ryskey

It would also result in $100/bbl oil, $7/mmbtu natural gas, which will crater the economy. It would also increase our use of coal, thereby increasing CO2 emissions. Just a truly awful, counterproductive position to take, especially one that will ensure Texas stays out of play for the foreseeable future. It was likely, at the very least, that the Rs would need to spend resources in TX to make sure it stays red in 2020. If Warren is nominated, that no longer happens.

It looks like you described almost exactly what I did. A revenue neutral carbon tax. Why are you arguing?

Where are you getting $649 billion? And is this worldwide?

No, I'm on the make renewable energy inherently profitable without bankrupting society bandwagon. You asked for a tax, and I came up with one that causes the least damage. What's your solution? As opposed to an earmarked, industry-specific subsidy, a carbon tax is a bit more agnostic on where you get your energy. It will also make solar, wind, and nuclear power more expensive for a while.

Yes, internalizing the externalized full-cycle costs. That's a worthy goal. How do you do that in a way that won't lead to catastrophic economic collapse? Possible solution: Announce a revenue-neutral carbon tax that will escalate incrementally over the next 30 years. Revenue raised reduces everyone's income taxes. That sends a long-term price signal to the world, re-directing investment, punishes inefficiency, and sets a course that is thermodynamically best for our species, which is therefore the most beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint.

Quoting myself to clarify. As it stands right now, there is no solution or viable path forward in which renewable energy + nuclear can supply 100% of the world's energy needs within the next couple decades without causing catastrophic economic damage. Obviously, renewables are mature enough to continue growing market share right now, and that's a good thing.

I think you have causality reversed. Those taxes and subsidies followed what was inherently profitable, because those who made the rules were already rich. Investment will follow where the returns are. That's an organic, secular tailwind for exponential growth. Once mature, the taxes and subsidies will follow. Perpetually subsidizing an unprofitable venture is how a society becomes poor. An outright ban on hydrocarbons, or massive, abrupt, tax-funded subsidies on an imperfect, un-scale-able, immature renewable energy sector (ast it stands right now) is a strategy that will lead to an outcome just as bad as runaway climate change.

Every other discussion in this country is so polarized, so climate and energy might as well be too. This is especially frustrating because it's one that should be led by experts, who are in turn informed by science and economics. Instead, we have know-nothing morons on both extremes dictating how this very complicated, technical, nuanced topic is consumed by the public, which is 99% laymen. How many people do you know who are actually qualified to have a strong opinion here? I guess we can say that about any topic, but this might be the only one that concerns our viability as a species. On one side, we have drooling troglodytes opposed to any kind of change from the status quo, regardless of merit. On the other, we have people inventing fairy tales, then believing in them, followed by calling anyone who doesn't believe 100% in their imagined fantasy world a pox upon humanity. The people who make up those poles consist of what, maybe 10% of the population? I think even most laymen, if presented with a choice, would like a thoughtful course of action that won't either: 1. Cause runaway climate change, leading to a huge reduction in the human population. 2. Wreck the world economy, cause mass starvation, and lead to a huge reduction in the human population. Our risk tolerance for either of those is 0. 1% is too high. There's too much money in politics, and we'll never fix that. So using financial interests to re-define the battle lines (or make them disappear) is the only way to find a reasonable course of action. The majors - Total, Shell, BP, and now even Exxon are going this direction, but without a lot of conviction or urgency. Over the long run, they have more influence than some bombastic politician. What can accelerate that evolution is to make green energy as or more profitable than hydrocarbons. Not through taxes, subsidies, or picking winners and losers through legislation, but through innovation and technology. Wind and solar are good at making a lot of energy, but not necessarily when we need it. Whoever invents cheap, scale-able energy storage will be a trillionaire, but only those with country-sized balance sheets will be able to scale it and deploy it. I'm in oil and gas because the world needs oil and gas. We will need it for decades to come. But if we are still doing things this way in 50 years, then we will have failed miserably somewhere. This is a century-long transition that needs profitable allocation of resources to be successful. Incubation, public/private partnerships, but most importantly, profitability. It's the only language humans collectively speak.

Topographic maps are pretty useful. Pretty useful when assessing sea level rise risk. The Obamas' house looks like it's around 35' above sea level. Much higher than most of New York City.

Judging by the number of people dumping stocks and tranforming 401Ks into defensive portfolios, if this is the start of a recession, it will be one in which a lot of people (including a lot who are not very financially savvy) picked the top. How many times has that happened? I suppose this could be the first. I'm leaning towards "the great high-beta, narrow band trading range." It's arguable that we've already been in it for 18 months. S&P characterized by huge moves daily and weekly moves but stays between 2,500 and 3,000 for a few more years. Algos driving volatility but no secular, long-term movement.

The Texas Triangle has higher population density than France.

WLL is trading at an implied 13% free cash flow yield and THEY'RE A GROWTH COMPANY. Just one example of dozens. E&P stocks are cheap, if you're in the game, buy now. Balance sheets generally are solid. Cash will speak for itself.

Soooooooooo Equinor. Cool, we're in agreement.

Do you know a really good, standardized, time-tested way to do that? List on the New York Stock Exchange. Equinor's model is 2/3 owned by the people of Norway. The other 1/3 is the public float. PetroBras is similar.

Noble, but not realistic. Where is the capital to maintain, much less grow PdVSA oil revenues, going to come from? The IMF? Who is going to oversee and efficiently deploy that capital? Rump ex-Chavez/Maduro PdVSA? Not going to happen without new leadership and a massive influx of talent, most of which currently resides in the United States. Not in a million years is that a credit-worthy investment, not even under the most dove-ish IMF/World Bank leadership.

