1 of 11/ Energy lies, damn lies, and politicians...Part 1.

This is a non-partisan look at energy sector falsehoods, mis-truths, and outright lies told by politicians, industry participants, environmentalists, and Wall Street analysts.
2/ ENERGY LIE: Gasoline prices are high due to “price gouging” and “manipulation” by oil companies (implication: by Big Oil).
3/ TRUTH: This has been investigated many times over many decades and is simply false, nevermind the times WTI has o/p gas w/o anyone decrying low margins. Will Ds go after the c-store chains that actually set local gas px? Big Oil owns only a small % of gas stations in the USA.
4/ ENERGY LIE: Cancelling Keystone XL is why oil prices are high and President Biden is now begging Russia and OPEC+ for more oil. This one is a current R favorite.
5/ TRUTH: KXL was approved but didn’t move forward under Trump. I am highly supportive of a healthy and growing Canadian Oil industry. But the idea that KXL’s recent cancellation (or previous approval) has any bearing on 2021 imports or oil prices is far-fetched.
6/ ENERGY LIE: Cancelling KXL is a victory for climate and the environment. We will give credit to Ds and Enviros for this one.
7/ TRUTH: Rail and Trucks are not banned and is surely worse environmentally than a pipeline. Moreover, higher oil supply from the Middle East and Russia is likely a wash environmentally and worse geopolitically. May God Bless Canadian Oil.
8/ ENERGY LIE: Proactively dealing with methane leaks and flaring is “unfair” and will lead to spiking natural gas prices. Rs and some industry participants get credit for this one.
9/ TRUTH: Technology advancements have significantly improved the quality of leak detention. Eliminating flaring, IMO, will lead to higher industry profitability as full-cycle economics trump “drill-baby-drill” oversupply. This is a solvable climate problem, today. Just do it.
10/ ENERGY LIE: Restricting (or making more difficult) growth in US and Canadian oil supply is important to showing we (US and Canada) are serious about climate. Credit to Ds and Enviros.
11 of 11/ TRUTH: Oil supply and demand are global. Lower NAM oil supply will simply motivate higher rest of world oil supply. Restricting domestic supply will do exactly nothing to reduce domestic or global oil demand. It will make energy security and energy poverty worse.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with arjun⚡️murti

arjun⚡️murti Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ArjunNMurti

6 Jul
1 of 6/ OPEC+, Climate, and N. America Oil & Gas

The weekend noise around OPEC+ highlights the critical importance of a healthy N. America oil & gas industry, without which the world is unlikely to alleviate energy poverty while also addressing climate change. Some questions:
2/ Why block/impede North America oil pipelines/infrastructure while begging OPEC+ for more supply? Canada is our friend and a pretty great country. Can’t say the same for some other parts of the world.
3/ Why discourage development of Canada’s oil sands or US shale while encouraging Saudi, UAE, Iraq, and Russia (?!?!?) to boost its output? And Iran might get to return but Canada pipes need to be blocked? WTF?
Read 6 tweets
5 Jun
1 of 6/ Excellent essay by @JasonBordoff. In my words, killing Big Oil does not kill society’s desire to drive, fly, trade, conduct business, and aspire for middle class+ lifestyles.
2/ A few Qs: Do climate activists really want a world where OPEC+ gains market share? Why deter Canadian oil supply but not Iranian or Russian supply? Why not encourage governments to take serious steps to enforce ACTUAL mpg gains (hint: CAFE hasn’t worked)?
3/ Big Oil’s biggest issue is insufficient profitability over the past decade and it isn’t even that Big anymore at <3% of S&P. Medium Oil may be more accurate? Climate activism is currently aligned with traditional shareholders that want less CAPEX and more dividends. Thank you.
Read 6 tweets
3 Apr
1 of 8/ ROCE and the Path Back for Old Energy, Part 3

An Easter weekend continuation of my Saturday thread series on the potential for improved ROCE from Old Energy. I focus on what is possible for the well-run…not what we all already know is bad about the laggards.
2/ In the pre-super cycle decade of 1991-2000, 16 companies generated 10%+ ROCE, including 13 integrateds (BP, AN, ARC, CHV ,TX, XON, MOB, MRO, OXY, P, REP, STO, TOT), 2 E&Ps (EOG, SU), and 1 service (SLB). The Sweet 16 averaged a 17% ROCE. Legacy tickers used, in memorium.
3/ Of the pre-super cycle good ROCE-ers, 11 generated positive operating free cash flow (cash flow from ops less CAPEX). The 5 that didn’t — OXY, P, STO, EOG, and SU — were near break-even. Those 5 show that while positive FCF is helpful, it is not a prerequisite to good ROCE.
Read 8 tweets
20 Mar
1 of 10/ ROCE vs Well IRRs and the Path Back for Old Energy

Since the shale revolution, there is a massive disconnect between promised well-level IRRs and actual, corporate-level returns on capital employed (ROCE) for the oil industry.
2/ Oil producers promised 30%-50%+ well IRRs at seemingly conservative oil prices (<$50/bbl). Over the previous 5 and 10 years, WTI averaged $51 and $68/bbl. Corresponding median ROCE for Old Energy averaged +0.6% and 3.9%. What the heck!?!
3/ Why the crazy big gap? It appears that numerous ongoing costs were not reconciled including for acreage, infrastructure, less successful drilling, DUC builds, etc. Why ignore so many costs? I have no explanation.
Read 10 tweets
13 Mar
1 of 15/ Bubble psychology from the perspective of a retired stock analyst

When you first make a big call as an analyst, the doubters come out en masse as you are going against the overwhelming consensus. Initially, you are way right and everyone else is wrong. Then it switches.
2/ In 2004, we first published our call that oil could rise to a sustained $50-$80 range, a time everyone KNEW oil would never stay over $25. Many thought oil would only reach $50 if Saudi collapsed, after which the world economy would sink. Oil blew through $50 without calamity.
3/ In 2004, everyone had a 1970s mindset on what would cause oil to spike and and a ‘90s mindset on what would follow. Recency bias, anchoring, and a bunch of related terms were operating in full force. The market was willing to assume away an entire structural move. Bad idea.
Read 15 tweets
7 Mar
1/ Observations of a retired stock analyst.

As someone who called a then coming super-spike era for oil markets in 2004, but failed to get off in 2008 until well into the downturn, the current innovation/Bubble stock gurus seem to be making many of the same mistakes I made.
2/ The idea that your favorite innovation/Bubble stock never discounted 0-1% Treasuries is as dumb as when I said oil equities weren’t discounting $140 and “only” $90-$100/bbl (or something like that). The market is almost certainly discounting better conditions than you realize.
3/ The idea that we were using “conservative” normalized assumptions for oil equities I sincerely thought was true. However, it didn’t matter. When you are toward the end of massive bull market, no one else is using conservative assumptions.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(