brent rn.
As a side note when I talk crude prices I'm generally talking WTI(should specify this).
As a general rule of thumb for Brent price is Brent is ~ WTI + $4-6 USD.
Production cuts will take time and materialize effectively in the US first(unless Trump announces tariffs). You are already seeing this in Texas although so far its to small to affect any of the fundamentals.
Cuts will happen for state owned based on the weakness of the countries pocket books.
First to fall will be:
>Venezuela
>Nigeria
>Iraq
>Libya
All due to internal reasons.

[Anonymous No.18274372]

>>18274278
But they *did* push wind and hydro massively as well, so at least its a 66% win ... or so.

The nuclear shutdown has been a purely political decision ... I wonder why there's no business lobby for cheap energy that shills for nuclear and against any inefficient Green stuff. Or why the Green lobby is stronger in Germany when there's no oil to profit from it.

Perhaps, lobbies aren't everything and the mindset of people still plays a role, but I find it interesting that Germany met a decision that goes against the interests of its powerful and essential industry. Chemistry, automotive, tool manufacturing, all that requires energy.

[Anonymous No.18274391]

If you don't care about short term small gains, why not just hodl for years?

[OilAnon No.18274491]

>>18274198
It is if you have the Russians fundamentals.
Increasing production takes longer for them then it does most of their competitors even if their oil has a great pricepoint.
That means to grow market share they need to drive their opponents to financial ruin.
The Russians have enough money to weather this longer then anyone else it'll hurt but they also positioned themselves the best due to largest cash reserves and the fact that they bluffed but never actually increased production.(They are waiting for a sweet spot where demand starts to climb but a glut still exists and their rivals start to declare bankruptcy to start expansion so that when things stabilize they come out with a much larger share)

The Saudi's are trying to modernize rn they actually need those cash reserves for a specific task(they won't be taken out obviously but they will likely be the one to say chicken). The Russian goal is to drive American Shale to bankruptcy or at least total zombification at which point it'll take at least a year for investors to be willing to try again(mind you the Russians again want to come out of this with increased market share).

[OilAnon No.18274552]

>>18274252
Unlikely the Russians don't want to hold assets in places they can't control/guarantee and they don't trust America. The Russians either a) expand into their own oilfields(those built or those yet to be built) b) Expand into the oilfields of Russian allies/satellites(thinking a deal with some of the Central Asian countries or the Iranians or the Azerbaijanis) or c) Expand into both.
>>18274256
If you believe the deal will happen its not to late now is the last good time to do so(get into the market).
If you believe(as I do) that this deal is a farce that could never be implemented then no now is a dead cat bounce. We have not reached bottom yet.

[OilAnon No.18274583]

>>18274309
Yes and no, their breakevens are worse but they have 1) less production(so less of a loss) 2) more cash reserves 3) The support of a stronger state with a more diverse robust and large economy backing it.

[Anonymous No.18274603]

>>18267229
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT THE BLACK GOLDARINO! NOT THE HECKIN CUTE LIGHT SWEET CRUDE! YOU CAN'T JUST DRIVE DOWN THE PRICE OF FUEL!!!! NOOOOOOOOO MY LONGS!!!!!

[Anonymous No.18274626]

>>18274491
Thanks. So its too early to bury either the Saudis or the Russians, but American shale is going to be hurt.

Is it true that, while having larger cash reserves, Russians still need higher price points for any oil sales to be profitable at all? While the Saudis can still sell oil at the price of garbage and net some profit?

And where does American shale stand in all of this? Are they even viable in a low-oil price era, since that what we seem to be moving into for the next several years?

[OilAnon No.18274642]

>>18274372
I didn't say wind was a 100% win.
Hydro is something one maxes out due to it needing rivers to build.
The return on investment for wind there has been higher but realistically again only so many places where it makes sense to build.
It's not all bad obviously but it overhyped as all hell and ultimately does nothing to secure Germany's strategic situation(unlike the French energy policy).

[OilAnon No.18274660]

>>18274391
This is true yes. For a lot of these companies particularly the supermajors these prices while nowhere near the bottom are still incredibly attractive longterm.

[Anonymous No.18274711]

>>18274583
>The support of a stronger state with a more diverse robust and large economy backing it.
Seeing how the ruble crashed the moment oil dropped down, I find this statement doubtful. Obviously, Russians are at least doing some activity except oil (unlike the Saudis, which outright refuse to do any hard work), but their competitiveness is subpar and what little industry they have survives only due to a currency devalued into oblivion, distance and protectionism. 70% of their exports are oil and gas.

[Anonymous No.18274723]

>>18274642
Does hydro really need rivers? Look at the tides of the sea. If you are willing to sacrifice the environment I think you create some really nice things

[Anonymous No.18274755]

>>18274552
>We have not reached bottom yet
based, can't wait

[Anonymous No.18274765]

Why is no one talking about the NOPEC legislation?

