22 января, 07:01

Increased M&A activity could boost oil production

More mergers and acquisitions could be in store for the oil patch in 2018, experts say, boosted by oil prices at levels not seen in 30 months and a flurry of available acreage as companies focus on their very best plays. But some are concerned that more acquisitions, especially in the US, could mean surging production […] The post Increased M&A activity could boost oil production appeared first on The Barrel Blog.

Выбор редакции
19 января, 21:45

Does Chesapeake Energy Corporation’s (NYSE:CHK) Earnings Growth Make It An Outperformer?

  • 0

For long term investors, improvement in profitability and outperformance against the industry can be important characteristics in a stock. In this article, I will take a look at Chesapeake EnergyRead More...

16 января, 17:47

New Jersey Resources' Unit Seeks Permit for 84-Mile Pipeline

New Jersey Resources' (NJR) Adelphia Gateway unit gears up to meet rising demand for natural gas, as it seeks permit for the operation of 84 mile gas pipeline in Pennsylvania.

14 января, 07:30

» В Америке лютует зима. Запасы газа на исходе

Политинформация   » В Америке лютует зима. Запасы газа на исходе | 1 январь 2017 | Экономика и финансы |     Рынок природного газа испытал на себе давление в декабре на фоне резкого похолодания. EIA сообщила о неожиданном снижении запасов в течение недели, закончившейся 16 декабря, когда было зафиксировано падение на 209 млрд куб. футов.     Таким образом, общий уровень запасов составляет 3,597 млрд куб. футов, что на 78 млрд куб. футов выше среднего показателя за пять лет.   Подобный сценарий было трудно представить еще в начале этого года, когда в США после пика спроса во время зимнего сезона оставались рекордные уровни запасов газа. Цены упали ниже $2 за млн британских термических единиц.   Однако добыча природного газа неожиданно начала падать после многих лет роста, что явно противоречит прогнозам по переизбытку поставок в течение ближайших лет. В то же время спрос продолжает расти, учитывая, что газовые электростанции заменяют уголь.   Поэтому, несмотря на то что потребление природного газа носит ярко выраженный сезонный характер, сезонные пики становятся все выше. Структурный спрос продолжает рост.   К середине декабря арктический циклон обрушился на большую часть США, сбив температуру до крайне низкого уровня.   В результате уровень градусо-дней – мера спроса на газ, необходимого для отопления дома, – вырос на 11% выше среднего.   Но сезонные изменения все еще оказывают влияние. В первые три недели декабря потребление природного газа в США составило в среднем 92 млрд куб. футов в сутки, что на 21% выше уровня год назад и на 17% выше среднего показателя за пять лет. Другими словами, США потребляют природный газ на рекордно высоком уровне, что приводит к гораздо более быстрому истощению запасов, чем было прогнозировано ранее в этом году.   Конечным результатом станет рост цен на природный газ, которые превысят $3,70 за млн БТЕ, это самая высокая цена за последние годы.     Ужесточение рынка и рост цен – находка для газовых бурильщиков, которые находятся в опале у инвесторов последние годы из-за постоянно низких цен.   Акции Chesapeake Energy, одного из крупнейших производителей природного газа в США, взлетели более чем на 300% в этом году. Более того, за последние несколько месяцев они выросли более чем на треть, что явно отражает рост цен на газ.   По мере улучшения ситуации на рынке начинает расти и количество буровых на газовых месторождениях. Добыча природного газа росла в течение многих лет, вплоть до начала 2016 г. Несмотря на это, в течение нескольких лет производители газа страдали от низких цен.   Причина в том, что даже когда прекратился рост добычи природного газа, резкий скачок в добыче нефти привел к повышению добычи нефтяного газа. Таким образом, несмотря на то что упало количество газовых буровых установок, объем добычи не сократился, то есть крах цен на нефть не остановил процесс бурения нефтяных скважин.   В настоящее время рост цен на газ может привести к всплеску бурения газовых скважин, так как компании намерены сфокусироваться на добыче газа. Количество буровых газовых установок в настоящее время достигает 129, которые выросли более чем на 30% за последние несколько месяцев.   Большинство из этих дополнительных буровых установок – на месторождениях сланцевого газа Марцелл и Ютика в Пенсильвании и Огайо, а также в Хайнсвиль в Луизиане, одном из самых богатых газом районов страны.   Угольная отрасль может уйти на второй план при более высоких ценах на природный газ. 2016 г. должен стать первым годом, в котором газ контролировал большую часть рынка, чем уголь. Несмотря на то что тенденция в отношении газа продолжится, в ближайшей перспективе все внимание стоит обратить на угольные электростанции из-за сокращения поставок газа.   Несмотря на то что рост цен на газ затронул бурильщиков, газ дорожает, что многих не радует. Нефтехимическим компаниям, использующим газ в качестве сырья для ряда продуктов, включая пластмассы и удобрения, придется платить больше. То же самое касается и потребителей.   Остается ждать взлета уровня добычи. Если этого не произойдет, холодная зима и рост структурного спроса на газ могут столкнуться с дальнейшим ростом цен, который потенциально может составить $4 за млн британских термических единиц перед началом сезона весной. Могут дать о себе знать региональные особенности. Зимой 2014 г. дефицит привел к массовому скачку цен в Новой Англии. Сейчас это маловероятно, однако исключать это полностью тоже нельзя.     О сланцевой революции заговорили давно, еще до бума бурения нефтяных скважин. Сейчас все внимание может вновь сфокусироваться на сланцевом газе.   Конец статьи.   От Ерашова: Статья очень противоречивая, как и вся информация но газу в США. Я бы выделил цитату: Однако добыча природного газа неожиданно начала падать после многих лет роста, что явно противоречит прогнозам по переизбытку поставок в течение ближайших лет. Конец цитаты.   Если это так, то это серьезный повод Европе задуматься о своей политике по отношению к Российскому газу, стоит ли "Северному потоку 2" палки а колеса вставлять?   Мы будем очень внимательно следить за тем, что происходит на газовом рынке США, и своевременно вас информировать, газовые тяжбы в Европе - это ключ к пониманию многих геополитических событий.

12 января, 14:40

Главным событием рынка США станет выход отчетностей JPMorgan Chase и Wells Fargo

Сезон отчетности на низком старте . Единственный негатив, оставшийся после вчерашнего дня - слишком уж все хорошо! Оптимизм перехлестывает через край - причем по всем фронтам. Растет фондовый рынок, растет нефть, растет золото. Ну что еще для полного счастья нужно? Правда невольно вспоминается ситуация лета 2008 года, когда точно также росло абсолютно все - и финансовые активы, и коммодитиз. Что было потом - мы тоже прекрасно знаем. Но мы, к сожалению, не знаем, что будет на этот раз и, главное, когда? И поэтому пока будет радоваться тому, что имеем. Главными "забойщиками" роста вчера были акции сырьевых компаний и прежде всего акции независимых нефте- и газодобывающих компаний. В среднем они выросли вчера на 1,7%. А рост в отдельных акциях был гораздо больше. Так, акции Chesapeake Energy (CHK) взлетели на 4,75%, а акции Anadarko Petroleum (APC) и того больше - на 5,58%.

21 декабря 2017, 17:52

4 Attractive Energy Stocks Trading Near 52-Week Low

Amid oil prices recovery and declining inventories, the energy stocks are likely to witness growth. Hence, some of these stocks with strong fundamentals are perfect buys.

Выбор редакции
06 декабря 2017, 09:25

THE BLIND CONSPIRACY: The Gold Market Is Heading Towards A Big Fundamental Change

