Get started

Fossilfuels

Is Global Oil Demand the Key to Energy Market Stability?In the intricate landscape of global energy markets, the question of oil demand remains a central enigma. Driven by a confluence of geopolitical tensions, OPEC+ production strategies, and economic dynamics, global oil demand is a complex tapestry that shapes the future of energy markets. Geopolitical events, particularly in the Middle East, have historically been a significant driver of oil price volatility. The recent escalation of tensions has once again underscored the delicate balance between geopolitical stability and global oil supply. As geopolitical risks rise, so too does the price of oil, impacting investors in oil-related securities like the United States Oil Fund (USO). However, geopolitical factors are just one piece of the puzzle. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its allies, OPEC+, play a crucial role in regulating global oil supply. Their production decisions, often influenced by economic considerations and geopolitical pressures, can significantly impact oil prices and, consequently, global oil demand. Beyond geopolitical tensions and OPEC+ dynamics, economic factors also play a vital role in shaping global oil demand. The global economy, with its cyclical nature, influences energy consumption. During periods of economic growth, oil demand tends to increase, while economic downturns can lead to reduced consumption. The interplay between geopolitical risks, OPEC+ strategies, and economic factors creates a complex and dynamic environment for the global oil market. Understanding these intricate relationships is essential for investors seeking to navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by the oil sector.
AMEX:USOLong
by signalmastermind
Historically Warm Weather to Support Natural Gas PricesAfter the second quarter relief rally and the five-month peak, Natural Gas registered a four-week decline. This has shifted bias to the downside again, creating scope for further losses towards 1.940. However, a look at the daily chart shows that NGAS tries to react at the lower border of the Ichimoku Cloud. Furthermore, a Golden Cross (EMA50 crossing above the EMA200) has been formed, which is often viewed as a precursor of sustained growth. This technical formation compliments the favorable fundamentals, as demand is set to increase this year, while key drillers lower their activity. Although the world shifts to renewables, Natural Gas is seen a bridge fuel facilitating this transition. Furthermore, it is heavily used in electricity generation, being the top source in the US and No2 globally. June was the thirteenth straight month of record high temperatures according to Copernicus, which can provide another tailwind for energy demand during the summer months. This in turn can increase Natural gas consumption and support prices. As a result, NGAS can reclaim the EMA200 that would give control to the bulls and the ability to push for the June peak (3.164). The upside contains multiple technical roadblocks though and there are risks to the upbeat supply-demand dynamics. Stratos Markets Limited (www.fxcm.com): CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 68% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider . You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money. Stratos Europe Ltd (trading as “FXCM” or “FXCM EU”), previously FXCM EU Ltd (www.fxcm.com): CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 73% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider . You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money. Stratos Trading Pty. Limited (www.fxcm.com): Trading FX/CFDs carries significant risks. FXCM AU (AFSL 309763). Please read the Financial Services Guide, Product Disclosure Statement, Target Market Determination and Terms of Business at www.fxcm.com Stratos Global LLC (www.fxcm.com): Losses can exceed deposits. Any opinions, news, research, analyses, prices, other information, or links to third-party sites contained on this video are provided on an "as-is" basis, as general market commentary and do not constitute investment advice. The market commentary has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research, and it is therefore not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of dissemination. Although this commentary is not produced by an independent source, FXCM takes all sufficient steps to eliminate or prevent any conflicts of interests arising out of the production and dissemination of this communication. The employees of FXCM commit to acting in the clients' best interests and represent their views without misleading, deceiving, or otherwise impairing the clients' ability to make informed investment decisions. For more information about the FXCM's internal organizational and administrative arrangements for the prevention of conflicts, please refer to the Firms' Managing Conflicts Policy. Please ensure that you read and understand our Full Disclaimer and Liability provision concerning the foregoing Information, which can be accessed via FXCM`s website: Stratos Markets Limited clients please see: www.fxcm.com Stratos Europe Ltd clients please see: www.fxcm.com Stratos Trading Pty. Limited clients please see: www.fxcm.com Stratos Global LLC clients please see: www.fxcm.com Past Performance is not an indicator of future results.
