Mmarrkk

Total Rating:
+3 / -2

257 Comments

    • Mon Jun 16th 17:25 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Oil's Gains Are Due to Fundamentals, Not Speculation
      For those who think we can just tap into that shale oil if prices get too high, do you know how much it will cost to produce one barrel of shale oil? It takes a lot of power to retort (heat) the shale oil and get it to flow. Then it has to go in an upgrader which also needs energy. Plus the cost for all drilling, development, etc. Last time I checked the numbers being published were in the $50 per barrel but that was before prices started going up for nat gas or other fuels to run these plants and other things. I'm guessing $70?? So shale oil won't save us from higher prices.
      View article »
    • Mon Jun 16th 17:20 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Great Oil Deception: Part Two
      Eric, good response. However, while I may agree with you on the cyclical nature of the business as it regards to the cost per unit, I strongly disagree with the summary premise that the total cost is cyclical. Yes, drilling day rates are cyclical and they do come up and go down, a lot. However, a large amount of the new oil being found takes a lot more days to drill. So even if dayrates went down, the overall cost would be up because of the complexity of the operation. We are no longer taking out the appendix or stitching up a cut; we are operating on the brain stem or putting back together a crushed hand. The operation is more difficult, takes more time and more technology. This is something I saw missing in your post.

      And I'd highly recommend not approaching anyone above the age of 50 in the oil biz and even getting close to saying the biz is not cyclical. Since we laid off over 500,000 workers over the last twenty years in those cycles, those would be fighting words!
      View article »
    • Mon Jun 16th 09:35 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Great Oil Deception
      Eric: When you google sub salt discoveries and Brazil's new discovery, did you also read that these discoveries will cost about 10 times more per barrel than Saudi oil to produce? And did you also read that some of the technology needed to produce this oil hasn't even been invented yet? And did you read that most likely this oil won't be produced for at least 5 years and I would put double odds that it won't see the light of day for at least 10 years??? Deepwater is tough. Real tough. Ask BP and their Thunderhorse/Crazy Horse team. 2-3 years of delay and these guys are arguablly some of the best deepwater guys in the industry. Have you seen the issues related to Brazil's find? Temperature? Oil properties? These ain't easy and I'm guessing they ain't gonna be cheap. Anybody want to guess at what the F&D costs will be? And if you have to ask what F&D costs are, don't bother a guess as you don't know enough to answer.
      View article »
    • Mon Jun 16th 08:42 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Exxon Joins Competitors in Moving Away from Gas Station Ownership
      Thanks "Big Congress". Your harrassment of "Big Oil" will lead to many other things. What it won't lead to is more investment in domestic oil and gas production. Windfall profits tax? Spend more money overseas. Keep it up? maybe a move of corporate divisions out of country??? Who knows. But singling out 5 companies in one industry with the tax code is ludicrous.
      View article »
    • Sun Jun 15th 21:29 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Great Oil Deception: Part Two
      Okay Mr Fox, you are baasically saying that the only reason it cost more to find/produce oil these days is hyper inflation in the oil/gas service/supply/etc. businesses. Well, you might want to go back to school and do some research. In case you haven't noticed, the new oil we are finding is in areas a bit harder to get to that the old ones. In West Texas it cost us about $5/BO to find, develop the oil and another $3-5 to produce or a total of $10. Now getting a barrel of oil out of the oil sands and into a state to refine it costs $30/BO. And the oil shales will cost about $60/bo, before any inflation. The oil in Saudi costs about $5. So even if prices were hyper inflated, the location of the oil is driving costs. Wait until you see the cost to develop and produce the oil from Jack and the new Brazillian discovery. I'm gonna guess it will be at least $60/bo. Drilling and developing oil from 25,000 feet, the first 10,000 of which is water/ocean isn't the same as drilling a 5000' well in West Texas bud. Get a clue.
      View article »
    • Thu Jun 12th 11:06 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      XTO Keeps Expanding with Acquisitions and Increased Production
      Scammer/Mark: totally agree. You still hear people giving Jim Mulva a hard time about how he overpaid for BR and this and that. Of course that usually comes from people who only know how to look at the spot market price for gas and not the forward curve or fundamentals of the markets for gas. That would be most Wall Street Analysts I believe!! They still chew on him about BR. Looking sweet at $95/shr.