By The SRSrocco Report, The gold market is heading towards a big fundamental change that few are prepared.  While many analysts in the alternative media community suggest that the gold price is manipulated due to Fed and Central bank intervention, there is another more obscure rationale that is the likely culprit.  I call it, "The Blind Conspiracy." But, before I get into the details of this Blind Conspiracy, there are a few very troubling developments in the alternative media community that I would like to discuss first.  The bulk of these concerns has to do with the increasing amount of faulty analysis and misinformation as well as the peddling of lousy conspiracy theories on the internet. Why is this a big problem?  Because a lot of readers are being misguided as to the true nature of the serious predicament we are facing.  Half of the emails that I receive are from readers who are bringing up doubts based on other analysts' faulty analysis and misinformation.  Thus, it takes a great deal of effort to provide the real facts and data to counteract the damage being done by certain individuals, even those with good intentions. Furthermore, an increasing number of so-called precious metals analysts have switched over to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, believing that gold and silver will no longer function as monetary metals.  However, some of these analysts suggest that silver will still be valuable because it will be used as critical raw material in advanced products in our new HIGH-TECH WORLD.  I find this idea of a future modern high-tech world quite amusing when we can't even maintain the failing complex infrastructure we are currently using. American Society Of Civil Engineers 2017:  U.S. Infrastructure Grade Is...??? According to the Amercian Society Of Civil Engineers, ASCE, they just came out with their grade this year for U.S. infrastructure.  Does anyone want to guess what overall grade we received here in the good ole U.S. of A?  The ASCE gave us a D+: Well, at least a D+ isn't an "F" grade.  Here is the ASCE's Infrastructure Report Card Grading Scale for receiving a "D": "D" GRADE = POOR, AT RISKThe infrastructure is in poor to fair condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life. A large portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration. Condition and capacity are of serious concern with strong risk of failure. The ASCE U.S. Infrastructure Report also provides separate grades for different aspects of U.S. infrastructure.  For example, the U.S. Energy Infrastructure received a "D+" as well.  This is a brief description of the Energy Infrastructure: Much of the U.S. energy system predates the turn of the 21st century. Most electric transmission and distribution lines were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s with a 50-year life expectancy, and the more than 640,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines in the lower 48 states’ power grids are at full capacity. Moreover, the report states that $4.5 trillion needs to be invested 2016-2025 to raise the U.S. infrastructure to a "B' Grade.  However, only $2.5 trillion has been budgeted.  Thus, we are $2 trillion short of the total amount needed.  Regardless, I doubt we will be able to spend anywhere close to the budgeted $2.5 trillion over the next decade for our infrastructure.  Unfortunately, I see the U.S. Government and private sector running into serious financial trouble by 2020 as the massive amount of debt and derivatives finally take down the system. So, the question remains.  How are we going to move into a new HIGH-TECH world if we can't even maintain our current infrastructure? The notion that we can bring on some new "Energy Technology" fails to consider the tremendous amount of raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, and logistics to repair and maintain our current infrastructure.  You see, we have much bigger problems than just replacing an energy source or technology.  But, to understand that principle, you must look past superficial thinking and "Silver-Bullet energy technologies." Now, if you hear certain analysts suggesting that gold and silver will no longer be used as money in the future because cryptocurrencies will take over the monetary role in our new high-tech world, you may want to contact them and provide the link to the U.S. Infrastructure D+ Grade Report. Destroying Once Again.... Certain Myths About The Gold Market If I collected an ounce of gold for every email that I have received about patently false gold myths and conspiracies; I could buy one hell of a lot of silver....LOL.  Gosh, if I went back to my email folder and added up all the emails on this subject, it would number well over 500 in my ten years publishing articles in the alternative media community.  However, I continue to receive the same type of emails because individuals are still being misled. Before I begin, let me say that I focus my work on disproving the faulty analysis by other individuals, and not directing anything negative towards the person.  I am adamantly against the idea of "targeting the messenger."  Rather, I like to target the faulty message.  So, there is nothing personal in my attempt to set the record straight. Let me start off by saying.... THERE AREN'T MILLIONS OF TONS OF HIDDEN GOLD in the world.  Anyone who continues to believe this needs to pay close attention to the following information. One of my readers sent me the following recent YouTube video by Bix Weir, titled "Vast Gold Riches Hidden In The Grand Canyon": In the video, Bix quotes a New York Times article published on June 19, 1912, that proclaimed vast gold riches in the Grand Canyon.  According to Bix, this massive gold find is what prompted the starting of the Federal Reserve because billions of ounces of new gold from the Grand Canyon dumped into the market would destroy the monetary system. While this may sound plausible to the layman, if we carefully read the article and do some additional research, we will come to a much different conclusion than what Mr. Weir is suggesting. First, Bix makes a grave error during the interview when he states "billions of ounces of gold," rather than "billions of Dollars of gold."  Here is the segment of the article: There's a big difference between a billion ounces of gold and a billion dollars worth of gold.  For example, the market price of gold in 1912 was $20.65 an ounce.  If we assume that $2 billion worth of gold was extracted from the Grand Canyon, it would equal approximately 100 million oz of gold.  If we take it a step further and convert it to metric tons, it would equal 3,110 metric tons.... a figure much much lower than one million tons stated by Mr. Weir. Second, the article provides us with an idea of the very low quality of the gold found in the silt on the banks of the Grand Canyon: As we can see, the individual in charge of the mining operation in the Grand Canyon stated that the value of gold was worth 50 cents per yard.  When gold miners refer to a "yard," they mean a cubic yard or a volume that equals 1.3 tons.  With an ounce of gold worth $20 in 1912, 50 cents a yard is a tiny amount of gold.  Thus, 50 cents worth of gold in a yard is approximately 0.025 oz or one-fortieth of an ounce of gold. Let's compare the supposed vast Grand Canyon gold riches worth 50 cents a yard to the gold mining that took place in Alaska during the same period.  According to the data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in 1912 Report: This chart represents "Placer" gold mining in Alaska, which was the same type of gold mining that took place on the banks of the Grand Canyon.  Placer gold mining is the process of washing gold from gravel, sand or silt.  Lode mining is extracting gold ores from veins in rock.  Here we can see that the average value of gold recovered in Alaska in 1912 was $2.10 per cubic yard.  Now, why on earth would anyone want to go to the remote location in the Grand Canyon and mine gold for 50 cents a yard when you could receive four times as much in Alaska???  Please, someone forward that information to Mr. Weir. Third, the notion of extracting Billions of Dollars of gold from the Grand Canyon fails logistics miserably.  Let's overlook  Mr. Weir's error in quoting billions of ounces of gold rather than billion dollars of gold and consider the tremendous logistics of mining that amount gold out of the Grand Canyon.  According to the same U.S. Bureau of Mines 1912 Report linked above, Alaska produced a total of 7.4 million oz of gold worth $154 million between 1880 and 1912: So, in over three decades of mining placer gold in Alaska, the total amount was $154 million.  Furthermore, the value of the gold per yard was likely much higher between 1880-1900.  Regardless, it took a great deal of human resources, energy, and capital to produce the $154 million worth of gold and the most ever produced in one year during that time-period in Alaska, was 1,066,000 oz of gold in 1906 valued at over $22 million. Which brings us to the next logical conclusion.... was it ever possible for anyone to produce billions of dollars worth of gold valued at 50 cents a yard in the Grand Canyon when a small percentage of that amount ($154 million) took over three decades to produce in Alaska?  Hell, even during the mighty California Gold Rush of 1848, the peak year of 3.9 million ounces in 1852 was only worth $80 million.  However, the average annual gold production for the California gold rush was only 1.3 million ounces per year valued at $26 million.  It would take a great deal of time mining gold during the famous California Gold Rush to equal just $1 billion. Even at $1 billion, that is only 50 million oz of gold or a measly 1,555 metric tons of gold.  Again, nowhere near the one million tons of gold suggested by Mr. Weir. Lastly, the supposed vast gold riches in the Grand Canyon came to a dismal end.  That's correct.  If we spent a few minutes doing a bit of research on the internet, we would find out The Rest Of The Ugly Story. (American Placer Gold - Spencer Mining Operation 1911, Grand Canyon) According to Arizona State history of gold mining at Lee Ferry in the Grand Canyon, the American Placer Gold company needed coal to process the gold.  Unfortunately, the only coal seam was 28 miles away.  So, the gold mining investors decided to incorporate a steamboat to transport the coal: Investors decided a 92-foot steamboat would improve coal transport and gold production; it was ordered and assembled by late February 1912. Dubbed the Charles H. Spencer, the steamboat performed the way it was supposed to, but it burned most of the coal it transported in the process. Spencer also had trouble with his amalgamator and by 1912 his investors had seen enough and shut the project down. Spencer left, and his boat sank to the bottom of the Colorado River. The Charles H. Spencer is now on the National Register of Historic Places as a shipwreck in Arizona. Just consider for a moment the type of intellectual thought process taken by these investors who couldn't understand that the steamboat would consume most of the coal during its 28-mile trip. Thus, the LIFE & DEATH of the Great Vast Gold Riches in the Grand Canyon came to an abrupt end, not because there were billions of ounces of gold that would destroy the global monetary system, but rather due to the typical mistake made by investors.  And that is... the belief that utterly incompetent management and miners could extract low-quality gold that is uneconomical to produce. So, if we look at the New York Times article that Mr. Weir quotes as his source of billions of ounces of gold, we can logically assume that it was likely written by the company spokesman to get more POOR UNWORTHY INVESTOR SLOBS to purchase the American Placer Gold stock before it went belly-up.  It's called the PUMP and DUMP.... a shady stock marketing technique that has been going on for hundreds of years. If we can have an open mind and the ability to discern fact from fiction or lousy conspiracy theories, we can finally put an end to the notion that the world has a Million Tons of Hidden Gold in the world. THE BLIND CONSPIRACY:  The Gold Market Is Heading Towards A Big Fundamental Change Now that we have dispensed with certain conspiracies that don't pass the smell test, there is a real one that very few are aware.  I call it the BLIND CONSPIRACY.  The interesting thing about this conspiracy is that nobody really knows about it.  However, it behaves like a conspiracy because many individuals and parties are manipulating the market which is providing a false sense of security to the average investor. Thus, investors with a false sense of security, continue to invest in STOCKS, BONDS, and REAL ESTATE at amazing inflated values.  Today, the Dow Jones hit a new record high of 24,272 points: If you look at this chart of the Dow Jones Index, it is starting to resemble the Bitcoin chart.  However, Bitcoin's graph is moving up at a level  ten times more insane than the Dow Jones Index: While the Dow Jones Index increased 4,200 points, or 21% since the beginning of 2017, the Bitcoin price has surged more than $9,000, or a staggering 1,125% increase.  Furthermore, the Bitcoin price doubled in just the past month.  This is completely insane.  Even though a lot of Bitcoin enthusiasts are shouting for $20,000 and $100,000 Bitcoin, if we are ever going to get there, there needs to be a serious correction first.  However, we may have already seen the top of Bitcoin at $11,400. Folks, nothing goes straight up and then continues even higher.  I would be very cautious about investing in Bitcoin at this time.  Both the stock market and cryptocurrencies are extremely overbought... to say the least.  On the other hand, gold and silver have been selling off over the past several days and are even closer to their lows and cost of production. Getting back to the Blind Conspiracy and the Big Fundamental Change in the gold market, investors are entirely in the dark about the dire energy predicament we are facing.  I continue to receive emails from individuals in various industries that tell me the "Situation is MUCH WORSE than you realize."  Also, there are good CLUES published in the media if you are IN-TUNE to this information. According to this jewel, titled Oil Major: 70% Of Crude Can Be Left In The Ground, by Nick Cunnigham: “A lot of fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground, coal obviously … but you will also see oil and gas being left in the ground, that is natural,” Statoil’s CEO Eldar Saetre told Reuters in an interview. “At Statoil we are not pursuing certain types of resources, we are not exploring for heavy oil or investing in oilsands. If heavy oil and oil sands are to be left unproduced, then a lot of oil will need to stay in the ground. According to the USGS, about 70 percent of the world’s discovered oil reserves are in the form of heavy oil and bitumen. Much of that comes from Venezuela – one of the last places in the world that an oil company wants to do business in these days – and Canada. Last year, Statoil abandoned Canada’s oil sands, selling off its assets to Athabasca Oil Corp. But Statoil is hardly alone in the exodus. ConocoPhillips unloaded a whopping $13.3 billion of oil sands assets to Cenovus Energy earlier this year. Shell sold off $4.1 billion in oil sands assets to Canadian Natural Resources. Meanwhile, ExxonMobil wrote off 3.5 billion barrels of oil sands from its book in February, admitting that they were unviable in today’s market. ConocoPhillips’ CEO said that it would no longer invest in any oil project that needs a breakeven price of $50 or higher, according to the FT. If the Major Oil Industry believes that upwards of 70% of the oil reserves should be left in the ground, how much do we really have left to produce??  Furthermore, it was quite surprising to see that the ConocoPhillips CEO said they would no longer invest in oil projects with a breakeven above $50.  Folks, there aren't many oil discoveries available with a price tag less than $50 a barrel. Again, the clues are all around.  Let me repost the completely awful financial results by the second largest natural gas producer in the United States.  Chesapeake Energy produced the second highest amount of natural gas during the first nine months of 2017 at 2.9 billion cubic feet per day compared to ExxonMobil's 3.1 billion cubic feet per day.  So, what benefit did Chesapeake receive for producing the country's second largest amount of natural gas?  Take a look at the Q3 2017 Cash Flow Statement: After everything was considered, Chesapeake's operations provided $273 million in cash (shown in the highlighted yellow).  For those who are not familiar with Cash Flow Statements, we subtract capital expenditures from cash from operations to arrive at their FREE CASH FLOW.  Unfortunately for Chesapeake, they spent a staggering $1.6 billion (highlighted in blue) on drilling and completion costs (capital) to produce their natural gas and oil.  Thus, Chesapeake's Free Cash Flow was a negative $1.3 billion. That would have been terrible news if it wasn't for the sale of properties of worth $1,193 million ($1.2 billion.. two lines below the highlighted blue line).  Which means, the financial wizards at Chesapeake used asset sales to help pay for their natural gas drilling capital expenditures.  How long can Chesapeake sell properties to fund their drilling costs?? Are we starting to get a PICTURE here?  Regrettably, even highly trained energy analysts do not understand that the oil and gas industry is cannibalizing itself just to stay alive.  If investors do not understand just how bad our energy situation has become, they are BLINDLY investing in the worst assets (STOCKS, BONDS & REAL ESTATE) that derive their value from the burning of ENERGY. This is the BLIND CONSPIRACY.  It's taking place right in front of our eyes, and virtually no one sees it. We are going to experience a Massive Fundamental Change in the gold market because investors will finally begin to understand what a true store of wealth is versus one that is an ENERGY IOU.  Stocks, Bonds, and Real Estate get their value from burning energy IN THE FUTURE, while a gold or silver coin bought today, received its value from burning energy IN THE PAST.  That is a big difference that investors, even precious metals investors fail to realize. Lastly, if you want to pay more for precious metals, than I suggest you don't check out our PRECIOUS METALS INVESTING section or our new LOWEST COST PRECIOUS METALS STORAGE page. Check back for new articles and updates at the SRSrocco Report.

