CNBC interpreted

[haha]

Brent oil $90 to $100 in 12 to 18 months: Pickens

1) Becky Quick seems to have gone a little overboard on her Botox treatments this month

2) Joe Kernen needs some lessons about how to act in the presence of his betters.

Pickens says, "I'm the expert, not you guys!"

They put these beta dudes around a table with an idiotic but more or less pretty (albeit frozen) face, then bring in an alpha male. Poor CNBC guys, losers all of them, every day!

Ha

 

[Mulligan]

I saw that this morning... Becky usually comes off disarming, but mumbling Joe thinks he is the equal. I was hoping after Becky invited Boone to come by and visit when he is in town that Boone had said, "I coming up right after this interview ends in my private jet to kick Joe's ass!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Running_Man]

I have found T Boone Pickens to be consistently a bull on oil prices and am not surprised by his recent statements. I think he did not care much for Joe Kiernan pointing out PIckens had testified to US congress that oil production was at it's peak in 2005 and would never be exceeded and the price would eventually be near 200 per barrell. Now he claims he meant peak oil in Saudia Arabia. Well the world produced 71,951,000 in 2005 and 74,644,000 in 2012 and I believe this year is going to be another 2 million barrels per day higher than that. On top of that oil demand is dropping and natural gas is falling off a cliff, so it will be interesting to watch the oil price the next few years.


Porter Stansberry back in March interviewed T Boone and basically questioned his thesis, the interview transcript is linked, I think this one question of the interview shows how consistently wrong Pickens has been since he became the American political answer to oil policy which he is now tied to his thesis that oil will be ever higher:

Porter Stansberry: But the question I wanted to get to, Boone, is do you think that
when you put together all the new production coming out of the Eagle Ford and the Bakken and the Cline area or the Permian, and you put together these new, huge fields that are potentially online in the next five to ten years in the deep water gulf, and then you bring back Iraq production, maybe you even see an increase in Iranian production, is there—are we at risk of sort of a mid-1980s oil glut at some point developing because of all this new production coming online?

T. Boone Pickens: Well, bear in mind that the cost to bring it on is very expensive.
And also watch what the Saudis say, because they’re very clear, they want credibility. And they say, “We have to have 100 dollars a barrel for our oil because of social commitments.” Now I have a Congressman in Washington I’m having dinner with two weeks ago, and he said, “They can produce that over there for five dollars a barrel. And that’s what I want them to do.” And I said, “They can produce it for five dollars a barrel, but I can tell you think—if it ever goes below 75 dollars a barrel, the royal family will get overthrown.”

Personally my hat is off to Joe Kiernan for being willing to point out how wrong Pickens has been on oil, the fact that Pickens got mad at Joe and made him look like a fool does not change his point of view to being correct, merely another prediction to mind over time and then we will be able to judge better if Pickens is on the right track. I think he is off the rails right now,

Ep. 145 T. Boone Pickens Talks Peak Oil

 

[aja8888]

Pickens has been off the rails for a long time. If he wants to know what it costs to bring in new horizontal wells in shale or deeper (untapped) formations, he should be spending time with oil companies and not politicians, who really don't know anything.

And $5/bbl in Saudi is probably not accurate since they are in water flood and the fields are in decline. But, they do have the sunk capital cost already covered. Big (and smaller) oil companies are smarter than they were in the 80's when I was with a major. I don't believe oil will go to a hat size, but it may go to $40. At which time, a lot of rigs will go idle.

 

[Lakewood90712]

Brent oil $90 to $100 in 12 to 18 months: Pickens

1) Becky Quick seems to have gone a little overboard on her Botox treatments this month..... snip............................................................................................
Poor CNBC guys, losers all of them, every day!

Ha

Hey , don't be hating on my favorite empty bubble head bleach blonde business channel bimbo.

 

[haha]

I have found T Boone Pickens to be consistently a bull on oil prices and am not surprised by his recent statements.

Of course he talks his book. What I respect him for is his success in a very competitive business, not what he supposedly said.