[Anonymous No.18274915]

>>18274090
>To be clear on ETN's now is a respectable time to enter if one agrees that the deal is basically impossible(as the ceiling is 30 without a confirmed deal $41 with the deal).
Can you recommend any that arent about to be delisted? And ideally not leveraged so I can just hold?

[OilAnon No.18274927]

>>18274626
You have to remember something about these companies they are not just funding themselves.
They have two breakeven points really:
One is the companies breakeven.
The other one people forget is the governments breakeven.
The Saudi's drill for crude on the extremely Cheap, Aramco's breakevens are amazing. Their only problem is Aramco has to fund the Saudi state which means the Saudi budget is in serious trouble rn.

The Russian budget meanwhile again has other major revenue sources they can afford the temporary hit(even if they have less available creditors due to sanctions). The only major revenue source for the Saudi state is Oil. And let me remind us all how the Saudi's actually keep power.
I guess most people native to the region or not oil or not don't know this.
There are over 10 million foreign workers in Saudi exact numbers unknown of various nationalities and religions.
There are 33 million people in Saudi total. At most 23 million of those are natives.
The distribution of religion of the natives is pic related.(That map is wrong for Iran btw I'll post the more accurate Iran map soon)
Notice anything interesting about that geographic distribution?(It'll become even more apparent once I post the Iran detailed image as well if you are in the know) I'll wait about two hours to reveal it(or if someone guesses correctly I'll do so right away).
Estimates of the size of the native shiite population relative to the native Sunni one are 10-25% Shiite vs 90-75% Sunni.(If you include foreigners the chart becomes hilarious but foreigners are irrelevant for our purposes)

[OilAnon No.18274955]

>>18274711
I agree with you they are in massive trouble I just don't think most westerners understand how fragile the Saudi state is.
See my first post on it here(which I will continue once I get an answer): >>18274927
Also 2nd pic as promised Iran in detail

[OilAnon No.18275016]

>>18274723
It can be made using any body of water really but the cost structure is different depending on the body of water. The effects to the environment cannot be ignored water is necessary for civilization commerce and agriculture. To misuse water resources can lead to disaster. Tide energy production is from what I understand just not there in pricepoint(otherwise every country with a decent coast would use it since most of us have spare coast we don't need).

Also beware of getting to greedy with hydro like the Russians did in central Asia or the Chinese are now. Both of which will have disastrous long term effects for the affected countries.
>>18274765
B/C rn they are scrambling to try and cut a deal with Saudi. When the deal fails it will become politically viable again(no clue if it passes though).

[Anonymous No.18275035]

>>18274927
Well, I am aware that Saudi Arabia is a meme state with a weak core identity, kept together by easy cash flows and consisting 50% or so of guest workers/slaves with zero loyalty towards their masters in case of emergency.

Also that they and Iran are perma-butthurt against each other. But I'm astonished there are Shiites in Saudi Arabia, but I guess money is more important for their loyalty than religion, seeing how Saudi Shiites don't seem to be separatist.

[OilAnon No.18275041]

>>18274915
Generally so long as you are taking a multiplied position on any short ETN the long term is a bad move simply because again volatility kills you every time.

[Anonymous No.18275054]

>>18266568
My normie friend wants to buy airline stonks.
What you think anon?

[OilAnon No.18275062]

>>18275035
Not talking about the guest workers/slaves.
I'm talking about the people they cannot get rid of, the natives Sunni and Shiite, tell me do you notice anything about where each country has their religious minority?

[Anonymous No.18275087]

>>18274955
Considering you believe that
- cheap oil is there to stay and
- cheap oil will kill Saudi Arabia in 2 years or so
you believe that Saudi Arabia is done for?

[Anonymous No.18275119]

>>18274955
I also dont believe Saudi Aramco will leave the market. Even though its useless appendage (the Saudi state) is a parasite, it still sits at the worlds most profitable oil reservoir, has been the most valuable oil company in the world for centuries, and someone will run it. In the worst case, foreign investors/the Americans.

[OilAnon No.18275121]

>>18275054
Delta and United will win of the major international American carriers.
Jetblue on the East Coast for comfy domestic flights. Don't know who will be the equivalent on the West Coast but I personally think Jetblue establishes themselves as America's comfy domestic flights company.
Southwest will continue to dominate the budget I just need to reach my destination market.
The problem with airlines is that air traffic is going to be so low for so long that one should probably wait longer.

[Anonymous No.18275139]

>>18275062
On the border?
Near oil fields and/or oil transportation lines, perhaps?

If so, I think religion has somehow become irrelevant for the Saudi Shiites living off Saudi Aramco.

[OilAnon No.18275154]

>>18275087
Here is your final hint.
>>18275119
They won't leave market but they will blink before the Russians do.

[Anonymous No.18275170]

>>18274642
Also, how do you see the German future in general, since we're at it?

On one hand, we've got an amazing industry with world leaders in various markets, seem to be handling corona fairly well (lowest % death toll of any European country) and cheap oil is fantastic for us (cheap energy + gasoline cars seem more attractive), on another, immense pension costs and constantly global competition.