06 декабря 2017, 09:25

THE BLIND CONSPIRACY: The Gold Market Is Heading Towards A Big Fundamental Change

By The SRSrocco Report, The gold market is heading towards a big fundamental change that few are prepared.  While many analysts in the alternative media community suggest that the gold price is manipulated due to Fed and Central bank intervention, there is another more obscure rationale that is the likely culprit.  I call it, "The Blind Conspiracy." But, before I get into the details of this Blind Conspiracy, there are a few very troubling developments in the alternative media community that I would like to discuss first.  The bulk of these concerns has to do with the increasing amount of faulty analysis and misinformation as well as the peddling of lousy conspiracy theories on the internet. Why is this a big problem?  Because a lot of readers are being misguided as to the true nature of the serious predicament we are facing.  Half of the emails that I receive are from readers who are bringing up doubts based on other analysts' faulty analysis and misinformation.  Thus, it takes a great deal of effort to provide the real facts and data to counteract the damage being done by certain individuals, even those with good intentions. Furthermore, an increasing number of so-called precious metals analysts have switched over to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, believing that gold and silver will no longer function as monetary metals.  However, some of these analysts suggest that silver will still be valuable because it will be used as critical raw material in advanced products in our new HIGH-TECH WORLD.  I find this idea of a future modern high-tech world quite amusing when we can't even maintain the failing complex infrastructure we are currently using. American Society Of Civil Engineers 2017:  U.S. Infrastructure Grade Is...??? According to the Amercian Society Of Civil Engineers, ASCE, they just came out with their grade this year for U.S. infrastructure.  Does anyone want to guess what overall grade we received here in the good ole U.S. of A?  The ASCE gave us a D+: Well, at least a D+ isn't an "F" grade.  Here is the ASCE's Infrastructure Report Card Grading Scale for receiving a "D": "D" GRADE = POOR, AT RISKThe infrastructure is in poor to fair condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life. A large portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration. Condition and capacity are of serious concern with strong risk of failure. The ASCE U.S. Infrastructure Report also provides separate grades for different aspects of U.S. infrastructure.  For example, the U.S. Energy Infrastructure received a "D+" as well.  This is a brief description of the Energy Infrastructure: Much of the U.S. energy system predates the turn of the 21st century. Most electric transmission and distribution lines were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s with a 50-year life expectancy, and the more than 640,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines in the lower 48 states’ power grids are at full capacity. Moreover, the report states that $4.5 trillion needs to be invested 2016-2025 to raise the U.S. infrastructure to a "B' Grade.  However, only $2.5 trillion has been budgeted.  Thus, we are $2 trillion short of the total amount needed.  Regardless, I doubt we will be able to spend anywhere close to the budgeted $2.5 trillion over the next decade for our infrastructure.  Unfortunately, I see the U.S. Government and private sector running into serious financial trouble by 2020 as the massive amount of debt and derivatives finally take down the system. So, the question remains.  How are we going to move into a new HIGH-TECH world if we can't even maintain our current infrastructure? The notion that we can bring on some new "Energy Technology" fails to consider the tremendous amount of raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, and logistics to repair and maintain our current infrastructure.  You see, we have much bigger problems than just replacing an energy source or technology.  But, to understand that principle, you must look past superficial thinking and "Silver-Bullet energy technologies." Now, if you hear certain analysts suggesting that gold and silver will no longer be used as money in the future because cryptocurrencies will take over the monetary role in our new high-tech world, you may want to contact them and provide the link to the U.S. Infrastructure D+ Grade Report. Destroying Once Again.... Certain Myths About The Gold Market If I collected an ounce of gold for every email that I have received about patently false gold myths and conspiracies; I could buy one hell of a lot of silver....LOL.  Gosh, if I went back to my email folder and added up all the emails on this subject, it would number well over 500 in my ten years publishing articles in the alternative media community.  However, I continue to receive the same type of emails because individuals are still being misled. Before I begin, let me say that I focus my work on disproving the faulty analysis by other individuals, and not directing anything negative towards the person.  I am adamantly against the idea of "targeting the messenger."  Rather, I like to target the faulty message.  So, there is nothing personal in my attempt to set the record straight. Let me start off by saying.... THERE AREN'T MILLIONS OF TONS OF HIDDEN GOLD in the world.  Anyone who continues to believe this needs to pay close attention to the following information. One of my readers sent me the following recent YouTube video by Bix Weir, titled "Vast Gold Riches Hidden In The Grand Canyon": In the video, Bix quotes a New York Times article published on June 19, 1912, that proclaimed vast gold riches in the Grand Canyon.  According to Bix, this massive gold find is what prompted the starting of the Federal Reserve because billions of ounces of new gold from the Grand Canyon dumped into the market would destroy the monetary system. While this may sound plausible to the layman, if we carefully read the article and do some additional research, we will come to a much different conclusion than what Mr. Weir is suggesting. First, Bix makes a grave error during the interview when he states "billions of ounces of gold," rather than "billions of Dollars of gold."  Here is the segment of the article: There's a big difference between a billion ounces of gold and a billion dollars worth of gold.  For example, the market price of gold in 1912 was $20.65 an ounce.  If we assume that $2 billion worth of gold was extracted from the Grand Canyon, it would equal approximately 100 million oz of gold.  If we take it a step further and convert it to metric tons, it would equal 3,110 metric tons.... a figure much much lower than one million tons stated by Mr. Weir. Second, the article provides us with an idea of the very low quality of the gold found in the silt on the banks of the Grand Canyon: As we can see, the individual in charge of the mining operation in the Grand Canyon stated that the value of gold was worth 50 cents per yard.  When gold miners refer to a "yard," they mean a cubic yard or a volume that equals 1.3 tons.  With an ounce of gold worth $20 in 1912, 50 cents a yard is a tiny amount of gold.  Thus, 50 cents worth of gold in a yard is approximately 0.025 oz or one-fortieth of an ounce of gold. Let's compare the supposed vast Grand Canyon gold riches worth 50 cents a yard to the gold mining that took place in Alaska during the same period.  According to the data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in 1912 Report: This chart represents "Placer" gold mining in Alaska, which was the same type of gold mining that took place on the banks of the Grand Canyon.  Placer gold mining is the process of washing gold from gravel, sand or silt.  Lode mining is extracting gold ores from veins in rock.  Here we can see that the average value of gold recovered in Alaska in 1912 was $2.10 per cubic yard.  Now, why on earth would anyone want to go to the remote location in the Grand Canyon and mine gold for 50 cents a yard when you could receive four times as much in Alaska???  Please, someone forward that information to Mr. Weir. Third, the notion of extracting Billions of Dollars of gold from the Grand Canyon fails logistics miserably.  Let's overlook  Mr. Weir's error in quoting billions of ounces of gold rather than billion dollars of gold and consider the tremendous logistics of mining that amount gold out of the Grand Canyon.  According to the same U.S. Bureau of Mines 1912 Report linked above, Alaska produced a total of 7.4 million oz of gold worth $154 million between 1880 and 1912: So, in over three decades of mining placer gold in Alaska, the total amount was $154 million.  Furthermore, the value of the gold per yard was likely much higher between 1880-1900.  Regardless, it took a great deal of human resources, energy, and capital to produce the $154 million worth of gold and the most ever produced in one year during that time-period in Alaska, was 1,066,000 oz of gold in 1906 valued at over $22 million. Which brings us to the next logical conclusion.... was it ever possible for anyone to produce billions of dollars worth of gold valued at 50 cents a yard in the Grand Canyon when a small percentage of that amount ($154 million) took over three decades to produce in Alaska?  