FX:NGASLong
by FXCM
1
Natural GAS : LONGNatural gas bounced from a low of $1.95/MMBTU, where almost all producers lose money. Since natural gas and crude oil are near or below breakeven levels, producers are reducing their drilling rate - likely lowering production levels given the lack of capacity. The negative shift in weather, falling rig count, and potential export boost from Freeport may push natural gas back into a shortage over the coming months. While natural gas spot prices appear likely bottoming, UNG's immense "contango" pressure remains a key investment rig factor. Source : Seeking Alpha
RUS:NG1!Long
by SWFguy
Natural Gas collapsing! Yet another deflationary signNatural gas in the US is collapsing. In part this has to do with LNG exports to the rest of the world being halted due to a fire to one of the export terminals. However in my honest opinion, there is more to it. It probably has to do more with the deflationary forces taking over, as high interest rates, money supply shrinking and inflation being too high, have destroyed demand to a very large extend. At the same time we are seeing progress in the energy space, with more projects and drilling taking place, as the ESG movement is taking a hit. The green movement needs to be sidetracked for a while, as we need cheap energy right now. Otherwise the war in Ukraine won't stop in Ukraine and we are gonna have famine in most of the world. So where would I be looking to buy natural gas? Or until what level would I be willing to short it? Based on an average I created which includes several futures contracts, I think that closing shorts at around 5$ is a good idea, yet buying a lot of NatGas with significant upside, I'd say start buying between 3-4$.
NYMEX:NG1!
by BitcoinMacro
1
#WTI expected to pop again#WTI crude oil looks like it wants to bust above the channel again. It did just that recently but got shot back down. MACD histogram on its way to green, lines curling up for a bullish MACD cross. and RSI has already tested 50 and appears to be holding, signifying strength. I'm long oil, but it will be volatile with all these wacky headlines every day that drag it every which way. Fundamental side: EU is considering banning Russian oil and now has a deal with Qatar. Russia's energy dominance is ending. Still an imbalance between excess demand and not enough supply. Bullish for crude oil. The lack of new drills and exploration will fuel the imbalance. Disclaimer: This is not financial advice. Do your own DD. But for the record Tiger is basically a pro when it comes to oil and the vix.
FX:USOILLong
by EBITDAtiger
Endesa, S.A. (ELE.mc) bearish scenario:The technical figure Channel Up can be found in the Spanish company Endesa, S.A. (ELE.mc) at daily chart. Endesa, S.A. is a Spanish multinational electric utility company, the largest in the country. The firm, a majority-owned subsidiary of the Italian utility company Enel, has 10 million customers in Spain, with domestic annual generation of over 97,600 GWh from nuclear, fossil-fueled, hydroelectric, and renewable resource power plants. Internationally, it serves another 10 million customers and provides over 80,100 GWh annually. The company has additional interests in Spanish natural gas and telecommunications companies. The Channel Up has broken through the support line on 15/06/2022, if the price holds below this level you can have a possible bearish price movement with a forecast for the next 23 days towards 17.745 EUR. Your stop loss order according to experts should be placed at 21.060 EUR if you decide to enter this position. The company presents its results from January to March, in which it registers a 31% decrease in ordinary net profit to €338 million, although if the extraordinary impacts recorded in 2021 were to be excluded this result would increase by 14%. Risk Disclosure: Trading Foreign Exchange (Forex) and Contracts of Difference (CFD's) carries a high level of risk. By registering and signing up, any client affirms their understanding of their own personal accountability for all transactions performed within their account and recognizes the risks associated with trading on such markets and on such sites. Furthermore, one understands that the company carries zero influence over transactions, markets, and trading signals, therefore, cannot be held liable nor guarantee any profits or losses.