I do not have the creds to debate with Aja below, but it does not seem certain to me that given even reasonably normal interest rates, drilling wells that pretty much play out in 12-18 months is a long term viable business. Remains to be seen. However, crude getting to ~40 and staying there takes a very severe long lasting worldwide business downturn.

Anyway, my interest here is not what TB said, but what fools Joey and the other meter readers on TV are.

Ha

 

[ESRwannabe]

I will probably be buying XOM and/or CVX the next time I get some money. They are decently priced right now. Not a whole lot of stocks out there that aren't getting too pricey for me.

I do believe in peak oil, but I think we will adjust without much issue through the whole process. I think just improved conservation and more efficient use will let us adjust for a long time. Eventually I believe that solar power will replace a lot of the power production, but we will still continue to use oil for its many other uses.

 

[Siestatime]

There was an interesting article in the NY Times today on Southwest Energy doubling down on nat gas even when other rigs are shutting down due to low prices. They're expanding into Pennsylvania. The CEO of the company seems to be a risk-taker that reminds me of T Bone in his younger days. Anyone got an opinion on Southwest as an investment?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/b...l?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share



Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[aja8888]

There was an interesting article in the NY Times today on Southwest Energy doubling down on nat gas even when other rigs are shutting down due to low prices. They're expanding into Pennsylvania. The CEO of the company seems to be a risk-taker that reminds me of T Bone in his younger days. Anyone got an opinion on Southwest as an investment?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/b...l?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share



Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

I'd be hard pressed to invest in any oil or gas company until the dust settles on the crude price (futures). We have way more gas than we can consume and only can put so much in storage. Plus, we only have one terminal to ship LNG offshore from and that is not 100% completed yet.

SW is drilling in the Utica area and that is NY, OH, PA, WV primarily. So getting any of that gas to the Gulf for conversion into liquids is a stretch. There is no doubt that natural gas has a great future here in the U.S. but when is the question. Other companies are producing gas in the Utica and shallower formations and have been for decades, so it's not like they are plowing new ground, so to say.

Right about now, the gas driller stocks look like falling knives. With the somewhat warm winter so far in the northeast, gas prices are falling.

 

[Koolau]

I know virtually nothing about the oil "business", but I do think I understand the law of supply and demand. Now, superimpose the very inelastic nature of oil demand and you end up with a situation where 2 mml bbl either way supply OR demand can mean $50 oil or $100 oil. Back when OPEC WAS the only game in town, they could set the price very easily. Now, at $75 oil, every Tom, Dick and Harry fraker is ready to step in and take up any slack (especially if US policy is finally in line with "drill baby drill.")

We will end up at some point at peak oil. Don't know when that will be. In the mean time, the back and forth between supply and demand will cause oil prices to bounce around so that even TBP can't accurately predict the prices. Add the fact that (at some point) natural gas can (maybe should??) replace most of our transportation fuels and it really gets complicated.

So while watching the talking heads bloviate can be lots of fun, it's not very instructive. What you may learn is a lot more theoretical than practical. In the long run, we're using a lot more HCs than the earth is making, so prices WILL go up - just not in any short term (few months to few years time frame) predictable way. One little recession can undo demand so quickly your head will spin.

If it were up to me (if I were kind of the world) I would work on making energy (first of all) as fungible as possible, as price-stable as possible and as free of geopolitical attributes as possible. If it meant going "nuke" for electricity, I'd be okay with that (probably run by the military because nukes require more discipline and accountability to avoid accidents - but that's debatable and not my intent.)

Right now, I'm just enjoying the current lower oil prices and hoping they translate to lower airfares this summer (heh, heh.) But I also will not be surprised if oil is at $150 in 18 months. If it IS, it will be US policy at fault for the most part in my totally humble and uneducated opinion. So YMMV.

 

[aja8888]

I know virtually nothing about the oil "business", but I do think I understand the law of supply and demand. Now, superimpose the very inelastic nature of oil demand and you end up with a situation where 2 mml bbl either way supply OR demand can mean $50 oil or $100 oil. Back when OPEC WAS the only game in town, they could set the price very easily. Now, at $75 oil, every Tom, Dick and Harry fraker is ready to step in and take up any slack (especially if US policy is finally in line with "drill baby drill.")

