Hey Oil Barons.......

[Fudge Nuggets 18899]

You never said shit about Trump's moves.

But it don't matter, I was just fucking with you anyway.

[Rex Kramer 1234]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

You never said shit about Trump's moves.

But it don't matter, I was just fucking with you anyway.

Pretty sure I did. However I took a lot of time off. Pretty sure that if you look back to ‘19 when he did it I was pretty critical. Feel free to search. I’m not going to. 

[Fudge Nuggets 18899]

It's ok, I know you didn't because about a year after it happened you pulled the plug on your account and had everything deleted.  Way back then I went back through all the quoted replies after your new account (that you claimed wasn't you) said you criticized it and yep... nada.  The way this board works, if you criticized the call it would have been in a quoted reply at some point whether calling out a bad take or giving you a high five.

Again, it don't make a shit.  We all know you speak out of both sides of your mouth at all times and will waffle on everything.

[Rex Kramer 1234]

9 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

It's ok, I know you didn't because about a year after it happened you pulled the plug on your account and had everything deleted.  Way back then I went back through all the quoted replies after your new account (that you claimed wasn't you) said you criticized it and yep... nada.  The way this board works, if you criticized the call it would have been in a quoted reply at some point whether calling out a bad take or giving you a high five.

Again, it don't make a shit.  We all know you speak out of both sides of your mouth at all times and will waffle on everything.

Total bullshit. I was absolutely critical of him then, and mentioned it here as Biden was doing it more recently. I’ve repeated it dozens of times. 

Would love to know how I’ve spoken out of both sides of my mouth and ever waffled on anything.  

[Storm the Field 5254]

$83.40 today. Highest price since late April.

[StassneyHorn 6429]

On 6/29/2024 at 8:00 PM, Fudge Nuggets said:

It's ok, I know you didn't because about a year after it happened you pulled the plug on your account and had everything deleted.  Way back then I went back through all the quoted replies after your new account (that you claimed wasn't you) said you criticized it and yep... nada.  The way this board works, if you criticized the call it would have been in a quoted reply at some point whether calling out a bad take or giving you a high five.

Again, it don't make a shit.  We all know you speak out of both sides of your mouth at all times and will waffle on everything.

Plenty of “Guest” posts still viewable in the thread. They’re just fundamentally different when you read it now

[52-80 18982]

On 6/29/2024 at 12:39 AM, MadTrapper said:

Hadn't seen that clip even if a year old.  But when the narrator says "that's something that is hard to wrap our head around", in reference to net zero oil, that kind of sums up the PR challenge.  Anthropogenic CO2 for both permanent sequestration and enhanced oil recovery is, in theory, a very practical way for an oil company to approach this era of net zero emission goals.  Whether they be pie-in-the-sky or not is another topic IMHO.

But why many lay persons with the loudest and most ardent followers are still so negative on net zero oil, assuming it can truly be done economically, is baffling to me. It's simple mass balance.

It's not another topic. Whether CO2 projects are economic ipso facto determines whether net zero is pie-in-the-sky. After all, everyone responds to incentives.

Nobody is writing off CO2 EOR as wholesale unpractical.  Whether CO2 is used in place of water, steam, gels, chemicals, are a matter of economics specific to each reservoir/field/operation. Clean energy projects so far are less economic than hydrocarbons.

The industry's Scope 1 and 2 emissions alone are a massive 5 gigaton/yr. At the moment, the total global capture capacity projected at 2030 is...0.5Gt/yr. 10%...assuming zero increase in demand in hydrocarbon. Netting out the industry emissions to zero requires expenditure of money, energy, and time on a scope thats unrealistic. That's why some are 'so negative'.

The pledge for net zero is not binding. Operators will commit to the extent 'required' by the capital markets (eg wall street) or regulators. Their capex on core, profitable business, are revised and reverted every few years.. you think they're truly going to spend on a 30 year horizon to meet 2050 emissions promise? current executives won't be around, board won't be around, hell, most of these companies in operations today won't be around by then.

 

 

[MadTrapper 150]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

It's not another topic. Whether CO2 projects are economic ipso facto determines whether net zero is pie-in-the-sky. After all, everyone responds to incentives.