      XTO is a winner. I'll take a nice basket of CHK, XTO, EOG and DVN please! And throw in some COP and XOM for my low risk dividend/income portion!! I'd really like to get my hands on some of the senior notes from CHK for income!!! but I'm just a little guy!
      View article »
    • Thu Jun 12th 10:41 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Great Oil Deception
      Eric: I think I agree with some of your basic conclusions. Except you would have to add the reason for the demand decline in "mature" markets: HIGH PRICES. If prices were still $2/gallon, you wouldn't be seeing these impressive reductions in demand. And without the demand destruction, we would still be at a razor-thin margin between supply and demand. When supply and demand are so delicately balanced, the size of the China/India demand increase isn't important. What is important is that any barrel over the current supply will come at a premium, thus increasing the price of the raw material. So what we have now is rapidly increasing prices due to demand outstripping supply; this is now influencing demand and will drive down demand, putting it more in balance or below supply. This will result in a lowering of the price. Then as prices go down, we will see demand go back up and price will follow. Isn't this how it has always worked?? Factor in some additional weakness in the macro-economic environment that would have occurred even without a spike in oil prices, and you have a pretty volatile but eventually self-correcting market.

      Now, when you address supply, please make sure you factor in the cost to find and develop and bring to market the "new" incremental barrels. As you will see, a lot of the oil we have left to find/develop is in high cost areas. Super deepwater, Chukchi sea, canadian oil sands, US oil shale, etc. These will cost close to $100/bbl to develop. So while I see prices moderating, there is a floor to that effect as anything too low will not allow these new barrels to come to market, allowing supply to be outstripped once again by demand. And the whole cycle kicks back into gear!
      View article »
    • Wed Jun 11th 17:43 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Obama Blows Wind(fall Profits) on Big Oil
      Before this year, the stock market was on a tear. One could say that this correction is just what we need. The market had gotten too far out in front. I do put some blame on Bush for not reigning in spending. WE spend too much. But I strongly disagree with you on "fairness" for tax code. Quite honestly, those who pay taxes should get tax cuts. And the tax cuts should be in proportion to how much you pay. Buffet and Gates pay a crap load of taxes so they should get big cuts. Our rob from the rich and give to the poor plan just sucks. And that is precisely why I don't like Obama and hope and pray he never ever sees the inside of the White House. If you think now is bad, BoBama will make things much much worse.


      On Jun 11 10:21 AM The Fitzman wrote:

      > mm-mmm-mark: well...the reason i liked obama so much to begin with
      > is because he wants to restore some fairness to the tax code which
      > will help fix the US dollar, which is our second biggest problem
      > (energy being the first). that warren buffet and bill gates continue
      > to get tax cuts while the US dollar is in free fall is just stupid
      > and "non-conservative republican" economic bs. which is why i have
      > said repeatedly that bush and his buddies are NOT conservative republicans,
      > they are RADICALS. just look at what has happened to the US dollar
      > and US stock and bond markets under bush and his buddies: a complete
      > disaster all the way around, no matter how you look at it. however,
      > the biggest issue facing America, as i have been campaigning about
      > for 3 years now, is OIL. and, obama's windfall profits tax comments
      > mean to me he doesnt get it. so, now i am hosed - no candidate. for
      > mccain to ditch all his old (correct) ideas and conform to the failed
      > bush policies is just plain ignorant and proves he too has economic
      > blinders on and cannot see how badly the failed bush economic policies
      > have pretty much bankrupted our treasury and our currency and our
      > economy. so, i am like kurt vonnegut - a man without a country. well,
      > i have one, i just don't like where it is headed and fear that within
      > a year or two we will see some major social unrest due to the last
      > 8 years of idiotic economic "management"...
      View article »
    • Wed Jun 11th 15:40 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Crude: Where's the Demand Destruction?
      fireman: keep fighting fires and stop trying to be an economist. What you don't understand is over 60% of the oil we use is not "American oil" as you called it. The remainder comes from overseas. So for 60% of the oil, the refinery will have to buy (real cost) the oil at $100+ per barrell.

      Now, as an oilman, if you will only allow me to sell the oil at a certain price well-below international market prices, then I'm going to invest my drilling money in other areas overseas. Now, we have even less "American oil" and have to import more and more of the oil that you can't price control.

      BTW, why don't we try your little experiment on Microsoft or record companies. It only takes them like a few cents to print up a CD; why do they charge me over $100 for Windows/Vista? or $15 for that cool music CD??

      With thinking like yours, we are doomed because you somehow have the right to vote for like minded simpletons in Congress.
      View article »
    • Wed Jun 11th 09:17 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Obama Blows Wind(fall Profits) on Big Oil
      Glad you can see the light. Obama is a complete loser. His diatribe of "hope" and "change" are really just a load of crap. He wants to "change" us alright...change all of us earning a living to people paying higher taxes and paying more for gasoline. While he can give a great speech, there is no "there" there. And what is "there", is so left leaning that he makes Lenin look like Reagan. So far there has not been one policy he has proposed/endorsed that would not move this country closer to socialism. Take money from rich and give it to poor. Tax rich people more just because. Force everyone to get healthcare, whether they want it or not and force them to go through a government to get it. Overregulation everywhere you turn. Hand outs for everyone who votes for him! And now, he wants to cut off funds/profits from the only companies involved in putting gasoline in the tanks of our cars. Yeah, great idea. What next? Windfall profit tax on surgeons?