We will end up at some point at peak oil. Don't know when that will be. In the mean time, the back and forth between supply and demand will cause oil prices to bounce around so that even TBP can't accurately predict the prices. Add the fact that (at some point) natural gas can (maybe should??) replace most of our transportation fuels and it really gets complicated.

So while watching the talking heads bloviate can be lots of fun, it's not very instructive. What you may learn is a lot more theoretical than practical. In the long run, we're using a lot more HCs than the earth is making, so prices WILL go up - just not in any short term (few months to few years time frame) predictable way. One little recession can undo demand so quickly your head will spin.

If it were up to me (if I were kind of the world) I would work on making energy (first of all) as fungible as possible, as price-stable as possible and as free of geopolitical attributes as possible. If it meant going "nuke" for electricity, I'd be okay with that (probably run by the military because nukes require more discipline and accountability to avoid accidents - but that's debatable and not my intent.)

Right now, I'm just enjoying the current lower oil prices and hoping they translate to lower airfares this summer (heh, heh.) But I also will not be surprised if oil is at $150 in 18 months. If it IS, it will be US policy at fault for the most part in my totally humble and uneducated opinion. So YMMV.

I take it you have never been in the military....

 

[Koolau]

I take it you have never been in the military....

Touche! However, guys who run nukes on ships learn very quickly that if they screw up - they die. Their safety record is pretty good - especially compared to civilian nukes. Admittedly, we've lost some nukes, but not to nuke accidents that I know of (NORDS?? Can you help us here?) Okay, maybe LOCK some Navy nuke guys in all the civilian reactors and THEN you will get the discipline and accountability to run them safely. Again, not an expert - just basing my thinking on the nuke record of the military. Only mentioned nukes as part of the fungibility issue. Maybe there are better ways, but I don't think we should reject any source of energy out of hand - especially if it gets us to predictable and stable sources and supplies.

I picture a time when you are ready to "fill up" your car and the choice is no longer "regular or premium" but electric plug, natural gas, propane, gasoline, methanol, ethanol, E85, bio-whatever (grass clippings??) or exotic bug-juice. In short, if one source gets a bit out of line, price wise, you have a choice. At some point, we might reach something approaching stability. Probably pie in the sky so YMMV.

 

[BBQ-Nut]

When we visit for the holidays, my dad plays CNBC constantly during the day and shouts back at them.


My brother and I just look at each other at yet another day wasted watching talking heads.

 

[aja8888]

Touche! However, guys who run nukes on ships learn very quickly that if they screw up - they die. Their safety record is pretty good - especially compared to civilian nukes. Admittedly, we've lost some nukes, but not to nuke accidents that I know of (NORDS?? Can you help us here?) Okay, maybe LOCK some Navy nuke guys in all the civilian reactors and THEN you will get the discipline and accountability to run them safely. Again, not an expert - just basing my thinking on the nuke record of the military. Only mentioned nukes as part of the fungibility issue. Maybe there are better ways, but I don't think we should reject any source of energy out of hand - especially if it gets us to predictable and stable sources and supplies.

I picture a time when you are ready to "fill up" your car and the choice is no longer "regular or premium" but electric plug, natural gas, propane, gasoline, methanol, ethanol, E85, bio-whatever (grass clippings??) or exotic bug-juice. In short, if one source gets a bit out of line, price wise, you have a choice. At some point, we might reach something approaching stability. Probably pie in the sky so YMMV.

Just kidding around....I was in the Minuteman Missile program late in my Air Force military career. had control of a lot of big Nukes..much different than a power plant.

Oil is a commodity like copper, natural gas, corn, soy beans, etc. Hard to control pricing.

 

[Koolau]

Way cool!! I'm sure it was 99% boredom and 1% stark terror (drill time). Still what a great bunch of stories to tell the grand kids. The one thing I miss about passing on my Mcnamara Fellowship to scenic SE Asia - few cool stories to tell the grand kids. Imagine telling about the Tet offensive or helping to take back Hue. Of course, there were the couple of chemical explosions at the plant... But, returning you now to the theme of today's symposium.