Nobody is writing off CO2 EOR as wholesale unpractical.  Whether CO2 is used in place of water, steam, gels, chemicals, are a matter of economics specific to each reservoir/field/operation. Clean energy projects so far are less economic than hydrocarbons.

The industry's Scope 1 and 2 emissions alone are a massive 5 gigaton/yr. At the moment, the total global capture capacity projected at 2030 is...0.5Gt/yr. 10%...assuming zero increase in demand in hydrocarbon. Netting out the industry emissions to zero requires expenditure of money, energy, and time on a scope thats unrealistic. That's why some are 'so negative'.

The pledge for net zero is not binding. Operators will commit to the extent 'required' by the capital markets (eg wall street) or regulators. Their capex on core, profitable business, are revised and reverted every few years.. you think they're truly going to spend on a 30 year horizon to meet 2050 emissions promise? current executives won't be around, board won't be around, hell, most of these companies in operations today won't be around by then.

 

 

Completely agree and didn't intend to dismiss the economic elephant in the room.  It will take massive investment and those that do will assume risk that the project will be uneconomic. And to your point, what happens when Vicki retires as CEO at Oxy? Will these major net zero projects continue or will that side of the company be cleaved off and saddles with debt because it doesn't compete with the rest of the O&G portfolio? 

I guess my main hangup was thinking some are negative on the Anthropogenic CO2 EOR aspect simply because more oil will continue to be produced vs. the fact that it's unproven at scale and faces economic headwinds. Can completely understand the latter argument. 

[52-80 18982]

18 minutes ago, MadTrapper said:

Completely agree and didn't intend to dismiss the economic elephant in the room.  It will take massive investment and those that do will assume risk that the project will be uneconomic. And to your point, what happens when Vicki retires as CEO at Oxy? Will these major net zero projects continue or will that side of the company be cleaved off and saddles with debt because it doesn't compete with the rest of the O&G portfolio? 

I guess my main hangup was thinking some are negative on the Anthropogenic CO2 EOR aspect simply because more oil will continue to be produced vs. the fact that it's unproven at scale and faces economic headwinds. Can completely understand the latter argument. 

Seems to me the winds have slightly shifted. The flows into ESG-centric funds have waned.  i.e., there is less financial pressure for companies to signal compliance with things like COP21, COP28, NZE2050, etc. A few reports I've seen from companies, they are behind on their emissions objective, so its a moving target just to show they're doing something.

Despite how much lip service Oxi pays around emissions reduction in their investor material.... for actual compensation, only 4.5% (30% of 15% cash incentive) of Vicki's total target pay is tied to it. Board doesn't seem too invested in that topic.

The other determinant is political pressure and that's more difficult to predict. Like if the govt places a carbon-intensity cap on projects before they're sanctioned. If you ask me... once the public gets around to the benefits of nuclear, a lot of this stuff goes away. 

 

[StassneyHorn 6429]

Are there any Natural Gas guys who know their industry and can explain what happened in the last month when all the fundamentals changed?

Very serious question. I’m new.

[immamac 41617]

1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

Are there any Natural Gas guys who know their industry and can explain what happened in the last month when all the fundamentals changed?

Very serious question. I’m new.

no one needs nat gas during the summer. that'll be 9.95 please

[The Royal We 3051]

13 hours ago, immamac said:

no one needs nat gas during the summer. that'll be 9.95 please

Uhhh, people don't need electricity to run their AC during the summer? 40%+of all electricity in the US is still generated by burning nat gas.

I think the bigger issue is that we are swimming in nat gas and operators continue to find/drill more productive wells.

Comstock's wells in the Western Haynesville in Robertson/Leon county are a good example of this. Fucking enormous wells coming on at 35 Mmcf/d+ and they are still figuring out how to best drill/complete these wells. 

 

 

https://investors.comstockresources.com/static-files/5a596a22-02f6-4b49-a9cc-93ecfe0179c0

 

[Rex Kramer 1234]

3 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

Uhhh, people don't need electricity to run their AC during the summer? 40%+of all electricity in the US is still generated by burning nat gas.

I think the bigger issue is that we are swimming in nat gas and operators continue to find/drill more productive wells.

Comstock's wells in the Western Haynesville in Robertson/Leon county are a good example of this. Fucking enormous wells coming on at 35 Mmcf/d+ and they are still figuring out how to best drill/complete these wells. 