[Anonymous No.18275194]

>>18275154
Well, it's Spanish, lol. But yeah, they're occupying the oil basin and could get separatist thoughts. I wonder why they haven't already. But, as I said, perhaps the Shiite-Sunnite split isnt that important if you have a life in unearned luxury to lose, as Saudi citizens do.

[Anonymous No.18275223]

>>18275154
>They won't leave market but they will blink before the Russians do
Makes one wonder why they dropped oil in the first place. Remember, Russians left the negotiations first, but the Saudis started flooding markets in times of already low demand as a response.

And the first one to blink was American shale, seeing how they went to daddy Trump to cry instantly.

[Anonymous No.18275277]

>>18274583

Correct.

People forget that Russia is the world's leading exporter of nuclear power technology, accounting for more than half of all global business in nuclear power generation.

They also have a high tech industry capabilities that few countries in the world have, they maintain their independent space program, independent GPS system (GLONASS), independent internet (no FaceKike data mining) and to a large extent and thanks to the sanctions - an independent economy.

[Anonymous No.18275300]

>>18275277
heh okay ivan
яussiд stяoиg

[OilAnon No.18275368]

>>18275139
Oh someone got it.
They have two main cluster one on the Yemeni border(this is one of the big reasons they went into Yemen as most of those people are the same religion and ethnic group as the Yemeni rebels).

The 2nd one is the dangerous one the really dangerous one.
They have a massive cluster of Shiites on their gulf coast. That is where the majority of their oil assets specifically the majority of their reserves.
The Iranians meanwhile have a bit of a reverse problem.
Most of their religious minorities are either in the north or on the Afghani border. The Baluchis however are not they are near but not on the oil reserves.
The bigger problem for them is their Arab population on the Gulf coast and their ethnic minority problem.
Saudi's natives are overwhelmingly Arab Sunni and Shiite alike.
Iran is ~89% Shiite ~9% Sunni but it has ethnic minorities everywhere.
To make matters worse for both countries their minorities happen to live on their oil fields.(including the Kurdish ones who while not disloyal would side with an independent Kurdistan over Iran any day of the week)

Now onto the internal Saudi situation.
The Saudi state was founded by a then ~18 year old Muhammad Bin Saud in 1744.
The Saudi royal family has in under three hundred years gone from a few brothers to ~15k people of which ~2k compose the inner circle.
The entire Saudi state is basically one tiered welfare state.
Everyone gets gibs.
A majority of the native population relies on gibs.
Anyone in the royal family gets gibs regardless with the closer you are to the top the more gibs.

The issue for Saudi is simple:
Even with the gibs the Shiites hate the regime.
Unlike the Sunni's who are content with the gibs the Shiites would burn it all down if they could(the Sunni Wahhabi hardliners also might if Saudi modernizes either to quickly or to too strong a degree). 1/?

[Anonymous No.18275408]

>>18275154
>They won't leave market but they will blink before the Russians do.

Agreed. Saudi Arabia is in a precarious state.

They run a welfare state, with most of the non-royal population's loyalty purchased with state welfare programs funded by oil.

It all falls apart into tribal and sectarian savagery once the state umbrella of free gibs runs dry.

Honestly, hope it happens. Fuck those sand niggers. They've been using the profits to fund their whore lifestyles and terrorism abroad.

[Anonymous No.18275422]

>>18275300

Asshurt /k/ nigger.

Go back to your blue collar hole Fatnik.

[Anonymous No.18275458]

>>18275408
>>18275422
kek, seething slavshit untermensch

[OilAnon No.18275468]

>>18275194
That was the first image I could find that accurately showed the reserves. There infrastructure(pic related) is even more fucked.
Sunni Shiite split matters in Saudi will continue.
>>18275223
1) B/C that is the only possible response given that its OPEC to a partner walking away from negotiation(that's just how mafia works)
2) For most people this looks like a bluff gone horribly wrong.
3) My pet theory is that they both agreed in secret ahead of the OPEC meeting to use this opportunity to take out the(American) competition. Russia gives them some great plausible deniability

[Anonymous No.18275483]

>>18275458

Canadian, but go eat shit Burger Blaster.

[Anonymous No.18275514]

>>18275483
I said slavshit not russoshit

[Anonymous No.18275560]

>>18275468
>3) My pet theory is that they both agreed in secret ahead of the OPEC meeting to use this opportunity to take out the(American) competition. Russia gives them some great plausible deniability
Oh, that's interesting but I believe it'll be disproven the moment Saudis and Russians both agree to reduce output, factually trying to return the status quo.

But you bet on the meeting failing to support oil prices.

[Anonymous No.18275575]

>>18275514

Russia is indeed STRONG.

>https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/08/07/russia-leads-the-world-at-nuclear-reactor-exports

[Anonymous No.18275576]

>>18267475
Lmao you're such a fucking retard and an a 'murican sheep at the same time. I really hope you are a troll.