 

[haha]

When we visit for the holidays, my dad plays CNBC constantly during the day and shouts back at them.


My brother and I just look at each other at yet another day wasted watching talking heads.

Not sure how many people still watch CNBC. I don't even have cable. But a google search for anyone whose ideas you might like to hear will frequently produce either a CNBC or Bloomberg interview.

Both of these have female interviewers who are very capable, and also don't seem to have the need to interrupt constantly. My favorite is a woman at Bloomberg. Unfortunately I don't know her name.

Ha

 

[Walt34]

had control of a lot of big Nukes..much different than a power plant.

I would hope so! Missiles are supposed to blow up.

 

[audreyh1]

Not sure how many people still watch CNBC. I don't even have cable. But a google search for anyone whose ideas you might like to hear will frequently produce either a CNBC or Bloomberg interview.

Both of these have female interviewers who are very capable, and also don't seem to have the need to interrupt constantly. My favorite is a woman at Bloomberg. Unfortunately I don't know her name.

Ha

Yep, I quit watching the broadcast for the reasons you describe in your OP. I have the CNBC App and can watch a short segment reporting on a specific topic by a contributor I respect when I choose. That's plenty.

 

[ls99]

Seems the Saudis wish to pick on T boone.

$20 crude is possible.

"Brent crude crashed below the $60 per barrel level again on Monday after Saudi Arabia’s oil minister said his country would not intervene to revive prices.

Ali al-Naimi – who oversees the world’s largest exporter of crude – said in an interview that even if the price of oil fell to $20 per barrel the kingdom would do nothing to arrest the decline."



Oil plummets after Saudis say $20 crude is possible - Telegraph

Edit add: I never watch CNBC, the discussion above will keep me that way.

 

[SteveNU]

Touche! However, guys who run nukes on ships learn very quickly that if they screw up - they die. Their safety record is pretty good - especially compared to civilian nukes. Admittedly, we've lost some nukes, but not to nuke accidents that I know of (NORDS?? Can you help us here?) Okay, maybe LOCK some Navy nuke guys in all the civilian reactors and THEN you will get the discipline and accountability to run them safely.[emoji23] Again, not an expert - just basing my thinking on the nuke record of the military. Only mentioned nukes as part of the fungibility issue. Maybe there are better ways, but I don't think we should reject any source of energy out of hand - especially if it gets us to predictable and stable sources and supplies.

I picture a time when you are ready to "fill up" your car and the choice is no longer "regular or premium" but electric plug, natural gas, propane, gasoline, methanol, ethanol, E85, bio-whatever (grass clippings??) or exotic bug-juice. In short, if one source gets a bit out of line, price wise, you have a choice. At some point, we might reach something approaching stability. Probably pie in the sky so YMMV.

As an ex Navy nuke who spent many years in civilian nuke plants I can tell you that most of the guys in the operations side of those plants are all ex Navy for the most part.

 

[explanade]

Becky was never that expressive 10-15 years ago either, when she started.

She's sometimes a good antidote to Kernan.

Some of their European people are pretty good but the new app. now makes you watch the same commercial every time you play a video segment.

Their ratings aren't what they used to be but they certainly get access to just about everyone of significance in the business world.

 

[Koolau]

As an ex Navy nuke who spent many years in civilian nuke plants I can tell you that most of the guys in the operations side of those plants are all ex Navy for the most part.

I feel safer already - seriously. You guys rock!

 

[Hamlet]

Yup. The Navy nuke program is pretty much the only place training people in that area.

As an ex Navy nuke who spent many years in civilian nuke plants I can tell you that most of the guys in the operations side of those plants are all ex Navy for the most part.

 

[Hamlet]

Joe Kernen has always struck me as incredibly stupid.

2) Joe Kernen needs some lessons about how to act in the presence of his betters.

 

[frayne]

CNBC, the equivalent of financial porn, albeit entertaining at times. Maria Bartiromo and Sue Herera gave me impure thoughts. Maria left for FOX and Sue put on more than a little weight, so it's off to Bloomberg I go.