 

 

https://investors.comstockresources.com/static-files/5a596a22-02f6-4b49-a9cc-93ecfe0179c0

 

Lol at the notion we don’t use gas in summer. Awesome contribution. 

Many operators have dropped rigs and ceasing completions. We have and will continue to burn off the glut we have from the combination of large wells coming on production, as you say, and a really warm winter. We have gone from 40% over 5-year storage average to 23% over. Demand is robust.

My prediction about a doubling or tripling of gas prices is not necessarily immediate, because of issues you cite, but something I firmly will play out over the next 18 months and very likely in ‘24 (we’ll see a meaning movement toward a doubling this year).  The wells being put on production in the Haynesville and Marcellus and associated gas wells in the Permian make headlines. What is less understood is all gas basins are in irreversible decline. And demand will only get stronger, and will be even more so as LNG capacity continues to come online.  

[52-80 18982]

More gas is consumed in winter for heating than in summer for cooling (electric AC). 
 

Gas storage builds over the summer and draws down over winter, year in and year out. 
 

[The Royal We 3051]

For sure. Nat gas operators pray for cold winters much more than hot summers. But that's a far cry from "no one needs nat gas during the summer."

I'm bullish on long term nat gas prices too, but supply can respond pretty quickly to increased demand and higher prices. We are producing a shitload of oil and gas with very few (historically) rigs running. It's hard to imagine sustained $10+ nat gas prices without operators putting more rigs in the field.

[Rex Kramer 1234]

28 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

More gas is consumed in winter for heating than in summer for cooling (electric AC). 
 

Gas storage builds over the summer and draws down over winter, year in and year out. 
 

Duh. Have you not noticed the massive gas demand this spring and into the summer?  This spring was not a typical shoulder season. It’s the only reason we aren’t trading at $1.50, which we were coming out of winter. 

[immamac 41617]

Imagine being so obtuse and self important that you think my drive by joke answer was the reason for an extremely complex macro economic concept like the price of natural gas falling over the last month. It was very clearly a joke. 

[Rex Kramer 1234]

4 minutes ago, immamac said:

Imagine being so obtuse and self important that you think my drive by joke answer was the reason for an extremely complex macro economic concept like the price of natural gas falling over the last month. It was very clearly a joke. 

Wasn’t clear at all. Thanks for the drive by. Hilarious. 

[Captainant 26902]

3 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

Many operators have dropped rigs and ceasing completions. We have and will continue to burn off the glut we have from the combination of large wells coming on production, as you say, and a really warm winter. We have gone from 40% over 5-year storage average to 23% over. Demand is robust.

My prediction about a doubling or tripling of gas prices is not necessarily immediate, because of issues you cite, but something I firmly will play out over the next 18 months and very likely in ‘24 (we’ll see a meaning movement toward a doubling this year).  The wells being put on production in the Haynesville and Marcellus and associated gas wells in the Permian make headlines. What is less understood is all gas basins are in irreversible decline. And demand will only get stronger, and will be even more so as LNG capacity continues to come online.  

I'm not sure I understand how you can have such an oversupply that you're burning the excess, while simultaneously expecting prices to double or triple. It would take all those brand new wells getting capped and giving up on completions for the supply to drop enough to move prices by 200% or more

[Rex Kramer 1234]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'm not sure I understand how you can have such an oversupply that you're burning the excess, while simultaneously expecting prices to double or triple. It would take all those brand new wells getting capped and giving up on completions for the supply to drop enough to move prices by 200% or more

We were trading at $9 two years ago with the same supply glut because of insane demand. Then we had two warm winters back to back and the Freeport fire. We probably averaged $6 for FY’22. 

The price will increase as the market realizes the fields where these brand new wells reside have peaked. LNG is going to make the commodity more global whereas it is regional now. And Euro gas is triple/quadruple our price. 

[billfromlaketravis 11286]

I would fully prepare for $55 WTI in February 2025.  I hope my 2024 bonus is fully baked in, but if I know my company, they’re already skewing/projecting 2025 numbers right now. I need to fix my front yard, so I hope net price per barrel stays put through the rest of the year. 
 

Get me through a front yard fix and a generator in 2025-2026 and I can die at my desk.

[Armybrat 40527]

I hope you’re wrong - just received a decent royalty check from Continental  for 5 months production from some new wells in the Bakken.