BME:ELEShort
by legacyFXofficial
Short the NG1! So many technical and fundamental indications revealed that Natural Gas prices are gonna drop from a high offer zone "$9.5 - $9" confirmed by " Oderflow Analysis" to the high demand zone "$7 - $6.5" . And this is supported by some of the following fundamental reasons , Such as The fire at the Freeport LNG facility is expected to reduce demand by two-billion cubic feet per day for at least three weeks, though higher cooling demand on forecasts for hot weather could eat into the surplus. Long-term forecasts from the National Weather Service see temperatures for all states aside from the Northwest seeing hotter than normal temperatures for the next six to 10 days. And Energy stocks decline Pre-bell
NYMEX:NG1!Short
by ossamaouadih
Bounce or die, 'Fossil Fuel' BitcoinBitcoin has been on a downward spiral since Elon Musk described it as 'fossil fuel powered' and saying that for that reason, Tesla won't be willing to accept Bitcoins. You could argue that Bitcoin was due for a correction in any case - this has been one of the longest week-on-week rises in Bitcoin's history: 16 weeks straight up from $10.5k to $41.9k, followed by 11 weeks from $32.5k to $64.8k. The question on most people's minds right now is - is it all over? Are we going into a three year bear market again? Or will Bitcoin bounce somewhere and then continue higher towards the end of the year? One way we can tell trend reversals is by using the 200 Simple (Daily) Moving Average. The Bitcoin price is currently sitting on the 200 SMA, which you can see as the red line on the chart above. A sharp break of the 200 SMA could indeed see us moving into a bear market, while a bounce here could see the Bitcoin bull trend continue. We'll soon see how this plays out! Which do you think it'll be? Let me know in the comments. --------------- Coin Metrics: The most recent price of BTC at the time of writing is: $39244.88. The 200 Simple Moving Average (SMA) is at: $39790.53. The percentage distance from the latest BTC price and the 200 SMA is: -1.0%. A coin which has a price less than its 200 SMA is less costly on average than at any other time, and so this might be a good time to buy. Beware though that this may also be a part of a bearish trend, where the price might drop even further. Average Candle Height (ACH) for BTC: 5.56%. Average Candle Height is calculated as the average height of all candles (high - low) as a percentage of the high price. Bitcoin typically has about 5% ACH, while large market cap coins like Litecoin have around 8% ACH. Exceptionally volatile coins like 1INCH can have 15% ACH or more. The number of 1d candles measured in this calculation were: 500. --------------- Happy trading, folks! Please like and follow if you'd like to see more of my content :)
by Evermore
2
Crude Oil 4 Hourly Chart Showing H&S FormingOil is falling back down to major near term support around $21.50 per barrel it cannot hold the $25 level today which is an important level in the short term. The 4-hour chart is showing us that it could be a lower head & shoulders forming. Not my favourite charting pattern but the technicals are showing that this level has enough buyers to complete the pattern. If we lose that level, we could go as low as $15, I am confident we will not see that as the OPEC+ meeting on the 9th will provide a needed boost. What do we have here? ✔️ Bullish H&S Forming ✔️ OPEC+ Meeting on 9th April Thank you, Connor, Please feel free to follow me to get more analysis. On Tradingview I share 1hr, 4hr, 1D, 1W charting analysis across major instruments only. For more short term analysis and trading ideas please subscribe to The Margin Call.
FX:USOILLong
by UnknownUnicorn309537
WPX a true value ahead of earnings 2/26A couple months ago, WPX Energy announced that it was raising its production forecast for 2020 and will initiate a dividend sometime this year. The share price appropriately rocketed to $14 or so. Over the last few months of weak oil prices, it's come back down to as low as $11.50. However, it's now making a rounding bottom, with oil prices strengthening thanks to the coronavirus slowdown. According to Fidelity, WPX now has the fourth best PEG ratio in the entire market, at 0.07. Zacks puts the PEG higher, but still good at 0.54. WPX's analyst summary score is 6.6/10. WPX has earnings coming up on February 26, so there's some risk to buying now. (WPX doesn't have a great history of beating estimates.) On the other hand, this could be the earnings report on which they initiate their dividend, in which case the price should rise regardless of the earnings result. I am tentatively forecasting $20 per share by early next year, though I've no idea when it will run.