>Outside the areas shown here they are either viable but to far away from a major population center to make the investment attractive due to transport cost, viable environmentally but not viable economically, breakeven environmentally but not viable environmentally or straight up a worse for the environment worse for your checkbook option

The whole map is bullshit because:
1. It only describes "ideal" places: Ideal is stupidly defined as one wind threshold at 80 meters which makes no sense. Also the map is lacking about 90% of the "ideal" wind areas.
2. Also the solar radiation map is wrong lmao and the threshold 2500 is artificial. I knew Americans are stupid but I did not know they are retarded enough not to understand that solar radiation is mostly distributed by the 2d projection of earth from the direction of the sun. Picture related.
3. 80 Meters is outdated, modern wind turbines sold today in Europe are 100-200M and work with various wind speeds.
4. It completely fails to map many areas which have existing economically sustainable wind parks built, being built and thousands mapped in Europe and elsewhere. With and without tariffs. For an example, there are thousands of economically sustainable wind turbines being built in Europe. They are much more profitable than fossil fuel, barely better than nuclear in Finland.
5. The whole "too far away" argument fails when you realize those areas put on the map are only put there to artificially have support for the "too far away"-argument. Wind can be put just about anywhere and it'll get enough wind as long as you use the 150+M turbines.

Solar is not yet very profitable much, though will probably be as cost of solar panels goes down and the efficiency of mass produced panels goes up. Solar can easily be profitable throughout Europe.

[OilAnon No.18275598]

>>18275223
I'm talking of the cartel countries btw. Obviously Shale blinks first b/c these are actual private companies(and also large debt + fastest scale up and scale down speeds).
Shale blinking first is confirmed the Russian plan and probably the Saudi one too.
>>18275170
I'll answer this once I finish the Saudi bit fren'.
>>18275277
I think Ivan's overhype Russian power simply because most westerners dismiss them as a petrol state. They are still weak just underestimated. They also have massive problems in their fundamentals(thinking now demographics, brain drain, collapse of educational system) that bode disastrously longterm but for now the Russian economy is being underestimated.
>>18275408
Its worse then you think. I'll explain why with part 2.

[Anonymous No.18275615]

>>18275576
>Worse for the environment how

Of course solar cannot be the primary energy source, at least with not without large adjustable power sources. That is not a problem though. Nobody is asking for 100% solar. Depending on the country, solar can form approx about 10-30% of the electricity production before uneven production becomes a problem. Fossil based power plants are easy to adjust and water power can be adjusted even easier without wasting energy. Batteries are not a primary energy storage medium. They are used only for very short term adjustment (adjusting very small fluctuations). Also the modern electricity grids are highly interconnected and international. Sometimes you buy and sometimes you sell electricity.

3) There is an environmental cost for the raw materials needed to build these facilities and to manufacture the solar panels/wind turbines and their batteries(and also to maintain them).

Environmental cost is negligible compared to environmental cost of fossil fuels.


>Natgas and Shale have actually done more to lower US emissions then supposed renewable by 1) replacing coal 2) replacing normal crude particularly heavy and sour blends which are worse for the environment(on Shale) 3) Natgas is more environmentally friendly then oil period.

Bahahaha what an environmental achievement. Replacing coal by oil. Not significantly better. When it comes to sour and heavy, the difference is mostly in sulfur emissions, which is not that big of a deal actually. Not at least the biggest problem. Anycase it's somewhat true that shale might be better than coal, but shale is still fucking terrible. When it comes to "doing more to lower US emissions", you probably you still pulled that out of your ass as you did with previous arguments. Coal-> shale change max cut is about 17% if all coal would be converted to shale vs wind production emissions exl building and maintenance can approach zero.

[Anonymous No.18275640]

>>18275598
>I'll answer this once I finish the Saudi bit fren'
Okay, thanks, I'll look forward to waking up to it.

[Anonymous No.18275776]

>>18275576
>>18275615
>>18267475


The best economic+environmental+secure+diversified energy system is:
>Based on nuclear power as a stable primary energy source (and has significant and well planned long term depository and fuel management plan, which in USA btw sucks. take example from Finland)
>Interconnected power grid that allows flexible power transmission through large areas
>Has all possible meaninful water power in use, with the water power planned for adjustability
>Has combined heat+energy production in areas where there is forest industry is nearby AND where district heating is used
>Has a significant part of the production based on wind/solar, as much is possible by the adjustment capabilities
>Has hydrocarbon plants (Maybe in the long term biofuel based) mainly for both adjusting the renewable production and as a reserve power for nuclear reactor maintenance etc.

[Anonymous No.18275817]

>>18275041
I was asking for an ETN to buy when this bounce subsidises and I can hold. So no leverage.