Hell, even during the mighty California Gold Rush of 1848, the peak year of 3.9 million ounces in 1852 was only worth $80 million.  However, the average annual gold production for the California gold rush was only 1.3 million ounces per year valued at $26 million.  It would take a great deal of time mining gold during the famous California Gold Rush to equal just $1 billion. Even at $1 billion, that is only 50 million oz of gold or a measly 1,555 metric tons of gold.  Again, nowhere near the one million tons of gold suggested by Mr. Weir. Lastly, the supposed vast gold riches in the Grand Canyon came to a dismal end.  That's correct.  If we spent a few minutes doing a bit of research on the internet, we would find out The Rest Of The Ugly Story. (American Placer Gold - Spencer Mining Operation 1911, Grand Canyon) According to Arizona State history of gold mining at Lee Ferry in the Grand Canyon, the American Placer Gold company needed coal to process the gold.  Unfortunately, the only coal seam was 28 miles away.  So, the gold mining investors decided to incorporate a steamboat to transport the coal: Investors decided a 92-foot steamboat would improve coal transport and gold production; it was ordered and assembled by late February 1912. Dubbed the Charles H. Spencer, the steamboat performed the way it was supposed to, but it burned most of the coal it transported in the process. Spencer also had trouble with his amalgamator and by 1912 his investors had seen enough and shut the project down. Spencer left, and his boat sank to the bottom of the Colorado River. The Charles H. Spencer is now on the National Register of Historic Places as a shipwreck in Arizona. Just consider for a moment the type of intellectual thought process taken by these investors who couldn't understand that the steamboat would consume most of the coal during its 28-mile trip. Thus, the LIFE & DEATH of the Great Vast Gold Riches in the Grand Canyon came to an abrupt end, not because there were billions of ounces of gold that would destroy the global monetary system, but rather due to the typical mistake made by investors.  And that is... the belief that utterly incompetent management and miners could extract low-quality gold that is uneconomical to produce. So, if we look at the New York Times article that Mr. Weir quotes as his source of billions of ounces of gold, we can logically assume that it was likely written by the company spokesman to get more POOR UNWORTHY INVESTOR SLOBS to purchase the American Placer Gold stock before it went belly-up.  It's called the PUMP and DUMP.... a shady stock marketing technique that has been going on for hundreds of years. If we can have an open mind and the ability to discern fact from fiction or lousy conspiracy theories, we can finally put an end to the notion that the world has a Million Tons of Hidden Gold in the world. THE BLIND CONSPIRACY:  The Gold Market Is Heading Towards A Big Fundamental Change Now that we have dispensed with certain conspiracies that don't pass the smell test, there is a real one that very few are aware.  I call it the BLIND CONSPIRACY.  The interesting thing about this conspiracy is that nobody really knows about it.  However, it behaves like a conspiracy because many individuals and parties are manipulating the market which is providing a false sense of security to the average investor. Thus, investors with a false sense of security, continue to invest in STOCKS, BONDS, and REAL ESTATE at amazing inflated values.  Today, the Dow Jones hit a new record high of 24,272 points: If you look at this chart of the Dow Jones Index, it is starting to resemble the Bitcoin chart.  However, Bitcoin's graph is moving up at a level  ten times more insane than the Dow Jones Index: While the Dow Jones Index increased 4,200 points, or 21% since the beginning of 2017, the Bitcoin price has surged more than $9,000, or a staggering 1,125% increase.  Furthermore, the Bitcoin price doubled in just the past month.  This is completely insane.  Even though a lot of Bitcoin enthusiasts are shouting for $20,000 and $100,000 Bitcoin, if we are ever going to get there, there needs to be a serious correction first.  However, we may have already seen the top of Bitcoin at $11,400. Folks, nothing goes straight up and then continues even higher.  I would be very cautious about investing in Bitcoin at this time.  Both the stock market and cryptocurrencies are extremely overbought... to say the least.  On the other hand, gold and silver have been selling off over the past several days and are even closer to their lows and cost of production. Getting back to the Blind Conspiracy and the Big Fundamental Change in the gold market, investors are entirely in the dark about the dire energy predicament we are facing.  I continue to receive emails from individuals in various industries that tell me the "Situation is MUCH WORSE than you realize."  Also, there are good CLUES published in the media if you are IN-TUNE to this information. According to this jewel, titled Oil Major: 70% Of Crude Can Be Left In The Ground, by Nick Cunnigham: “A lot of fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground, coal obviously … but you will also see oil and gas being left in the ground, that is natural,” Statoil’s CEO Eldar Saetre told Reuters in an interview. “At Statoil we are not pursuing certain types of resources, we are not exploring for heavy oil or investing in oilsands. If heavy oil and oil sands are to be left unproduced, then a lot of oil will need to stay in the ground. According to the USGS, about 70 percent of the world’s discovered oil reserves are in the form of heavy oil and bitumen. Much of that comes from Venezuela – one of the last places in the world that an oil company wants to do business in these days – and Canada. Last year, Statoil abandoned Canada’s oil sands, selling off its assets to Athabasca Oil Corp. But Statoil is hardly alone in the exodus. ConocoPhillips unloaded a whopping $13.3 billion of oil sands assets to Cenovus Energy earlier this year. Shell sold off $4.1 billion in oil sands assets to Canadian Natural Resources. Meanwhile, ExxonMobil wrote off 3.5 billion barrels of oil sands from its book in February, admitting that they were unviable in today’s market. ConocoPhillips’ CEO said that it would no longer invest in any oil project that needs a breakeven price of $50 or higher, according to the FT. If the Major Oil Industry believes that upwards of 70% of the oil reserves should be left in the ground, how much do we really have left to produce??  Furthermore, it was quite surprising to see that the ConocoPhillips CEO said they would no longer invest in oil projects with a breakeven above $50.  Folks, there aren't many oil discoveries available with a price tag less than $50 a barrel. Again, the clues are all around.  Let me repost the completely awful financial results by the second largest natural gas producer in the United States.  Chesapeake Energy produced the second highest amount of natural gas during the first nine months of 2017 at 2.9 billion cubic feet per day compared to ExxonMobil's 3.1 billion cubic feet per day.  So, what benefit did Chesapeake receive for producing the country's second largest amount of natural gas?  Take a look at the Q3 2017 Cash Flow Statement: After everything was considered, Chesapeake's operations provided $273 million in cash (shown in the highlighted yellow).  For those who are not familiar with Cash Flow Statements, we subtract capital expenditures from cash from operations to arrive at their FREE CASH FLOW.  Unfortunately for Chesapeake, they spent a staggering $1.6 billion (highlighted in blue) on drilling and completion costs (capital) to produce their natural gas and oil.  Thus, Chesapeake's Free Cash Flow was a negative $1.3 billion. That would have been terrible news if it wasn't for the sale of properties of worth $1,193 million ($1.2 billion.. two lines below the highlighted blue line).  Which means, the financial wizards at Chesapeake used asset sales to help pay for their natural gas drilling capital expenditures.  How long can Chesapeake sell properties to fund their drilling costs?? Are we starting to get a PICTURE here?  Regrettably, even highly trained energy analysts do not understand that the oil and gas industry is cannibalizing itself just to stay alive.  If investors do not understand just how bad our energy situation has become, they are BLINDLY investing in the worst assets (STOCKS, BONDS & REAL ESTATE) that derive their value from the burning of ENERGY. This is the BLIND CONSPIRACY.  It's taking place right in front of our eyes, and virtually no one sees it. We are going to experience a Massive Fundamental Change in the gold market because investors will finally begin to understand what a true store of wealth is versus one that is an ENERGY IOU.  Stocks, Bonds, and Real Estate get their value from burning energy IN THE FUTURE, while a gold or silver coin bought today, received its value from burning energy IN THE PAST.  That is a big difference that investors, even precious metals investors fail to realize. Lastly, if you want to pay more for precious metals, than I suggest you don't check out our PRECIOUS METALS INVESTING section or our new LOWEST COST PRECIOUS METALS STORAGE page. Check back for new articles and updates at the SRSrocco Report.