WLong
by ChristopherCarrollSmith
Speculating on global warming amount, and future trendHello, in this pseudo-science idea I try to get a vague idea of how unrealistic is thinking earth will just turn into a fireball, and quantify all this. It's all unprecise and no idea what the real numbers are but I'll work with worse case scenarios and min max, as to get an idea of what order of magnitude to expect. The idea is really not to get a precise estimate but an idea of the possible MIN and MAX. I'll assume the following: Between AD 1000 and 1800 CO2 atmospheric levels were around 280, and from 1800 to 2000 they rose to 400, let's assume all 120 was manmade (past 10,000 years levels have been very slowly going up so it makes sense to believe it was mostly manmade). We have enough fossil fuels to burn to raise earth atmosphere levels by 1000 ppm including idk 200 from melting ice. I haven't been able to find how much co2 would melting all ice release (what a surprise) and neither a good estimate of how much burning all reserves would do (you'd think they would bother looking at this if their lives were threatened). But considering 6.66 times what we emitted already since 1800 I think is fair. Some data: Earth's atmosphere contains 3,200,000,000,000 (3.2 trillion) tonnes of CO2 (0.04%). Earth mass = 5.972 × 10²⁴ kg. The average temperature on the Moon (at the equator and mid latitudes) varies from -298 degrees Fahrenheit (-183 degrees Celsius), at night, to 224 degrees Fahrenheit (106 degrees Celsius) during the day. No atmosphere there (10 metric tonnes...). Moon mass = 7.347 x 10²² kg (1.23% earth). Water is earth bigger warming contributor. When CO2 goes up, plants may be able to take more H20 in, also NASA has observed earth and it is greener. So, when CO2 goes up, water, the top global warming gaz, gets sucked up from the atmosphere. No idea how big of a difference this makes. Temperatures: Earth 289°K Venus 743°K Mercury 700 degrees Kelvin in the day, minus 93 K at night. Average temperature of 440 K. Mars 213 deg K or 218K??? Moon 379°K at day, 90°K at night. Pressures: Earth 1- Considering there is a direct correlation between CO2 quantity & temperature. a- Compared to Mars Mars is 11% the size of earth, and 95% of its atmosphere is CO2. There is 23,750,000,000,000 (23.75 trillion) tonnes. +6 degrees assuming all of those 6 degrees are cause by CO2, means an increase of 0.25263°K per trillion tonne of CO2. Also we assume earth has the same correlation. So say you increase earth CO2 up to 1400 ppm. The quantity of CO2 goes from 3.2 trillion tonnes to 11.2, or 8*10^12 tonnes are added. ==> +2°K/°C or + 3.6°F. An increase of 120 ppm using this formula would cause + 0.2425°C or 0.4365°F. Since industrial age temperature went up 0.7°C if I recall. So it seems plausible that a third of it was due to human activity (and 2/3 because of natural activities). Not sure how much it went up since the end of the little ice age in 1850. Mercury has +4 degrees. What if we assume Mars has the same? And so then CO2 only amounts to + 2 degrees? Then: + 1000 ppm in earth atmosphere ==> +0.666°K/°C or + 1.2°F Since the industrial age ==> +0.08°K/°C or 0.144°F Which seems plausible and reasonable. b- Compared to Venus Venus has ridiculously high levels of CO2. +503 degrees (K/C) for 460 million trillion tonnes of CO2. H20 is too small to be relevant here. So same, we just assume direct correlation. For every trillion tonne of CO2 added, temperature goes up 1,093478e-6 (0,000001093478) °K. + 1000 ppm ==> +8 trillion tonnes = 0,00000875 degrees Since the industrial age ==> + ~ 0,000001 degrees 2- And I won't go further but we could include planet size, atm pressure, other factors... For example, since mars is much smaller than earth, one could assume that 1 tonne of CO2 has a greater effect on Mars than on Earth. 3- What about comparing to earth? If we assume all warming since the little ice age was man made? First I doubt this is true. Temperatures were in the low area of support historically. And it started going up before emissions. But say we assume 0.8°K were the cause of human activities. In the 1950/1960 to 2000 period, when harmful chemicals were being released in the atmosphere (CFCs etc), temperature went up about 0.65°K. So outside of this we got a +0.2°K in 100 years? And temperature has flattened or barely went up since 2000. Well that depends how "adjusted" your data is. So without CFCs what? +0.25°K for a 120 ppm increase? It's all speculation, this is so unscientific. So at most +2.08°K for a 1000 ppm increase. This is consistent with the estimate using mars. For me, the absolute max, if all of earth warming was manmade is 2 degrees for an increase of 1000 ppm (8.33 what man has emitted until now). How much can CO2 concentrations go up realistically? Between 2000 and 2020 the level went up from 370 to 410, so +40. Between 1980 and 2000 the