[OilAnon No.18275839]

Continued from:
>>18275368
Which brings us to the Saudi Shiite problem.
We always think of them running out of gibs money as oh this might incite the Sunni's or the dangers of modernizing to fast that this may anger the Wahabbis.
We forget that the Shiites sit on the most strategically vital area of Saudi, are chronically unhappy and have nothing to lose.
With a single order from Tehran(most of the gulf shiites in Saudi are loyal religiously to Iran) they wreck loose on Saudi. If they smell blood in the water there is always a chance they attack without an order.
This raises a fundamental issue to Saudi survival, if the state is perceived as modernizing to fast they get their Wahabbi's making a play out of frustration. If they fail to deliver the gibs they have trouble with the Sunni's.
If they show significant weakness they get terror attacks and possible risings from the Shiites.
And of these the one most likely to happen first right now is the last one. Due to budget concerns due to the bottom feeling shaky from Corona hell due to desperation in Tehran over the global oil crisis Riyadh has to be terrified right now of that spark lighting. The state could probably reach out to foreign creditors to take on debt and maintain gibs, what can they do to stop unrest from the Shiites? The only solution is avoid weakening so much that the Shiites revolt and crackdown in the in between. The main problem as this crisis weakens them comes from an old Israeli adage which I am fond to criticize, "We are one mistake/loss away from losing everything. We have 0 room for error".
Well here is a question for you boys and girls a little math one if you like just play around a bit in your heads, if you have no room for error over a long period of time what is the chance you fail? The answer is exponential, the more crisis's or the worse the crisis's the more likely you are to fail even if you are competent(which the Israeli's are and the Arabs especially the Saudi's are not). 2/3

[OilAnon No.18275943]

Continued from:
>>18275368
>>18275839
In fact given either a crisis intense enough or a period of time long enough failure is guaranteed. Saudi can't afford to keep this crisis going for too long or they will cause the collapse of their own state. We likely won't see it happen as they will blink. Riyadh knows this MBS is not stupid. The Saudi's might out of desperation be willing to agree to these cuts. But then that raises the question why they began this crisis? Again they knew they would lose. The obvious answer is to preserve their cartel(a mafia is only as influential as its perceived capacity to deliver on threats) but even then they know that the Russians of all people know this is an image thing(you have to do this Daniel.jpeg). But then the Russians know more about the details of the region(and the industry) then the Americans. The Russians know this is a bluff that Saudi cannot win b/c they know all the information I just mentioned at the Kremlin. Only way I see the Russians caving is if everyone else bribes them(with what exactly? not even total lifting of sanctions is worth the strength of their current hand). Which leads me at least to believe that its far more likely that this was a pre-planned hit on the shale companies and weaker OPEC members by the Russians and Saudis. The Saudis because they want to increase market share and get more pliable partners(US shale poises a threat hear) so they can fund their modernization with the upcoming Aramco IPO. The Russians because oil is good business and this is good geopolitics(and also good money if they win).
I will now answer questions.
3/3

[OilAnon No.18275994]

Consider this an addendum to >>18275368
>>18275839
>>18275943
Answering:
>>18275560
This is true but then why would either have them done this price war?
Why would the Russians walk away from the table only to come back and agree to greater cuts?
Why would the Saudi's start a fight they cannot win?
The Russians(and so do the Saudi's) know if they lower production to lets say 80mbpd and shale is not crushed then when demand rebounds shale may have shrunk 5-8 million in cuts but it'll grow back 20. In other words if they cut and shale survives, shale steals most of their market share when demand returns to normal.
The Russians will not accept a permanent loss of market share that large nor will the Saudi's.
Because again if they don't take out the Shale companies that's what this is a permanent loss of the majority of the collectively cut market share to the shale companies in America.

[Anonymous No.18276090]

>>18275994
perhaps they underestimated the impact of the virus on demand

[Anonymous No.18276103]

>>18274552
So, if the deals go through, what happens to your surefire tanker play?

[Anonymous No.18276120]

>>18275121
thanks

[Anonymous No.18276148]

>>18267203
No. Oil is in more than internal combustion engines.

[Anonymous No.18276168]

>>18275994
Because their losses at overproducing are worse than their estimates if shale rebounds. And they aren't jews whose only interests are their own pockets.
Is your predictive theory based on your jewish genetics a bit too much?

[Anonymous No.18276344]

>>18274603

[Anonymous No.18276566]

>>18276344
ugh this looks like downtown phoenix AZ. i cant believe this creature lives here with me

[Anonymous No.18276637]

>>18275994

oilanon, thank you as always for your contributions. tell me, how do you know all this? is this part of your schooling?

do you just research all this in your free time? where are you getting this information, and are you forming these conclusions yourself or are they a culmination of various industry experts?

[OilAnon No.18276722]

Apologies for the late reply I had dinner with family:
>>18275170
I am very blackpilled about German prospects.
Four main reasons:
1) Pensions(you are correct about this)
2) Exports(you don't have a consumption base due to collapsing birthrates, immigration won't fix this) overreliance.
3) No ability to defend its own interests without foreign guarantees
4) The EU is a mess that will eventually blow up in Germany's face to France's benefit(which is kinda funny considering France decided to build the EU at American prompting as a way to permanently subordinate Germany only to get the system conquered from the inside by the Germans)

To make matters worse for Germany Berlin has neither any real plan to tackle any of these four issues in a serious fashion(all of its solutions are nonsense) it is currently incapable of considering it for any party outside the AfD(who are political pariahs).