Выбор редакции
02 декабря 2017, 01:52

What Does CNX Resources (CNX) Stock Offer to Investors?

CNX Resources Corporation (CNX) have enough tailwinds to come out strong performances going forward.

28 ноября 2017, 17:50

Is Chesapeake Energy (CHK) a Great Stock for Value Investors?

Let's see if Chesapeake Energy Corporation (CHK) stock is a good choice for value-oriented investors right now from multiple angles.

28 ноября 2017, 17:50

Is Chesapeake Energy (CHK) a Great Stock for Value Investors?

Let's see if Chesapeake Energy Corporation (CHK) stock is a good choice for value-oriented investors right now from multiple angles.

23 ноября 2017, 17:21

Oil Jumps to 2-Year High on Inventory Drop, Keystone Closure

Oil rose to a two-year high on Wednesday boosted by Keystone pipeline outage and expectations that oil producing countries will agree to extend a production cut deal.

Выбор редакции
21 ноября 2017, 14:41

Chesapeake Energy Corporation Could Be Setting up for a Big Breakout

Chesapeake Energy Corporation (NYSE:CHK) has been under pressure all year, down more than 40% in 2017. Let’s see what CHK stock price is doing and then dig into some of those numbers. If CHK stock price can breakout over $4, it could breathe new life into the name.

17 ноября 2017, 19:32

Cracks Are Showing in Chesapeake Energy Corporation Stock Price

2017 has delivered a frustrating one-two punch to Chesapeake Energy Corporation (NYSE:CHK). The CHK stock price sank for most of the year after briefly clearing $8 in December. Then, when oil prices finally rallied, boosting stocks in the sector, CHK seemed left out. In contrast, Devon Energy Corp (NYSE:DVN), also based in Oklahoma City, has seen a 32% jump off its lows and now has lost just 17% of its value in 2017.