      Fear Obama. Tell all your friends about his voting record in the Senate. List all of the programs he is proposing. Listen to the hate/bigotry his wife spouts. Don't hate him because he is black or has a muslim surname. Don't even hate him because his pastor/mentor of over 20 years is a racists/bigot/crackpot... Hate him for his policies/politics/what he will do this country. Then get out, hold your nose, and vote for McCain. He's not great, but he's better than the alternative.
      View article »
    • Tue Jun 10th 13:46 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Nationalizing Oil: Well-Intentioned, But Wrong
      People are blaming Big Oil for not building refineries and investing. Well look at the news today. The EPA just denied permits to expand a refinery in Illinois. Do a search on COP and Wood River. Amazing. Is $4/gallon not high enough to let the oil industry start building more refining capacity??????

      Yeah, I guess we should villianize Big Oil...after all they are the ONLY GROUP in this discussion actually putting gasoline in your tank and doing something about the problem!!
      View article »
    • Tue Jun 10th 13:45 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Nationalizing Oil: Well-Intentioned, But Wrong
      Zena, kind of like eBay, huh? Bidding for 6000 wind turbines in West Texas...2d 4hrs remaining...last bid $4,097,567,342.95...yo... are currently losing...bid again?...you must bid at least $4,097,567,343.95...

      I love it!

      Seriously, I'm not sure that's what I want government doing. Putting up the capital to build alternative energy? Why not let the market do that? What you are still talking about is subsidizing alt energy, either through extending capital or selling at a loss.

      Heck, we've got a group of private investors and private landowners trying to build a wind farm in South Texas WITHOUT any gov't subsidies. Guess what? The Greenie Weenies are fighting them!!

      View article »
    • Tue Jun 10th 11:24 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Nationalizing Oil: Well-Intentioned, But Wrong
      Barnburner: I almost hate to respond to your nonsense but here goes:

      You said "...the ability of Halliburton and others to move their Corporate offices off shore and pay no taxes..."

      Guess what doodle head? Halliburton did move their offices to Dubai but they did not move their CORPORATION to Dubai. It is still in the U.S. and STILL PAYS CORPORATE TAXES. Why don't you do a small amount of research before spouting your marxist crap???

      Now, if the US decides to nationalize, I can assure you that the assets that are leased by XOM, COP, etc in other countries will not be a part of the deal. Would be interesting to see the US Gov't try and expropriate foreign assets. But hey, when you marxists dream, you dream big. I guess thats why so many folks are buying into Obama's "Change" BS. When the majority of the voting public pay no taxes and can elect people who will confiscate the earnings and profits of the minority, we are clearly on our way down the tube.

      And finally, as someone who works in the oil industry for the Big Bad Evil Oil, I can tell you that government takeover will lead to mass-retirements. Or would your comrades freeze the freedom of individuals to not work as well? What's next? Gullages in northern Montana?
      View article »
    • Tue Jun 10th 08:58 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Nationalizing Oil: Well-Intentioned, But Wrong
      Why stop with oil? Why not nationalize the car industry. And the farming industry. and the chemical industry. and the stock market. Oh yeah, how about Microsoft and Google? their profits are much higher on a percentage of revenue than XOM's!

      And to the know-nothing who stated that XOM pays no royalty on oil pumped from the gulf, you sir are completely wrong. They pay large royalties on most of the oil pumped from the gulf as do other operators. Only some of the newest leases in the deepest of waters have roylaty provisions that reduce the royalty to overcome the technological advances needed to produce the oil. Without those royalty holidays, there would be no exploration in the deepest waters.

      Maxine Waters and a few other politicians are poster children for contraception! Friends don't let friends procreate!
      View article »
    • Mon Jun 9th 10:33 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Is Oil a Bubble? Part 3
      RWB: I disagree completely. While the GOP was in charge of the House and Senate, they did not have a wide enough majority to get things through the Senate where 60 votes are needed. Plus, 2 or 3 of the GOP Senators are actually socialist Demoncrats in disquise (thank you Ms. Snow and others). So a majority doesn't always mean control.

      Look at the Democrats currently in control of Congress. They have majorities but have failed to deliver on almost all of their "promises" from the last election. And don't blame Bush; they haven't sent many bills to him to veto. They just can't lead. Both parties suffer within our system as we have never been able to give up a partie's position to reach consensus.

      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»