[Rex Kramer 1234]

21 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I would fully prepare for $55 WTI in February 2025.  I hope my 2024 bonus is fully baked in, but if I know my company, they’re already skewing/projecting 2025 numbers right now. I need to fix my front yard, so I hope net price per barrel stays put through the rest of the year. 
 

Get me through a front yard fix and a generator in 2025-2026 and I can die at my desk.

Why?  Trump SPR release?

[StassneyHorn 6429]

Any experts at all with Natural Gas? Fun-duh-mentals

 

 

 

[Horns99 155]

Any experts at all with Natural Gas? Fun-duh-mentals
 
 
 

Didn’t we already go thru this above… production over 100, storage going to be over / close to 4… weather sucks

[billfromlaketravis 11286]

Larry Kudlow just called for $40 “oil” in 2025. Didn’t specify WTI or Brent. Middle class tax cut justification, blah, blah. I don’t think these guys in New York understand what that would do to the Texas economy. 

[52-80 18982]

9 hours ago, Horns99 said:

Didn’t we already go thru this above… production over 100, storage going to be over / close to 4… weather sucks

He thinks fundamentals means being able to predict the price of a future contract, wherein there are more involvement from financial institutions (participating in speculation/financialization) than there are from the actual producers of the physical product.

[Rex Kramer 1234]

3 hours ago, 52-80 said:

He thinks fundamentals means being able to predict the price of a future contract, wherein there are more involvement from financial institutions (participating in speculation/financialization) than there are from the actual producers of the physical product.

That or he’s poking fun at my monthly cash flow misfortune. I’ve got him on ignore so as not to derail the thread, but as with Lobo, when he’s quoted the ignore feature doesn’t work. 

[Rex Kramer 1234]

14 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Larry Kudlow just called for $40 “oil” in 2025. Didn’t specify WTI or Brent. Middle class tax cut justification, blah, blah. I don’t think these guys in New York understand what that would do to the Texas economy. 

Larry is in the know because of his Trump affiliation. It wouldn’t surprise me if Trump manipulated things to attempt something like this. It’d work for a short period of time, and I doubt we see $40. I gotta be honest, this is one of the 2 primary reasons I didn’t want him re-elected. What he did in 2019 was so braindead populist. 

[Storm the Field 5254]

CR warning.

Quote

 

Donald Trump reiterated his promises to lower taxes as well as stop inflation through greater U.S. production of fossil fuels, as the Republican presidential nominee spoke Thursday night to close out his party’s convention in Milwaukee.

“I will end the devastating inflation crisis immediately, bring down interest rates and lower the cost of energy,” Trump said during his wide-ranging address. “We will drill, baby, drill,” he added, predicting that will “lead to a large-scale decline in prices.”

 

Thank God our industry is privatized.

Edited July 19 by Storm the Field

[Rex Kramer 1234]

24 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

CR warning.

Thank God our industry is privatized.

It is now. 

[billfromlaketravis 11286]

In my own personal experience, federal interference is greatly exaggerated. 95% of the bitching is about wildlife restrictions in Wyoming. Another 5% for terminating leases, but hey, if you violate your lease terms, you’re going to lose the lease. The feds aren’t doing anything a private owner would do. 

The BLM in New Mexico are pretty good about turning around sundries. They don’t try to hold us up, but just like any organization of a certain size, if somebody goes on vacation or moves to another group there’s going to be a delay.

Not being able to get drilling permits is some politician made up bullshit. Most companies prepare for these things and have at least 8 years of drilling permits. The Biden Admin could never grant another new APD since January 2021 to today and most of the big boys would be fine.

Offshore is a different matter. Canceling lease sales in the GOM was a pretty big deal for that group. The fed doesn’t grant full refunds on these things. They’re also dealing with the rice whale bullshit. Offshore is a tough regulatory environment. 
 

If Trump eased many of the offshore regulations, I think we would see increased drilling offshore. They’re making money at $25 a barrel. But in $40 oil, nothing is getting drilled onshore. Your best Delaware acreage is probably breaking even at that price point. Big companies would drill to maintain lease. Others will close shop. 

 

[billfromlaketravis 11286]

Trump would need a lot of help internationally to I make $40 happen. I’m sure the Saudis would be his first call. I doubt how much they can help, and they’d have sime huge asks.
 