Выбор редакции
15 ноября 2017, 17:06

U.S. SHALE OIL PRODUCTION UPDATE: Financial Carnage Continues To Gut Industry

By the SRSrocco Report, As the Mainstream media reports about the next phase of the glorious U.S. Shale Oil Revolution, the financial carnage continues to gut the industry deep down inside the entrails of its horizontal laterals.  The stench of fracking fluid must be driving shale oil advocates utterly insane as they are no longer able to see the financial wreckage taking place in these companies quarterly reports. This weekend, one of my readers sent me the following Bloomberg 45 minute TV special titled, The Next Shale Revolution.  If you are in need of a good laugh, I highly recommend watching part of the video.  At the beginning of the video, it starts off with President Trump stating that the U.S. has become an energy exporter for the first time ever.  Trump goes on to say, "that powered by new innovation and technology, we are now on the cusp of a new energy revolution."  While I have to applaud Trump's efforts for putting out some positive and reassuring news, I wonder who is providing him with terribly inaccurate energy information. I would kindly like to remind the reader; the United States is still a NET IMPORTER of oil.  We still import nearly six million barrels of oil per day, but we export some finished products and a percentage of our shale oil production.  Thus, we still import a net of approximately three million barrels per day of oil. A few minutes into the Bloomberg video, both Pioneer Resources Chairman, Scott Sheffield, and Continental Resources CEO, Harold Hamm, explain how advanced technology will revolutionize the shale oil industry and bring down costs.  I find that statement quite hilarious as Continental Resources and Pioneer continue to spend more money drilling for oil and gas then they make from their operations.  As I stated in a previous article, Continental Resources long-term debt ballooned from $165 million in 2007 to $6.5 billion currently.  So, how did advanced technology lower costs when Continental now has accumulated debt up to its eyeballs? Of course... it didn't.  Debt increased on Continental Resources balance sheet because shale oil production wasn't profitable... even at $100 a barrel.  So, now the investor who purchased Continental bonds and debt are the Bag Holders. Regardless, while U.S. oil production continues to increase at a moderate pace, there are some troubling signs in one of the country's largest shale oil fields. Shale Oil Production At the Mighty Eagle Ford Stagnates As Companies' Financial Losses Mount It was just a few short years ago that the energy industry was bragging about the tremendous growth of shale oil production at the mighty  Eagle Ford Region in Texas.  At the beginning of 2015, Eagle Ford oil production peaked at a record 1.7 million barrels per day (mbd).  Currently, it is nearly 500,000 barrels per day lower.  According to the EIA - U.S Energy Information Agency's most recently released Drilling Productivity Report, oil production in the Eagle Ford is forecasted to grow by ZERO barrels in December: The chart above suggests that the companies drilling and producing oil in the Eagle Ford spent one hell of a lot of money, just to keep production flat.  Even though the shale oil producers were able to bring on 88,000 barrels per day of new oil, the field lost 88,000 barrels per day due to legacy declines.  We need not take out a calculator to understand production growth at the Eagle Ford is a BIG PHAT ZERO. Here are the five largest shale oil and gas producers in the Eagle Ford where: EOG Resources ConocoPhillips BHP Billiton Chesapeake Energy Marathon Oil The company that doesn't quite fit in the energy group above is BHP Billiton.  BHP Billiton is one of the largest base metal mining companies in the world.  Unfortunately for BHP Billiton, the company decided to get into U.S. Shale at the worst possible time.  BHP Billiton bought shale oil properties when prices were high and eventually had to liquidate when prices were low.  A Rookie mistake made by supposed professionals.  I wrote about this in my article; DOMINOES BEGIN TO FALL: BHP Chairman Says $20 Billion Shale Investment “MISTAKE.” I decided to take a look at the current financial reports published by the five companies listed above.  The largest player in the Eagle Ford is EOG Resources.  I went to YahooFinance and created the following Cash Flow table for EOG: In the latest quarter (Q3 2017), EOG reported $961 million in cash from operations.  However, the company spent $1,094 million on capital (CAPEX) expenditures and another $96 million in shareholder dividends.  Applying simple arithmetic, EOG spent $229 million more on CAPEX and dividends than it made from its operations.  Maybe someone can tell me how advanced technology is bringing down the cost for EOG. The next largest player in the Eagle Ford is ConocoPhillips.  If we look at ConocoPhillips net income at its different business segments, we can see that the company isn't making any money producing oil and gas in the lower 48 states: While ConocoPhillips enjoyed a $103 million profit in Alaska, it suffered a $97 million loss in the lower 48 states.  Thus, the third largest oil company in the U.S. isn't making any money producing oil and gas in the majority of the country.  According to the data, ConocoPhillips produced twice as much oil and gas in the lower 48 states then what they reported in Alaska, but the company still lost $97 million. The third largest company producing oil in the Eagle Ford is BHP Billiton.  Instead of providing financial results, I thought this chart on BHP Billiton's Return On Capital Employed was a better indicator of how bad their U.S. Shale assets were performing.  If we look at the right-hand side of the chart, BHP Billiton's shale oil resources have become one hell of a drag on the company's asset portfolio: While BHP Billiton is enjoying a healthy positive Return On Capital Employed on most of its assets, shale oil resources are showing a negative return.  Furthermore, the company makes a note to above stating, "Detailed plans to improve, optimize or EXIT."  I would bet my bottom Silver Dollar that their decision will end up "EXITING" the wonderful world of shale energy, with the sale of their assets for pennies on the dollar. Moving down the list to the next shale company, we come to Chesapeake.  While Chesapeake is the country's second-largest natural gas producer, the company has been losing money for more than a decade.  Unfortunately, the situation hasn't improved for Chesapeake as its current financial statement reveals the company continues to burn through cash to produce its oil and gas: Chesapeake's net cash provided by its operating activities equaled $273 million for the first three-quarters of 2017.  However, the company spent a whopping $1,597 million on drilling and completion costs (CAPEX).  Thus, Chesapeake spent $1.3 billion more on producing its oil and natural gas Q1-Q3 2017 than it made from its operations.  Again, how is advanced technology making shale oil and gas more profitable? If it weren't for the asset sale of $1,193 million, Chesapeake would have needed to borrow that money to make up the difference.  Regrettably, selling assets to fortify one's balance sheet isn't a long-term viable business model.  There are only so many assets one can sell, and at some point, in the future, the market will realize those assets will have turned into worthless liabilities. Okay, we finally come to the fifth largest player in the Eagle Ford.... Marathon Oil.  The situation at Marathon isn't any better than the other companies drilling and producing oil in the Eagle Ford.  According to the companies third-quarter report, Marathon suffered a $600 million net income loss: Again, we have another example of an energy company losing a lot of money producing shale oil and gas.  You will notice how high Marathon's Depreciation, depletion, and amortization are in both the third-quarter and nine months ending on Sept 30th.  While some may believe this is just a tax write off for the company... it isn't.  Due to the massive decline rate in producing shale oil and gas, PLEASE SEE the FIRST CHART ABOVE on the EAGLE FORD GROWTH OF ZERO, these companies have to write off these assets as it represents the BURNING of CASH. For example, Marathon reported cash from operations of $1,487 million for Q3 2017.  However, it spent $1,305 million on CAPEX and $128 million on dividends for a total of $1,433 million.  Thus, Marathon actually enjoyed a small $53 million in positive free cash flow once dividends were deducted.  But, that is only part of the story.  If we go back to 2005 when the oil price as about the same as it is today, Marathon was reporting quarterly profits, not losses. In the first quarter of 2005, Marathon earned a positive $324 million in net income.  It also reported a $258 million net income gain in 2004, even at a much lower oil price of $38 a barrel versus the $48-$50 during Q3 2017.  So, the Falling EROI - Energy Returned On Invested is killing the profitability of shale oil and gas companies today, whereas they were making profits just a decade ago. Now, I didn't provide any data on the other shale oil fields in the U.S., but production continues to increase in several regions, especially in the Permian.  However, one of the largest players in the Permian, Pioneer Resources, isn't making any money either.  If we look at their financials, we can see that Pioneer continues to spend more money on CAPEX than they are receiving from cash from operations: In all three quarters in 2017, Pioneer spent more money on capital expenditures than it made from its operating activities.  Pioneer spent $400 million more on CAPEX spending than from its operations for the first nine months of 2017 ending on Sept 30th.  So, here is just another example of a U.S. shale oil producer who partly responsible for the rising production in the Permian, but it still isn't making any money. Now, some investors or readers on my blog would say that the situation will get better when the oil price continues towards $60, $70 and then $80 a barrel.  Well, that would be nice, but I believe we are heading towards one hell of a market crash.  Even though some economic indicators are looking rosy, this market is being propped up by a massive amount of debt and the largest SHORT VIX trade in history.  When the markets start to go south as the massive VIX TRADE reverses... well, watch out below. Thus, as the markets crash, the oil price will head down with it.  Unfortunately, this will be the final blow to the U.S. Shale Oil Ponzi Scheme and with it... the notion of Energy Independence forever. Check back for new articles and updates at the SRSrocco Report.

09 ноября 2017, 16:52

Implied Volatility Surging for Chesapeake Energy (CHK) Stock Options

Surging implied volatility makes Chesapeake Energy (CHK) stock lucrative to the option traders.

Выбор редакции
06 ноября 2017, 18:00

This Is What Drove Chesapeake Energy Corporation's Double-Digit Drop in October

Analysts didn’t like what they saw when they compared the natural gas giant to other shale drillers.

02 ноября 2017, 20:48

Chesapeake Energy (CHK) Beats Q3 Earnings, Misses Revenues

Lower operating costs and higher oil equivalent price realizations supported Chesapeake Energy's (CHK) Q3 earnings performance.