level went up from 340 to 370, so +30. Between 1960 and 1980 the level went up from 320 to 340, so +20. USA emissions have peaked in 2000 or the early 2000s and is declining. China peaked if I recall. Europe peaked. Then the big ones are India and Africa. Well anyway, let's say it keeps going up a bit then peaks at double what is is now, 80 every 20 years. Let's say for the next 100 years this is what we get. 5 * 80 = 400 ppm. This would lead to an increase of 400 ppm. Maybe a bit more with ice melting, but this won't be hundreds. We probably will get at most half of the 1000 I used in my examples. So if I were to bet money, I would not bet on an average of more than 1 Kelvin for the next 100 years. At the very most, but probably under that. The effect of CO2 on °K has to be more complex than a simple linear correlation, and there has to be diminishing returns. It is a shame we don't have historical water contents, not that I know of. All I know is that CO2 and H20 were super high billions of years ago when life appeared. But anyway, that 0.00014% to 33% of the rise in temperatures since the end of the little ice age can be attributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2 seems reasonable. 1 to 10% seems the most reasonable but this isn't a fact. Also there is the small detail that earth temperature went up sharply exactly as Chlorofluorocarbons levels went up, and after their levels topped in 1990, earth temperature topped... Tiny irrelevant detail I know. Here are all the greenhouse gases concentrations (except water): cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov Methane is pretty annoying I don't see how we could stop this one without all starving. Red meat is a big problem, and for some reason people are obssessed with red meat. We can't increase methane levels tremendously forever. I'm not too worried about CO2, we'll run up of fossil fuels eventually, and raising the levels a bit helps plants grow, I just don't see how bad it can be. CFCs and other crap (Hydrofluorocarbon-23 (CHF3), Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), PFC-14 (CF4)) have thousands of times the global warming potential CO2 has even according to "the establishment" that hates CO2, and stay in the atmosphere for millenias. BUT we finally stopped trolling and polluting the planet with this crap. That was really insane. Methane thought... that one could be a big nuisance. Agriculture is releasing levels so huge. It disappears fast but does it just turn to CO2? If it peaks at a few thousands parts per billion, that's only a few ppm, and this disappears in 25 years, it would not add much CO2. A constant methane level that does some warming and then a tiny increase of CO2 level, maybe that's not that scary. Over the long term thought what would happen? All of this also agrees with the global warming going on Mars. With all the crazies that think they are going to die you'd think we'd know more on the subject... www.nasa.gov You also got Pluto that is warming while it distances itself from the sun. www.newscientist.com But it could be a coincidence, that thing alarmists deny exists. Correlation does not imply causation, unless it fits your agenda. Also, there could be a snowball effect with CO2 increasing water level in the atmosphere, but if this was the case we can all be absolutely certain we would know about it. We would not hear the end of it. There is either no increase in water levels, or they are even diminishing. If it never gets mentionned there is zero data than it is that it does not fit their agenda. Ok I found something about humidity: www.climate4you.com Surface humidity stayed flat. It's tiring to have to fight throught tons of idiotic nonsense and fear mongering and half truths to get any crumbs of data. High up it has been flat or slightly downtrending. Actually went up a little when temperature did not. And down or flat when temperature went up. I figured CFCs caused the big uptrend in earth temperature from 1950 to 2000 but I actually found a paper claiming CFCs caused global warming? Weird I never heard of this... Censorship I guess. Haven't read it yet. phys.org So I guess the trend will continue, at least small: Slight cooling for the next decades as cancer chemicals in the air levels decline or maybe the warming trend overtakes the cooling one in any case I don't expect any major move, better farmland yields with more CO2, better living conditions as long as fossil fuel reserves are high. I also expect more "data adjustments", temperature charts with extreme isolated points rather than year averages, still no answer as to why ocean temperature went up, and more 12 year ultimatums lmao pathetic liers. Well that's enough thinking for now. All I know is I won't invest in renewable companies for now. Electric cars? Never. Biofuels are good but it's 50-100 years early. I really love the idea of hydroplants also.
