Reply With Quote
Yeah, I don't think we've seen the last of fracking.....The fracking was obliterated by OPEC and Russia pumping oil till it was at dirt cheap price. RIP fracking. It was no game changer at all
The fracking was obliterated by OPEC and Russia pumping oil till it was at dirt cheap price. RIP fracking. It was no game changer at allhater not being able to add/read. Look closely and add 9 to 13. It isn't 16, geenyus.
Smack talk, when you get your wrong, makes you look dumb.
2009 is before US fracking really became a thing, so that was definitely a game changer that I didn't foresee increasing the economically viable amount of recoverable reserves.
Good thing I'm not an oil analyst. No apologies, and it was better than your prediction.
Yeah, I don't think we've seen the last of fracking.....The fracking was obliterated by OPEC and Russia pumping oil till it was at dirt cheap price. RIP fracking. It was no game changer at all
20% of S&P 500 Have Negative Guidance for Q1
http://247wallst.com/economy/2016/03...F7+Wall+St.%29
Sure it can come back to life but at the moment. It's dead.
Hater jabbing anyone about predictions...
Russia will defeat ISIS
And turning real
In March, job cuts announced by the largest US-based companies soared 31.7% year-over-year to 48,207. The fourth month in a row of year-over-year increases. Up 40% from March 2014.
Job-cut announcements in the first quarter jumped to 184,920, up 32% from 2015, and up 52% from 2014.
These are not minor increases. And they only include the largest US-based companies that announce layoffs to the media. They do not include smaller companies that might be trimming their payrolls quietly.
In Q1, about 50,000 job-cut announcements, or 27% of the total, were “attributed to falling oil prices,” as the report put it. That includes companies such as manufacturers that supply the oil sector. Last year in Q1, “oil-related” job cuts had reached 47,610, or 34% of the total.
This shows that the oil sector is still shedding jobs manically, but other sectors have now jumped into the fray in significant numbers. As the report put it: This “upward trend outside of the energy sector is somewhat worrisome.”
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/...+capitalism%29
It can come back almost overnight. There have been hundreds if not thousands of wells in Texas drilled and capped while it is cheap to drill...all they have to do when prices come back up is frack and complete them...could be online in a month.
Wow. You schooled me with that insightful analysis, supported by industry commentary.The fracking was obliterated by OPEC and Russia pumping oil till it was at dirt cheap price. RIP fracking. It was no game changer at all
smh.
"the fracking" was not obliterated. Rate of new wells drilled has dropped a lot, but the US is still producing almost twice as much oil as it was ten years ago.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Le...s=WCRFPUS2&f=W
US drillers have dropped the cost of a new well as the price has dropped. Learning curves and a lot of spare equipment and skilled people floating around.
http://www.economist.com/news/busine...-duc-and-coverTo provide a sufficient margin of comfort, prices may have to rally a lot higher than $40 a barrel to lure capital back in. Bobby Tudor of Tudor, Pickering, Holt, an energy-focused investment bank, believes that at $40 a barrel production will continue to decline, at $50 it would flatten out, and only at $60 would it increase. “Drilling wells at today’s commodity prices is still destructive of capital,” he argues. One further wrinkle: as oil prices increase, so can costs. Those, then, who hope that nimble shale producers will be able to move the global oil price up and down just by turning the taps on and off may be disappointed. Their financial backers will be the ones really calling the shots.
"dead" is not quite the right word. Going into a holding pattern, yes.
"destructive of capital"
List of 36 Oil & Gas Companies that Filed for Bankruptcy in 2015
http://marcellusdrilling.com/2015/11/list-of-36-oil-gas-companies-that-filed-for-bankruptcy-in-2015/
Half of US shale drillers may go bankrupt: Oppenheimer's Gheit
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/11/half-...ers-gheit.html
Investors losing $100Ms? somebody is?
Yeah, Bernie's plan, tbqh
...you would save much more than that in just yearly health care costs IMO.....
those numbers are changes to biweekly paychecks, not annual income
not actual health care, but just employer/group health insurance.
Not saying it's not informative, but it's a pretty shallow analysis. What is the deficit going to look like with that, what is going to get cut that we might need to pay out of pocket instead (ie: subsidies, etc).
That said, Shillary's numbers strike me as status quo more or less, which isn't surprising either.
I agree. I can pay my family's health care costs and contribute some of my IRA with what he wants taken out.
Bernie's plan. I just paid right at 160,000 in personal taxes and haven't gotten the bad news yet on corporate taxes. 40% is ing enough. That doesn't even include sales tax and property tax.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 04-02-2016 at 06:02 PM.
If you paid $160k in federal income tax that would equate to an effective rate of 33.6% on $475k in taxable income. Just to put things in perspective, that leaves you $315k to live on... And that's not including any deductions as the $475 is taxable income.
It's a progressive tax system. Welcome to America.
Bernie. That's bull .
Most people would be thrilled to have $300k to live on.
Everybody is looking to pay as little tax as possible. It would be one thing if the government spent our taxes wisely, but it spends irresponsibly and wastes so much.
I admit it's been nice to be able to help my kids....
but it's not like I didn't work my ass off for 40 years and take a lot of financial risks to get here.
Don't whisper that - shout it from the roof top :-) We all wish we could too.
Your wasteful government spending talking point aside, In principle I agree that people should be able to keep more of the money they earn, but the reality is a progressive tax system is better for the economy as a whole.
I realize this is wildly oversimplified, but let's say Ted Cruz is elected and implements his 15% flat tax. CC's Tax burden gets cut in half. What's he gonna do with that extra $80k? He may spend a little of it, but most of it will be saved and invested. No significant new jobs will be created.
You really think that the government using CC's tax is gonna create more new jobs than if he re-invests his money in his own company or invests in mutual funds/etfs?
good god that would be a disaster
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