On Pensions:
If you don't increase the birthrate of native borns there is only delaying this crisis. Immigration brings its own issue that no one in Germany wishes to honestly speak of, those issues combined with resentment born therefrom will only deepen instability in the country over the next few decades. To make matters worse immigrants are not as productive(or as big consumers) as native born and most of the more recent ones especially are a net cost to the state.

On exports and interests:
What navy do they have to defend this? The EU itself is inherently unstable, take the Italians as an example. Do you honestly think with Salvini having been the most popular politician in the country pre-crisis that after the rest of Europe abandoned Italy b/c they lacked their own supplies that the Italians won't have a national moment? They are already having one.
1/2

[OilAnon No.18276737]

For:
>>18275170
Continued from:
>>18276722
Ditto for every country that in Southern Europe(except Croatia).
And of course Germany needs the EU not the other way around because Germany needs markets to absorb its excess production because again lack of a consumer base(needs more young people).
>An EU military?
Who do you know who would die for the EU?
B/C I know of no such person(I know plenty of EU sycophants none of whom are the military types)
>We take the national military's
Why would France give up her most potent asset? Why would Italy and Greece and Poland all subordinate their one advantage under Germany? And who would lead it much less fight for it?
>Get a foreign guarantee
This worked in the past when the USSR was a threat. Now what does Germany have to offer the US? What are its tangible give me's to buy or earn US help? If your only answer is goodwill 1) You underestimate the hurt America felt when they had no alliance only a few specific allies(Germany not among them) 2) Goodwill is insufficient in a world of competing interests Germany is a rich country you have no excuse 3) America has lost its strategic reason to support Germany.

>Russia
This will lose you the Poles and Romanians two key American allies who you better believe in both cases they would choose the Americans over the Germans and Russians.

>EU
Inherently unstable
>Britain
Not strong enough singularly and you burned that bridge
>France
They are better of letting Germany fail and picking up the scraps. Germany holds no cards, Germany has no way to defend their interests, if nothing changes Germany is in trouble.

The EU bit is merely these countries having more to gain following their own interest(even if that means screwing Germany) then subordinating themselves to the German one.
2/2

[Anonymous No.18276739]

>>18276722
Does Venezuela fucking up Germany's cruise ship mean anything?

[OilAnon No.18276995]

>>18275576
>>18275615
1) Enviormental cost is due to inability to store causing one to take the first available energy source for cheap to fill the gap(that is lignite in the case of Germany).
2) 10-30% solar in Germany is retarded you and what sunlight?
3) Natgas is not oil natgas is actually cleaner then oil you dumbshit. NatGas is 50-60% the footprint of coal(more for certain byproducts like Smog) and as a fuel for engines about 15 to 20% less then gasoline.
Sour and Heavy vs sweet and light is not that massive in environmental impact that's not the point, if we are consuming it(or do you have some solution to the petrochems and plastics and other byproducts issue) why not go for the cheaper more environmentally friendly option?
But then I forgot your an ideological green cheaper is muh evil capitalism and greener actually requires results and you hate those.
Here is a lefty anti-nuclear anti-fossil fuels source for you faggot:
https://ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impacts-natural-gas
>Wind and Solar have 0 long term emissions
Lithium batteries don't last forever are you pro-strip mining?
>Muh still low emissions
Again due to inconsistency in supply and inability to store(also transport cost) the cheapest most accessible fossils fill the gap that is usually coal retard. So the number is not 0 not even fucking close.
>>18275776
I agree with you on the nuclear bit.
The hydro bit is too bullish you can't just ruin our river systems for electricity. I agree hydro is good not to the extent you are advocating here. Have an environmental conscious greenfag.
>Wind/Solar
Outside of the areas in shown in previous maps without subsidies this is not uneconomical and in some cases again not environmentally sound. We should not have to be subsidizing the energy sector at all times(I understand during crisis like rn).
1/2

[OilAnon No.18277098]

Replying to this retard:
>>18275576
>>18275615
>>18275776
Continued from:
>>18276995
The as much as possible for Wind/Solar is ideological particular as they(especially solar) are the weakest links here it should be wherever economical viable without subsidy.
>Hydrocarbon
Emits greenhouse itself it would be better to just have extra nuclear plants to plug the gaps while one is offline for maintenance or upgrades. On the nuclear issue we need to start recycling and processing waste.


But this all distracts from the main point:
>By your own admission nuclear is the key to any real 0 greenhouse gas energy plan
>Yet Greens are against nuclear
>My main critique of Greens is that their opposition to nuclear is nonsensical and a pro-big oil position
Did you even read what I wrote fag?
>But some Greens support it
And the green movement is also the movement most responsible for shutting down nuclear(funded by fossil fuels of course but they don't have the grassroots clout to do what the Greens did).
And you still haven't learned your lesson it should be nuclear nuclear nuclear and what makes the most sense here and there to fill the gaps. Not literal memes as your focus with maybe some or no nuclear depending on how autistic your movement feels this week.