NYMEX:CL1!Education
by MrRenev
3
Demand will go up..."Speculators are people with better than average foresight that step in as buyers when there is an excess in supply, store commodity, and then release the commodity when there is a drop in supply (or rise in demand)" (Nicholas Kaldor, economist) Here, there is the possibility of profiting from having this better than average foresight. Simply looking at the truth about the climate hoax, intuitively we might think it's not that hard, how does it make someone so special? Well the majority, the brainwashed herd, as usual, is falling for it. They are the average. Speculating is more complicated than buying Oil right now and selling in a few years when demand goes up. And doesn't have to be this way too it can be taking quick long trades over and over. Plus demand could not go up for many reasons. Each time power thirsty control freak politicians tried to stop "greedy speculators from profiting" the result was devastating. As in people starving (but at least mean speculators didn't profit from selling expensive food to hungry people), as in people on the US east coast burning fuel to warm the pool they don't even use since it was so cheap with a forced price while people on the freezing west coast are dying because there is not enough fuel to heat themselves up (and since the prices are fixed there is no profit to be made no trader is going to buy on the east and sell to the west). Help make the world a better place and get a cut for doing it right. This is how I'll build this idea: 1- A few facts that go against the climate change narrative 2- What keeps the demand low? Where will all this demand come from? 3- When will prices go up? Where is the bottom? 1- A few facts that go against the climate change narrative I can't make a big demonstration here it would be a whole book. I'm just going to keep it simple and list a couple of facts. Disproving things the conspiracy club says, and showing they are dishonest (or just stupid). a. Windmills I started softly, with arguable info. Time to bring the big guns out. Brace yourselves, an upside down brain moment is coming. b. Desertification/deforestation/death of plants **************** Wondered why the CO2 charts go down every summer? Who would have thought? Increasing the levels of plant food in the air makes plant grow bigger and multiply more. Not only they get more food to eat (which is around all time low for the planet more on that later), but also more water, as they do not need to open up as much to catch what little co2 is available, they retain more water. Bet you never heard of this: www.nasa.gov The Sahel too is getting greener. **************** c. Polar bears & Walrusses d. Too much co2 for earth to handle All time low... e. Earth cannot survive rising temperatures Do people actually believe those comical claims? I'm pissing myself when I look at the actual data and then see moronic clowns like Al Gore act all serious and tell every one to repent or the world is going to end soon. Oh by the way, remember, we only have 10 years left, just like 10 years ago we only had 10 years left, and 20 years ago too we only had 10 years left honk honk. And millions of sheep in the street demonstrating to "save the planet". I just cringe. All I see are gullible sheep that didn't bother looking at the facts. Same old, same old... f. Rising temperatures are due to rising co2 levels. Looking at the co2 levels and temperature we can notice periods where co2 is very high and temperature very low, and periods of millions of years with low co2 and high temperature. This does not mean it does not have some impact of course. But it is yet another fact that puts the narrative into question. Propagators of the climate hoax are so dishonest, they draw charts to make them look as correlated as possible. Let's look at data since 1880: Which one looks more correlated... g. Firing "deniers" and rewarding alarmists Plenty of examples of this you can find. Most academic that dare to speak up are retired or close to retirement and have nothing to lose. Ah also, science in general has a "replication" problem at the moment. This means herd mentality. It has always existed (the person that discovered tectonic plates was openly ridiculed when he presented his findings) But from what I heard it got bigger today. h. 97% of climate scientists agree This comes from: - Some dude with 0 background, that runs an alarmist blog, did a google research and he says he found 97% of papers in the results that were mentionning climate change were not arguing about something or agreeing with certain things (I kid you not that's it) - A poll sent to scientists asked them "do you think temperatures have been rising since 1900" and "do you think humans have produced co2". Or some insane questions like this, something similar. Of course every one answered yes! THIS. THIS is what they base their assumption on. THIS is what they use to convince people that every scientist agrees with the WHOLE narrative and