That's fair. Though the world would have the new PdVSA under a microscope. I wouldn't put anything past the Trump admin, but any multinational acting in its own long-term best interests would not risk the political backlash of being the recipient of the first no-bid contract from PdVSA. Those days are still fresh enough in the memory of Latin Americans, and that playbook is a little too Cold War-ish for modern American multinationals. Modern Colombia (EcoPetrol), Brazil (Petrobras), Argentina (YPF) offer good market-friendly templates in the Statoil/Equinor mold that simultaneously attract foreign capital and create a lot of revenue to fund social programs. They're certainly corrupt in their own ways but nothing like how things were in the 70's and 80's. Bolivia (YPFB) and Mexico (PeMex) offer a bit more, umm... Bolivarian alternatives that are probably a bit too close to the current state of things id PdVSA. There's a lot of revenue left on the table every year as that model is very prone to eating its own seed corn and buying popular support to the detriment of the long-term sustainability of the national oil companies. Listing on the New York Stock Exchange has a way of creating transparency and accountability that would otherwise be difficult to enforce.

Has there been any discussion/rumor/whatever on what a Guaido-led government would do with PdVSA? Or is this just the fear? Curious if you've seen anything. The State has control of the minerals. The US is the only major oil-producing nation in which private entities own the minerals. Ownership of minerals implies ownership and control (directly or indirectly) of the revenue. A multinational will need to abide by the rules of the lease or concession. That multinational might have day-to-day operational control, but ultimate control and ownership still resides with the state. See Equinor (Statoil) and the dozens of companies producing oil and gas on the Norwegian continental shelf. See also: US Federal leases. The government can dictate any number of things it deems important. In order to justify the capital outlay, those multinationals can bid on the revenue interest from the oil it expects to produce. If you're afraid of a corrupt puppet government awarding no-bid contracts and leases to well-connected multinationals, then ok. But that's exactly what Maduro did with Russia and China.

This is a good point, and it probably goes beyond gun control to just about everything. The trend towards Trumpism is a dangerous game for the GOP.

Anchorage is about 600 miles from the North Slope. Anchorage is in the Ring of Fire. It's on the boundary between the North American plate and the Pacific plate. Everything on that line is prone to earthquakes. Also frac'ing does not cause earthquakes. Wastewater injection does.

Read the post above the one you quoted.

I love fundamentals. Storage, supply, demand, upstream investments, etc. Hard data that has no agenda, nor does it tweet. I hate trading noise. It distracts and even completely hides fundamentals. It relies on hearsay, political agendas, momentum trading, confirmation bias, lack of critical thinking, ignorance, and sentiment from those who yell loudest. It causes real damage to the worldwide economy. But it can't run from the fundamentals forever. And notwithstanding a worldwide recession, I am very much looking forward to a spectacular short squeeze in 2019. That will be delicious. But then it will probably swing too far in the other direction. The world does not have enough oil to meet demand in late 2019 and 2020. Again notwithstanding worldwide recession.

"Increased" Saudi exports in preparation for Iranian cuts and mid-term elections was never from increased production. It was liquidation of their own storage. Essentially a transfer of storage from SA to the US. Then the last minute waivers caught SA off guard and Trump probably burned a bridge that was already very flammable to begin with (Khashoggi). It's no accident that Saudi prices to the US went up the day after mid-term elections, and they started talking about unilateral, voluntary production cuts a week later when oil was still comfortably in the 60's. They wouldn't have done that if their export levels were sustainable. They and everyone else knows that the most liquid oil benchmarks (WTI and Brent) trade disproportionately on US inventory data. Why? Because we're transparent, have good data, and those markets have the most liquidity. Self-fulfilling prophecy. China was also drawing down their own storage, displacing Saudi imports. China is not transparent, nor do they have good inventory data, nor do they have a global benchmark with a very liquid futures market. Those exports from Saudi have resumed. On top of that you have speculative short sellers piling in with the few logical buyers (outside refiners and pipelines) at the moment sitting on the sidelines waiting for this thing to stabilize. Those Saudi exports that reverted to normal will take months to manifest in the market. It's a cumulative effect that will start 45 days after the last "extra" tanker left Saudi ports headed to the United States. So in about 3 weeks. You won't notice it in that first EIA weekly report. But 2 months later, after Saudi exports have reverted to normal, the market will have priced in the effect. And all those speculative short positions will have to close out in spectacular fashion. Forced buying at ever-increasing prices. Might take several months or even half a year. But it's going to happen***. A tweet from the President can't change physical realities. ***Exception here being demand destruction from global recession. Which may have started a few weeks ago.

https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/progressive-populism-will-save-democratic-party#vote Excellent debate on which path Dems should go if the goal is to win in 2020. The debate between progressive Bernie-esque Dems and Centrist establishment Dems resulted in a pretty resounding victory for the Centrists.

These used to just be private, cash-flow heavy companies that paid dividends/distributions. They still are, to some extent. The flexibility to increase or decrease the dividend depending on market conditions is what can enable them to survive during a downturn. In that respect, public upstream MLPs were too rigid. I think patient private capital is the answer here. Something cash-flowing so much is severely limited on the upside, but is also very protected on the downside. Lots of cash flow with aggressive hedging, moderate leverage, and some low-risk development is a nice business model. A pension fund or endowment should be all over that asset. Buy the asset, pay out dividends when appropriate, re-invest cash flow when appropriate, pay down debt when appropriate, lever up where appropriate, and finally, exit when appropriate. It's not a tough business model but the lack of patient capital is definitely an issue.