Or are you seriously contending that the Green movement is not responsible for shutting down nuclear plants shutting down research funding and making impossible honest conversations about better management and better deployment of nuclear as an energy source in the west(which by your own admission is the foundation for ANY real 0 emission plan). For God's sake(Oh I'm sorry you probably don't even believe in God and find it offensive does mother Gaia suit you better) the country you are defending here(Germany) is scaling back its nuclear program due to Green pressures.
And you say I'm the sheepish retard?

And you still have not addressed the oil byproducts issue:
>>18270929
>>18271246
>>18270961

2/2

[OilAnon No.18277197]

>>18275640
Good night fren'.
>>18275817
Not talking about loans issue talking about if its a 2x or a 3x the issue still remains you only hold them during volatility toward your direction crab volatility fucks you, see >>18270349
>>18270584
>>18270538
For what I would do as for ETN's there were a few mentioned already in this thread that could work: SCO, DTO.

[Anonymous No.18277308]

Thanks for the interesting and informative thread, Oil Anon. Much appreciated

[OilAnon No.18277673]

>>18276090
This is a possibility but consider the following:
For the Russians oil is not just about money its about influence and so its worth to them more then the actual dollar amount.
If they agree to the production cuts and save US shale as a result when demand returns 1) Shale steals most of their lost market share.
2) Shale steals much of the other agreed cuts market share which strengthens America(a rival) and greatly weakens them. I don't see them agreeing to this considering their stated reason for walking out of OPEC was to kill US shale not to gift it massive market share.
>>18276103
If the deal goes through it depends on the scale of the deal. I'd have to rerun the numbers but if the scale is large enough(10-15 million) then unless Corona lasts a whole lot longer then predicted crisis averted. If it is 5 million of the top of my head(without rerunning the numbers properly) then under scenario bust the virus we barely skirt by the crisis(a bit of profit for tankers and a nice boost during quarterly's but nothing crazy). Under the mitigation scenario doomsday delayed two-three months but not will still happen. Under the we got fucked by both scenario it happens regardless in Last month Q2 first month Q3.
Also for specific tanker plays found a good article:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4335607-global-shipping-tankers-winning-uncertainty-abounds
>>18276148
Shhhh don't tell the greens that.

[OilAnon No.18277745]

>>18276168
>Theory tied to my genetics
Kek, their loss to market share is huge from this scenario and shales gains are even larger due to taking a little bit from every cutter.

Its not an issue of pockets its an issue of power. Oil is a powerful industry geopolitically the Russians don't just want it for money they want the influence over countries such as Germany and China it brings. If they bankrupt shale they more then make up for their losses and then some by a large margin.

The Russians also reneged on increasing production. The only way to force them to the table is threaten them with tariffs(which means shale is saved regardless but at that point US is better off doing no cuts and just doing the tariff while letting the Russians and Saudi's+OPEC burn as this would force them to all do cuts while America does none).
This all also assumes the Russians trust us to not only agree but also enforce and keep our cuts. They don't(uncontrollable private industry + distrustful of America which they view as a dishonest rival). If they agree to these cuts it will be disastrous to them. If Trump tariffs foreign oil it'll be even worse for them and better for America. The only way they can come out of this winners rn is to drive Shale to the ground or get a deal where they don't have to cut(not happening). The OPEC deal is no longer on the table and it had way smaller cuts then this one(their cut was meant to be 400k if I recall correctly).
The current cut being discussed includes 1.5 mil for Russia alone. I believe the Russians when they explain their reasoning. They told the other oil producing countries that they don't want to be gifting shale market share and that's why they started this thing. They know every player besides them has to flinch before they do(unless Trump saves shales w/ tariff in which case we found our one exception) and that includes the other cartel members.

[Anonymous No.18277864]

>>18277745
What happens if Trump and Putin cut a deal to both cut and also tariff OPEC exclusively?

[Anonymous No.18277865]

> Saudi Arabia Denies Withdrawing From OPEC+ Deal, Says Russia Was the One That Withdrew

Is this bullish for sco?

[OilAnon No.18277957]

>>18276637
Not part of my schooling nor is it my major I just had weird hobbies as a kid and continued them into young adulthood.
I research this and other stuff in my free time, I find figuring out systems enjoyable and predictions are a great way to test ones understanding of a system and correct ones errors in judgement/failures of ones models.
This has practical applications in all aspects of life as far as I'm concerned as a form of problem solving really(including my degree). Also I want to eventually build a defense company of sorts and so even if I'm not studying then improving on my down time is good practice.
I base my predictions on my knowledge of the players involved based on 1) What they do 2) What they say are their reasons 3) What I know about their internal dynamics 4) What I know about their perception of reality 5) What data I have on their underlying/fundamentals. Not necessarily in that order.