toxic marxist ideas. They just keep lying, it's so disgusting. Lies lies more lies. It never ends. "But it's for a good cause" is what they are thinking. i. Wildfires are increasing. The chart climate clowns show you: The chart they don't want you to see: It's not all! Ready for the ultimate pun? j. Sea level worrying rise In the past 100 years sea levels have rising 10 inches! Very worrying! Soon we will all be flooded! I could go on, there is so much on this. I still haven't find 1 claim that was some sort of lie. 2- What keeps the demand low? Where will all this demand come from? Something that hit the price hard was discovering Saudi Arabia had massive reserves. But what reasons would there be for demand to go up? I'll try covering the main reason, without going too much into details. a. Cars In NA EU JP there are about 500 to 800 cars per person. China is at 180 cars/person (and on an uptrend), India is at 22, uptrend too. Almost 3 billion people live there. x Electric cars won't replace fuel cars, and even if they did the electricity would have to come from somewhere... It would actually use up more fossil fuels with electric cars. "Visionaries" have been claiming electric cars would take over oil cars for 100 years. Actually probably ever since far more efficient fuel cars replaced electric cars. You can go and find headlines from 1950 with "electric cars are the future". b. Meat consumption. It's going to rise. In china it is rising. It requires energy. Simple. c. Earth population. Oil Coal Gas supply = constant. Earth population = predicted to keep rising. Supply constant, demand up. No brainer. d. Africa. 1.3 billion (and rising rapidely) people live in Africa. Nigeria alone is home to 200 million. When African nations stop having such toxic regulations and become more business friendly, and/or realise the climate change narrative is a hoax (they started questionning europe and complaining about not being allowed to have their own industrial revolution like europe did), their energy consumption is going to go 100 fold. With the internet everywhere now, every one has access to the truth if they desire (even with google hiding results some people can find out the truth and spread the word) ===> So in conclusion, with supply remaining constant, or perhaps making small improvements, and demand being multiplied (1 billion people in the west at peak consumption, 3 billion in SEA at mid consumption and 1.5 billion in Africa soon more at very low consumption), we can guesstimate that demand will be multiplied by 2, 3, 5, maybe even more. It is also possible that countries invest heavilly in hydroelectricity and nuclear, which are great, and we won't run out of those. But it is very doubtful that there will be so much of those that it will counter the massive rise in demand of the next decades. e. Reserves are not infinite. I don't know how much we have left. Probably the "only 70 years left" are lies. So I'll skip this point. 3- When will prices go up? Where is the bottom? Who knows? At some point, there should be an uptrend. When some new regulations hit, big laws affecting hundreds of millions of people, maybe Congo started a plan to build 100 power plants, or China & India dropped of the Paris accord scam (they promised they would keep raising their emissions at the same rate they already had), with the intention of sending their fossil fuel usage up the roof, etc, then, the price of affected energy sources can go spiking +15% in a day as reaction to the news. Right now alarmist are doing their best to push the price down but I don't really see big sudden moves down happening. Will be riskier to short than buy imo. Seems logical prices will stagnate or drop for now, but the bears really are doing everything they can (lie) to keep prices low without that much success, eventually the forces of demand from Asia will take over and prices will trend up. Recently (since 2007) there have been big advancements in fracking technology, which has helped lower prices. This is "short term", it drops the price during the short term, but the long term underlying realities are still present, so there was a surge in supply, and its getting more constant now, with demand slowly creeping up. Once Africa joins the party, or even if India accelerates their development, demand will go boom boom. And one has to wonder, how much can extraction tech advance? At some point there are physical limits no? More research is needed, maybe oil exporters have 10 times the production capacity they are using now. But this is enough for this idea. Lol maybe someone will make a scanner that sees oil and we'll see the whole Arabia peninsula covered in several kilometers deep reserves of Oil and every one will feel their head spin watching this. Just keep an eye on what's happening. We'll see it progressively develop, and there will be plenty of buying opportunities. Also, there are going to be investment opportunities... In energy companies, in Africa perhaps...
NYMEX:CL1!Long
by MrRenev
7