22 апреля 2013, 08:30

Уильям Энгдаль о сланцевом газе в США. 2

Берман делает вывод: “Три десятилетия добычи природного газа из плотных песчаников и угольного метана показывают, что прибыль маргинальна в низкопроницаемых коллекторах. Сланцевые хранилища имеют проницаемость на порядки величины ниже, чем проницаемость пласта плотного песчаника и метановых угольных пластов. Так почему же умные аналитики слепо принимают, что коммерческие результаты в сланцевых месторождениях должны отличаться? Ответ прост — высокая начальная цена производства. К сожалению, эти высокие начальные тарифы компенсируются коротким сроком службы скважины и дополнительными расходами, связанными с рестимуляцией сважины. Те, кто ожидают, что долгосрочная себестоимость сланцевого газа будет меньше, чем других нетрадиционных газовых ресурсов, будут разочарованы... истинная структурная себустоимость добычи сланцевого газа выше, чем могут поддерживать нынешние цены ($ 4.15 за тысячу кубических футов — средняя цена за год, закончившийся 30 июля 2011 года), а также реальные запасы составляют около половины объема, заявленного операторами". (xix)В этом и заключается объяснение того, почему видавшая виды нефтяная промышленность в США отчаянно давит на газ, сеет семена собственного банкротства в в этой игре с большими ставками, она мчится, чтобы сбросить все более убыточные сланцевые активы, пока пузырь еще не лопнул. Финансовые покровители с Уолл-стрит тоже в этой Понци-игре, они ставят миллиарды на карту, так же как в в недавнем мошенничестве секьюритизации недвижимости.Часть IV: Сто лет газа?Так откуда же тогда кто-то получил число, которое было сказано президенту США: что Америку ждет 100 лет поставок газа? Вот где ложь, проклятая ложь и статистика играет решающую роль. У США не будет 100 лет поставок природного газа из сланцев или нетрадиционных источников. Это число произошло из преднамеренного искажения кем-то принципиальной разницы между тем, что в нефтяной и газовой отрасли называют ресурсы, и тем, что называют резервами.Газовые или нефтяные ресурсы представляют собой совокупность газа или нефти, первоначально существующу. на поверхности или внутри земной коры в естественных скоплениях, в том числе уже открытых и еще не открытых, извлекаемые и не извлекаемые. Это общая оценка, независимо от того, являются ли эти газ или нефть коммерчески извлекаемыми. И это — наименее интересное число для извлечения.С другой стороны, "извлекаемые" нефть или газ относятся к прогнозируемому объему коммерчески извлекаемыми с конкретными технически возможно восстановление проекта, план бурения, Fracking программы и тому подобное. Промышленность делит ресурсы на три категории: резервы, которые обнаружены и коммерчески извлекаемы; условные ресурсы, которые обнаружены и потенциально извлекаемы, но полупромыленные или не имеющие экономического значения при текущей рентабельности; перспективные ресурсы, которые еще неоткрыты и только потенциально извлекаемы. (xx)Комитет по запасам газа (PGC), стандарт для оценки газовых ресурсов в США, использует три категории технически извлекаемых газовых ресурсов, в том числе сланцевого газа: вероятные, возможные и спекулятивные. После тщательного изучения цифр становится ясно, что президент, его советники и другие взяли последнюю общую цифру PGC о всех трех категориях, или 2170 триллионов кубических футов газа, вероятные, возможные и чисто спекулятивное, и разделили ее на годовое потребление в 2010 году в 24 триллионов кубических футов. И получить число между 90 и 100 лет газового рая. Удобно осталось недосказанным, что большая часть этого общего ресурса находится в месторождениях, которые слишком малы, чтобы производиться по любой цене, недоступна для бурения или слишком глубоко, чтобы его извлечение было рентабельно. (xxi)Артур Берман в другом анализе указывает, что если мы будем использовать более консервативные и реалистичные предположения, как это делает в своей детальной оценке PGC, более актуальной является цифра 550 триллионов кубических футов газа. В свою очередь, если мы оцениваем, столь же консервативно и реалистично основано на опыте, что только около половины этого ресурса фактически станет резервом (225 триллионов кубических футов), то у США есть всего лишь около 11,5 лет потенциальных будущих поставок газа при нынешних темпах потребления.Если мы включим сюда еще доказанные запасы в 273 триллионов кубических футов, то есть дополнительные 11,5 лет бесперебойных поставок, т.е. в общей сложности почти 23 года. Стоит отметить, что доказанные запасы включают в себя доказанные неосвоенные запасы, которые могут или не могут быть извлечены в зависимости от экономических условий, так что даже 23 года поставок - выглядит завышенной цифрой. Если потребление газа возрастет, этот запас будет тоже исчерпан менее чем за 23 года. (xxii)Существуют в рамках правительства США также весьма различные оценки по добыче извлекаемых ресурсов сланцевого газа. Министерство энергетики США EIA использует очень щедрый расчет средней эффективности извлечения сланцевого газа в 13% по сравнению с другими консервативными оценками вполовину этого или 7%, в отличие от коэффициента извлечения 75-80% для обычных газовых месторождений. Именно эта щедрая оценка коэффициента извлечения, используемая для расчетов EIA, позволяет EIA проектировать оценку 482 трлн кубических футов извлекаемого газа в США. В августе 2011 года Внутренний департамент Геологической службы США опубликовала гораздо более трезвые оценки для крупных сланцевых месторождений в штате Пенсильвания и Нью-Йорке под названием Marcellus Shale. Пр оценкам департамента там есть около 84 триллионов кубических футов технически извлекаемых запасов природного газа. Предыдущие оценки EIA называли цифры в 410 триллионов кубических футов. (xxiii)Месторождения сланцевого газа показывают необычно высокую скорость истощения с очень крутыми трендами, комбинация, дающая низкую эффективность извлечения. (xxiv)Часть V. Огромные потери сланцевого газаУчитывая аномально быстрые темпы истощения скважин и низкий коэффициент извлечения, не приходится удивляться, что, как только эйфория улеглась, производители сланцевого газа оказалась сидящими на финансовой бомбе замедленного действия и начали срочно и быстро продавать свои активы неосторожным инвесторам.В самом последнем анализе фактических результатов за несколько лет добычи сланцевого газа в США, а также дорогостоящей нефти из канадских битуминозных песков, Дэвид Хьюз отмечает, что"добыча сланцевого газа выросла взрывными темпами и составила почти 40 процентов американской добычи природного газа. Тем не менее, производство вышло на плато в декабре 2011 года; 80 процентов добычи сланцевого газа поставляется из пяти месторождений, некоторые из которых находятся в упадке. Очень высокие темпы истощения сланцевых газовых скважин требуют постоянного вливания капитала, оцениваемого в $ 42 млрд в год для бурения более 7000 скважин в целях поддержания производства. Для сравнения, стоимость сланцевого газа, добытого в 2012 году, составила только $ 32,5 млрд". (xxv)Он добавляет: "Наилучшие месторождения сланцевого газа, такие, как Haynesville (которое уже в состоянии упадка) относительно редки, а число скважин и капитальных затрат, необходимых для поддержания производства, будет расти по мере того, как лучшие районы в этих месторождениях будут истощаться. Высокое сопутствующее воздействие на окружающую среду вызвало протесты граждан, в результате чего был объявлен мораторий в штатах Нью-Йорк и Мэриленд и распространились протесты в других штатах. Рост производства сланцевого газа был скомпенсирован снижением производства обычного газа, что привело к скромному росту добычи газа в целом. Кроме того, базовая рентабельность многих месторождений сланцевого газа вызывает сомнения при нынешних условиях цены на газ". (xxvi)Если эти различные оценки являются боле или менее точными, то США имеют ресурс в поставках нетрадиционного сланцевого газа в размере от 11 лет до 23 лет по продолжительности и нетрадиционной нефти, возможно, на 10 лет перед тем, как начнется истощение запасов. Недавняя риторика об "энергетической независимости" США в текущем технологическом состоянии — чушь собачья.Бум бурения скважин, который привел к этому недавнему насыщению сланцевым газом, был частично мотивирован "held-by-production" (пользование на правах аренды, которая реализуется путём выплат определенных сумм по арендованной скважине — прим.перев.), соглашениями об арендном договоре с землевладельцами. В таких соглашениях газовая компания обязана начинать бурить на участке, арендованном обычно на 3-5 лет, или платить неустойку. В США землевладельцы (фермеры или владельцы ранчо) обычно имеют права собственности на недра и могут сдавать их в аренду нефтяным компаниям. Газовые (или нефтяные) компании, таким образом, находится под огромным давлением, нуждаясь резервировать запасы газа на новых арендованных участках, чтобы поддерживать курс акций компании на фондовом рынке, где делаются заимствования, чтобы бурить.Это давление "бури или выметайся" обычно заставляет компании искать сочные "продуктивные пластовые зоны" для быстрого и эффектного газового потока. Затем они обычно позиционируют первые результаты как "типичные" для всего сланцевого месторождения.Однако, как указывает Хьюз: "Высокая производительность сланцевого пласта не повсеместна, и относительно небольшие продуктивные пластовые зоны в сланцах предлагают наибольшую производительность. Шесть из тридцати сланцевых скважин обеспечивают 88 процентов производства. Индивидуальные темпы истощения скважин высоки, от 79 до 95 процентов через 36 месяцев. Хотя некоторые скважины могут быть очень продуктивными, они, как правило, составляют небольшой процент от общей суммы и сосредоточены в продуктивных пластовых зонах". (xxvii)Чрезвычайно быстрое общее истощение сланцевых пластов требует, чтобы ежегодно замещалось от 30 до 50 процентов продукции с дополнительно пробуренных скважин, классический синдром"ловли собственного хвоста". Это приводит к необходимости вкладывать $ 42 млрд годового инвестиционного капитала только для поддержания текущего производства. Для сравнения, весь добытый в США в 2012 году сланцевый газ стоил около $ 32,5 млрд по цене $ 3.40 за тысячу кубических футов (что выше, чем фактическая цена на протяжении большей части 2012 г.). А это чистые $ 10 млрд убытков от сланцевой авантюры в прошлом году для всех американских производителей сланцевого газа.