He’d probably have to end the war in Ukraine for access to cheap Russian oil, and make a deal with Venezuela. Dealing with Iran would almost certainly be off the table.

There’s a path, but thankfully it’ll be difficult to get there.

[Rex Kramer 1234]

Federal intervention had been infective until Trump started releasing SPR. We can’t get to $40 in this cycle absent some black swan. If we do we won’t stay there long because US breakevens are $60/bbl. Trump win and I will hedge. At least Cal ‘25. 

[The Royal We 3051]

15 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

If Trump eased many of the offshore regulations, I think we would see increased drilling offshore. They’re making money at $25 a barrel. But in $40 oil, nothing is getting drilled onshore. Your best Delaware acreage is probably breaking even at that price point. Big companies would drill to maintain lease. Others will close shop.

Insurance and bonding costs alone make it almost impossible for small independents to operate offshore. The Coast Guard's stance on Taylor Energy's oil spill and how their OPA/OSFR insurance should respond drive part of this, but it's been a tough place for smaller guys to operate since Katrina and Rita completely changed the market for Named Windstorm insurance.

These were my best clients for years and years, but hurricanes and platforms don't get along very well. And now host platform issues have become a real problem too. I've got a client that has a great well that was down something like 75% of the time in 2023 because the operator of a host platform went bankrupt and they had no way to get their product to market.

I think the Feds could give away the leases for free and it would still be a very tough place to make it all work. At least on the shelf. Deep water isn't as big of a problem from an insurance standpoint. Maybe if operators could get a guaranteed $80/bbl buyer for 5 years, but I can't imagine any administration would go that far to boost supply. It's just not needed until the Permian peters out.

Just my $.02

[Rex Kramer 1234]

On 7/22/2024 at 9:29 AM, The Royal We said:

Insurance and bonding costs alone make it almost impossible for small independents to operate offshore. The Coast Guard's stance on Taylor Energy's oil spill and how their OPA/OSFR insurance should respond drive part of this, but it's been a tough place for smaller guys to operate since Katrina and Rita completely changed the market for Named Windstorm insurance.

These were my best clients for years and years, but hurricanes and platforms don't get along very well. And now host platform issues have become a real problem too. I've got a client that has a great well that was down something like 75% of the time in 2023 because the operator of a host platform went bankrupt and they had no way to get their product to market.

I think the Feds could give away the leases for free and it would still be a very tough place to make it all work. At least on the shelf. Deep water isn't as big of a problem from an insurance standpoint. Maybe if operators could get a guaranteed $80/bbl buyer for 5 years, but I can't imagine any administration would go that far to boost supply. It's just not needed until the Permian peters out.

Just my $.02

Agreed. You know anything about Cox Operating and Amarillo National Bank’s $100MM loss (100% loss)?

[The Royal We 3051]

7 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Agreed. You know anything about Cox Operating and Amarillo National Bank’s $100MM loss (100% loss)?

Not too much. Amarillo NB seems like an odd place for them to get financing from...

I did have an old client in Houston that I became pretty good friends with who was old buddies with Brad Cox. My client was a P&A contractor that focused on state water and shelf stuff and he was telling me ~6 years ago that they were upside down on their ARO/Reserve value and weren't going to be able to make it work. I just remember them having a metric fuck ton of platforms for the number of economic wells they had producing. I'm sure they had bonds running to the majors they acquired fields from, in addition to the bonds for LA and BOEM, that were part of what killed them.

There are thousands and thousands of abandoned wells out there that are ticking time bombs that taxpayers are going to end up getting proper fucked on.

[winning_is_hard 38]

21 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Agreed. You know anything about Cox Operating and Amarillo National Bank’s $100MM loss (100% loss)?

I heard something along the line of a reputable family that was friends with bank ownership getting a loan with a personal guaranty, and then the bank getting screwed and then something about getting regulators up their ass due to the poor underwriting.

[Rex Kramer 1234]

33 minutes ago, winning_is_hard said:

I heard something along the line of a reputable family that was friends with bank ownership getting a loan with a personal guaranty, and then the bank getting screwed and then something about getting regulators up their ass due to the poor underwriting.

On Cox?  If so, I think we are talking about the same deal. I’ve got color on the bad underwriting. 