As for specific numbers I only have/use resources that are freely accessible to the public this is because being a uni student who does this as a hobby I have a budget of $0. I personally crunched them for my storage capacity bit using the most up to date estimates for each parameter I could find and as many variations to note for general trends(did we under or over predict, if IHS is wrong and Karryos right or both of them wrong and BoA Meryll Lynch what does that mean for time tables based on the numbers) and then threw them together.

My numbers are based on whatever is available from industry people and firms and also again that which I can piece together.

For my geopolitics I borrow from those models I find most resistant to my attempts to destroy them with counter evidence(or how I gave up on solar and wind) due to in spite of everything predicting under their usage parameters the outcomes that occur in reality(great test of bullshit).
1/2

[Anonymous No.18277981]

>>18276148
Yeah but fuel is by far its most common use. Without its need in transport it's worth about a third of what it is now.

[OilAnon No.18278052]

Answering:
>>18276637
Continued from:
>>18277957
As for conclusions while sometimes I find something someone else says and check on their math note oh they are right so on in this instance I again think the experts have under-predicted the speed of this thing. There are times I notice things outside of experts my theory for bitcoin back in 2011 was that look opinions on the fed aside it has a loyal following ideologically committed to its success(natural market) with decent pockets and it doesn't bleed money ergo it can only really go up long term until an alternative coin becomes viable as replacement or it attracts mainstream attention of those not personally attached to the idea sufficient for them to get in(bubble) and then get out(we have reached a ceiling for now if it goes higher it will be because the technology actually proves itself in general and BTC proves itself specifically).
My theory for TSLA around the same time(2012) was that forget whether they can or cannot build a car. Musk is not an incompetent, he is a hyper-charismatic tech veteran(with deep personal pockets and vision or at least perceived as such) with a shitton of hype and a semi-cult following that is likely to grow with the company AND he has government support(at the time) AND kool-aid drinking investors with the big money all between them AND press willing to hype. Unless he royally fucks up(unlikely given who he is) its a bumpy ride up until we reach ridiculous bubble then I get out with my money. Although pops didn't agree to either assessment at the time so I never did make that money.
2/3

[Anonymous No.18278074]

>>18268050
You need to wax those shoes frend

[OilAnon No.18278079]

Answering:
>>18276637
Continued from:
>>18277957
>>18278052
I also have various models for human interaction(I struggled a lot with socialization due to a serious of personal events around age 8 suddenly setting me back as a kid so I had to make up for that by effectively observing others and taking mental notes asto how they behaved and inputting them to see what my prediction was so that if it was correct I could properly reintegrate[worked out fine in the end even if I ended up weird by normie standards as a result]).
Granted all of my original models were based on simply observing assumptions vs results vs stated reality with my intuition guiding as my initial sorting mechanism(mostly for sorting against bullshit) and my own internal doubt as my initial correction mechanism(mostly because I had a lot of it due to hitting a brick wall hard so to say).

[OilAnon No.18278103]

>>18276739
Didn't know this story existed.
>Military ship rams into civilian liner
>Military ship sinks
Seems like an onion article come to life.
Hilarious but I fail to see this as a factor[for the oil story] outside of as further indication of the weakness of the Venezuelan state(but that is not new information just further confirmation of what we already knew).

[OilAnon No.18278227]

>>18277308
Happy to help, if you see what you consider an error in my models that would honestly be helpful if you could point it out. If you have any questions fren' please go ahead. I'll be on /biz/ threads for at least a few months considering the state of things and I'll have to look into making a telegram as this continues.
>>18277864
Big question here is market.
You have to remember that both OPEC and Russia lack an internal market to sustain their oil production.
The US has such an internal market.
Market prices are based on supply and demand a Russo-American deal would have unless they could guarantee the Europeans refuse to buy OPEC oil(not going to happen) or get someone else who doesn't produce to tariff non-Russo-American oil then this common block would still produce in excess of what it can internally support. The Russians would be the weak link here being that they produce way more then they actually need(by a massive amount).
The US has no reason to agree to this, assuming the Russians somehow get this they take it but I don't see a reason for America to help Russia at its own expense like that. The US would gain more by leaving both out to dry. If the US fucks OPEC(to help itself) I don't see a reason for it not to also fuck Russia. Would be a coup for the Russians.
>>18277865
If by OPEC+ deal you mean the one that broke down already then:
This is factually true the Russians didn't want to cut b/c it would mean they'd all lose to shale longterm.
If this is new news(about current talks being possible or not) then that is very bullish for SCO. Could you please clarify with a source?
>>18277981
A huge % of transport is Jet fuel and shipping/navy what are you replacing it with.
Transport is not only cars and trucks.

[Anonymous No.18278329]

>>18267203
I met an engineer who worked for a big energy company back in 2007 or something. Guy told me their company buys up all the non oil tech and will release it when it becomes economically viable to do so. BP even tried redefining themselves as Beyond Petroleum.

[Anonymous No.18278387]

>>18278079
Can you make a YouTube channel? Like the logic in your assessments.

[Anonymous No.18278659]

Pls a request for an archive of this? Can someone do that

Archive