Даже хуже. Хьюз отмечает, что затраты капитала на компенсацию истощения месторождений обязательно возрастут, поскольку с продуктивные пластовые зоны в сланцах уже выработаны и бурение движется в области с низким качеством. Среднее качество скважин (по данным начальной производительности) упало почти на 20 процентов в Haynesville, наиболее продуктивном месторождении сланцевого газа США. И это падение или выход на плато наблюдается в восьми из десяти месторождениях. В целом качество скважин снижается для 36 процентов от всей американской добычи сланцевого газа и вышло на плато для 34 процентов. (xxviii)Не удивительно в этой связи, что в соответствии с новой реальностью основные игроки индустрии сланцевого газа провели массивные списания своих активов. Компании в 2012 году приступили к пересмотру своих резервов и перед лицом текущих спотовых цен на газ, которые упали в два раза за период с июля 2011 года по июль 2012-го, вынуждены признать, что долгосрочные перспективы цен на природный газ не показывают рост. Списания имеют эффект домино, поскольку банковские кредиты, как правило, привязаны к запасам компании и это означает, что многие компании вынуждены пересматривать кредитные линии или проводить аварийные продажи активов, чтобы собрать денег.Начиная с августа 2012 года, многие крупные производители сланцевого газа в США были вынуждены объявить о крупных списаниях стоимости своих сланцевых активов. BP объявила о списаниях в размере $ 4,8 млрд, включая свыше $ 1 млрд падения стоимости своих американских сланцевых активов. Английская BG Group провела списание $ 1,3 млрд своих сланцевых капиталовложений в США, EnCana, крупный канадский оператор сланцевого газа, провел $ 1,7 млрд. списания сланцевых активов в США и Канаде, предупредив, что цифра может возрасти, если цены на газ не восстановятся. (xxix)Австралийский горнодобывающий гигант BHP Billiton является одним из наиболее пострадавших в истории сланцевого в США, поскольку он пришел в самом конце шумного представления. В мае 2012 года он объявил, что рассматривает возможность обесценивания акций на стоимость своих американских сланцевых активов, которые он купил на пике бума сланцевого газа в 2011 году, когда компания заплатила $ 4,75 млрд, что приобрести сланцевый проект у Chesapeake Energy, и купила Petrohawk Energy за $ 15,1 млрд. (xxx)Но хуже всего на данный момент бывшей суперзвезде в индустрии сланцевого газа Chesapeake Energy из Оклахомы.Часть VI: Chesapeake Energy: следующий Enron?Эта компания, по мнению большинства, является типичной для индустрии сланцевого газа и ранее была провозглашена ведущим игроком в сланцевом бизнесе. В августе 2012 года широко распространились слухи, что Chesapeake Energy объявит о банкротстве. Это было бы весьма неловко для компании, которая являлась вторым по величине производителем газа в стране. Это также могло дать миру распознать тот обман, который который стоял за продвижением "сланцевой энергетической революции", распространяемый подобными Ергину и уоллстритовским энергетических промоутерам, желаущим заработать миллиарды на М&А и других сделках в этом секторе, чтобы заменить свой мрачный опыт в недвижимости.В мае 2012 года Билл Пауэрс из Powers Energy Investor писал о Chesapeake : "За последний год, однако, бизнес-модель CHK (аббревиатура Chesapeake Energy на бирже — прим.авт.) развалилась. Акции компании продолжают держаться у 52-недельных минимумов, и у компании есть проблема финансирования — финансово говоря, она остается без денег. Хотя она была способна сдавать в аренду часть активов на Utica Shale в Огайо французской Total в прошлом году (это замечательно, учитывая бухгалтерские ошибки, которые привели к тому, что Total получила значительно меньше доходов от своего СП Barnett Shale), CHK в основном исчерпала предполагаемую площадь к сдаче в аренду".Пауэрс оценивает дефицит наличности для компании приблизительно в $ 3 млрд. в 2012 году. И это сверх уже огромного корпоративного долга в $ 11,1 млрд, из которых $ 1,7 млрд являлось возобновляемой кредитной линией. (xxxi)Пауэрс добавляет: "Если прибавить забалансовые долги и привилегированных выпуски к существующему балансовому $ 1.1-миллиардному долгу компании, у CHK будет колоссальная сумма в $ 20,5 млрд финансовых обязательств. Учитывая столь высокий уровень задолженности, долг CHK оценивается как мусорный и таковым будет в обозримом будущем... Наличие второго по величине производителя природного газа Америки, а также его по большей части разрушенного акционерного капитала, который почти полностью уходит из сланцевого бизнеса, явно показывает, что сегодняшний пузырь цен на природный газ находится на грани резкого разрыва. CHK не сделал никаких денег, буря сланцевые скважины (и фактически никто из его коллег этого не сделал), а теперь "молчаливые" деньги закончились. (xxxii)Рассерженные акционеры провели крупную реорганизацию совета директоров Chesapeake в сентябре прошлого года после сообщения Reuters о том, что генеральный директор Обри Макклендон брал крупные кредиты, не полностью раскрывая эту информацию совету директоров компании или инвесторам. Макклендон был вынужден уйти в отставку с поста председателя компании, которую он основал, после того как просочились детали, что Макклендон в течение последних трех лет занял $ 1,1 млрд. под залог своей доли в своей нефтяной компании. (xxxiii) В марте 2013 года Комиссия по ценным бумагам и биржам правительства США (SEC) объявила, что проводит расследование деятельности компании и ее генерального директора Обри Макклендона и уже выдала повестки в суд для информации и свидетельских показаний среди прочего и по спорной программе, которая предоставляет Макклендону долю в каждой скважине, что бурила Chesapeake. (xxxiv)Чтобы понизить долг, компания распродает свои активы на сумму приблизительно $6.9 млрд, включая нефтегазовые месторождения примерно на 2.4 миллионах акрах. Необходимо серьезно инвестировать в бурение новых скважин, чтобы достичь увеличения производства более прибыльной нефти и сжиженного природного газа, если компания хочет избежать банкротства. (xxxv) Как выразился один критически настроенный аналитик, “сложные бухгалтерские методы компании делают почти невозможным для аналитиков и акционеров определить, каковы реальные риски. Тот факт, что генеральный директор берет кредиты на миллиард и не раскрывает их открыто, только усиливает ощущение того, что все не так, как кажется на Chesapeake — это компания Enron с буровыми установками". (xxxvi) Разрекламированная сланцевая революция в США терпит крах вместе с акциями Chesapeake и других ключевых игроков.Примечанияi Roberta Rampton, Energy Policy Shifting as abundance replaces scarcity: Obama adviser, Reuters, February 25, 2013.ii President Barack Obama, President Obama’s State of the Union Address , January 25, 2012, The New York Times, January 24, 2012.iii Daniel Yergin, Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Testimony submitted for Hearings on ‘America’s Energy Security and Innovation,’ Washington D.C., February 5, 2013.iv Ibid.v BP, BP Energy Outlook 2030, London, January 2012.vivii Glenn S. Penny, et al, Control and Modeling of Fluid Leakoff During Hydraulic Fracturing, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1071-1081.viii F. William Engdahl, Shale Gas: Halliburton’s Weapon of Mass Devastation, VoltaireNet.org, 17 May 2012.ix Ibid.x Ibid.xi Anthony Andrews, et al, Unconventional Gas Shales: Development, Technology and Policy Issues, Congressional Research Service, Washington D.C., October 30, 2009, p.7.xii John Deutsch, Robin West, The North American Oil and Gas Renaissance and its Implications, The Aspen Institute, 2012, Washington DC.xiii Ibid.xiv EIA, Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production, US Department of Energy, Washington DC.xv Malcolm Maiden, Burnt Fingers all round in US shale gas boom, The Sydney Morning Herald, August 2, 2012xvi Arthur E. Berman and Lynn F. Pittinger, US Shale Gas: Less Abundance, Higher Cost, August 5, 2011.xvii Ibid.xviii Ibid.xix Ibid.xx SPEE, Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook, Volume 1 — Reserves Definitions and Evaluation Practices and Procedures, SECTION 5: DEFINITIONS OF RESOURCES AND RESERVES, Petroleum Society of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, Calgary Chapter, accessed in www.petsoc.org.xxi Arthur E. Berman, After The Gold Rush: A Perspective on Future US Natural Gas Supply and Price, The Oil Drum, February 8, 2012.xxii Ibid.xxiii Stephen Lacey, After USGS Analysis, EIA Cuts Estimates of Marcellus Shale Gas Reserves by 80% ,August 26, 2011xxiv Rafael Sandrea, Evaluating production potential of mature US oil, gas shale plays, The Oil and Gas Journal, December 3, 2012.xxv Arthur E. Berman, After the Gold…xxvi Ibid.xxvii Ibid.xxviii Ibid.xxix Ed Crooks, Gas groups headed for large write-downs, Financial Times, August 31, 2012.xxx Marin Katusa, Does a Long-Term Natural-Gas Downturn Signal that Investors Should Exit?.xxxi Bill Powers, Is Chesapeake Energy Going Bankrupt?, May 1, 2012, Powers Energy Investor.xxxii Ibid.xxxiii Jeff Goodell, Worlds Biggest Fracker Pockets $1 Billion in Shady Deal, Rolling Stone, April 18, 2012.xxxiv Reuters, SEC Investigating Chesapeake Energy, CEO, March 01, 2013.xxxv Ed Crooks, Two directors forced out of Chesapeake, Financial Times, June 8, 2012.xxxvi Jeff Goodell, Op. Cit.http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/exclusive/view/78275/