@The Royal Wei used to bank Taylor in my Houston days from ‘01-‘05. Back when Pat was still alive. Going to NO was fun. I don’t know how any small offshore company makes it. 

[The Royal We 3051]

13 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

On Cox?  If so, I think we are talking about the same deal. I’ve got color on the bad underwriting. 

@The Royal Wei used to bank Taylor in my Houston days from ‘01-‘05. Back when Pat was still alive. Going to NO was fun. I don’t know how any small offshore company makes it. 

I never knew that. So you banked them when hurricane Ivan shithoused their platform at Mississippi Canyon 20? That's one of the few incidents I know of where pretty much every single policy in place paid out full limits - and then the USCG tried to attach to every OSFR policy they ever had in place covering that block. That USCG stance made for some brutal conversations with clients during renewals earlier this year. ~400% increases on a policy that most operators have never made a claim against and that they are required to carry in order to operate.  #pain

https://darrp.noaa.gov/oil-spills/taylor-energy

Edited July 24 by The Royal We

[Rex Kramer 1234]

2 hours ago, The Royal We said:

I never knew that. So you banked them when hurricane Ivan shithoused their platform at Mississippi Canyon 20? That's one of the few incidents I know of where pretty much every single policy in place paid out full limits - and then the USCG tried to attach to every OSFR policy they ever had in place covering that block. That USCG stance made for some brutal conversations with clients during renewals earlier this year. ~400% increases on a policy that most operators have never made a claim against and that they are required to carry in order to operate.  #pain

https://darrp.noaa.gov/oil-spills/taylor-energy

Actually yes. I recall 6 months of BI insurance. I moved back to Dallas the following year and never made another offshore loan. 

[Hook1997 5239]

On 7/21/2024 at 7:03 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

 

The BLM in New Mexico are pretty good about turning around sundries. They don’t try to hold us up, but just like any organization of a certain size, if somebody goes on vacation or moves to another group there’s going to be a delay.

 

 

The BLM in New Mexico won’t hold up anything, they want the money and it’s what’s keeping the state afloat.  Have a friend who owns a flowback company that works on BLM land out there.  It’s truly the wild Wild West. The stories he can tell, 75% of the drivers at best out there that pickup the salt water disposal do not speak English and a good percentage are on drugs and working 12 hours plus a day often.  

[PenelopeWitherspoon 18402]

$40 oil doesn't work for OPEC. Period.

[Rex Kramer 1234]

9 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

$40 oil doesn't work for OPEC. Period.

Agreed. It only is sustainable in a severely shit economy or scared economy like Covid. Trump will spew shit like that though, and it’ll work directionally for a while. 

[fattyflattie 4633]

On 7/22/2024 at 10:29 AM, The Royal We said:

Insurance and bonding costs alone make it almost impossible for small independents to operate offshore.

I used to have a very good look into an independent shelf operator. When they got out and shut it all down, their insurance was just under 40% of their OpEx.   I’m sure there was more to it than that, but that was the scapegoat anyhow.  And they ran pretty, pretty lean from everything I ever saw. 

[Dr Fear 1264]

Brooke better reset her expectations if she wants to fill this position.

[billfromlaketravis 11286]

2 hours ago, Dr Fear said:

Brooke better reset her expectations if she wants to fill this position.

Well first of all Ms. Griffin, every land contractor is weird AF.

I’ve seen it all. Close talkers. Too many personal questions guy. Touches every pregnant ladies’ belly guy. Guy that wears suspenders and a polo. Not so functional alcoholics. Coke heads. Angry, not Ragin’, Cajuns. aggy attoney corps turds. But mostly they’re creepy old dudes that make the better looking females uncomfortable. 

Your good contractors always leave before you make them employees, and you’re stuck with guys who could never make it through onboarding. 

[Dr Fear 1264]

So, now we have Chevron moving to Houston on a very short end of the year timeline.  Do they already have offices figured out?

[LurkingHorn 1035]

4 minutes ago, Dr Fear said:

So, now we have Chevron moving to Houston on a very short end of the year timeline.  Do they already have offices figured out?

I read it's over a 5-year timeline...

[Dr Fear 1264]

1 minute ago, LurkingHorn said:

I read it's over a 5-year timeline...

Ahh, CEO is moving by then, and I assume at least a few other people