Gumby, YOU missed the point. The subject was energy rates and how they have risen less than the rate of inflation, which your buddy norris refuses to acknowledge. The data was provided by the agency responsible for tracking these energy rates which you call propaganda. Like norris you changed the subject half way through the discussion to open another can of worms. Care to talk about your leading Presidential candidate who claims to have attempted murder and also says he attacked his mom with a hammer. Then there is The Donald, king of charm and next in line representing the wacko party.
"natural gas due to efficiency tied directly to dispathability, is massively cleaner than either solar or wind mills."
Where do you come up with this nonsense? Hydro-electric power is cleanest with wind close behind followed by solar. solar is third mostly because of the process used to manufacture the panels and the chemicals involved. The energy produced by Solar panels is a very clean process. Natural gas is much cleaner than oil or coal but to say it's cleaner than hydro, wind and solar is complete poppycock and that's not even taking in consideration of the chemicals and energy used in the fracking process. You need to change the channel on your TV or radio more often.
By the way what exactly is dispathability ? Disrespecting the ability to find a path. Is it dis path or that path?
The average U.S cost for electricity in 2006 was $10.40 which was a
23.2% increase from the years 2002 to 2006
Now who was President in the years from 2002 to 2006?
"Minimum wage is only addressed rationally by full employment."
Tell that to the mom or dad who have been working 2 or 3 jobs for years making $7 or $8 bucks an hour, just trying to keep a roof over their families head and some food on the table. These Billionaires and very well off multi-millionaires have no soul. Funny thing is guys like Trump expect these same struggling families to support their business and buy their products. The middle class wage's have been stagnant since Reagan in the 80's, how much longer do you think they should have to wait.
Too funny how you only posted the lower end of the IEA article. They also said it was MORE likely that OPEC would cut back to get oil to $80 bucks by 2020. You really are a lying goofski.
OPEC Is Likely to Change Course, IEA Says
Updated Nov. 10, 2015 11:55 p.m. ET
OPEC is unlikely to sustain its practice of pumping flat out in a fight for global market share and will limit output in a scenario that sends oil prices to $80 a barrel by 2020, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday.
Oil prices plunged last year when the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and its de facto leader Saudi Arabia, abandoned its traditional role of propping up the market through supply cuts and began ramping up production instead. Prices haven’t recovered, sitting at about $47 a barrel Tuesday, down from $114 a barrel in June 2014.
“Many OPEC producers will lose a substantial amount of revenue which will lead them to look at their policies again,” said Fatih Birol, the executive director of the IEA, a Paris-based group that monitors energy trends and data for industrialized nations.
Mr. Birol’s comments were part of the release of the IEA’s World Energy Outlook, an annual book-length report packed with statistics about crude-oil demand and supply, the growth of renewables and the changing landscape for utilities, among other topics.
The report laid out two scenarios for the price of crude oil in 2020. One calls for oil at $50 a barrel, with OPEC continuing its production-happy ways, and one foresees a price of $80 a barrel, with OPEC being forced to abandon the strategy.
The IEA said the $80-a-barrel scenario was "MORE LIKELY" because OPEC members would lose too much money. If prices were to stay at current levels, OPEC members would earn an annual $550 billion, nearly half the $1 trillion a year they were getting before the price crash, Mr Birol said.
Only Kuwait can balance its national budget with oil at current prices. If oil rises to $60 a barrel in the next year or so—a consensus view among banks and oil companies—only Qatar’s budget would also break even.
So goofski's IEA saying $50 is different than the IEA quote of $80 by 2020 in the WSJ? How many International Energy Agency's are there Gumby? I can't stand the way some idiots try to misinform and mislead to support their own agenda. Ironically they also claim to be good Christian Conservatives! The hypocrisy on the right is constant.
Gumby your boy goofski started the thread quoting an IEA statement while misleading the board to what the ENTIRE IEA article actually said. I have no idea what oil prices will be by 2020 but I do know what the IEA did state and provided the entire message not just the part that goofski posted. I agree it's roulette at this point but lying about what was really reported is what you should really be complaing about. Are you sure you're not kin to norris or goofski?
I did address the electricity rate increase issue, you chose not to except the facts that rate prices have been lower than the general rate of inflation. As far as jobs or lack of good paying jobs you seem to have forgotten how this all started. It began back in the 80's when your golden boy Reagan was President. You see his Free trade policy started the migration of middle class manufacturing jobs to China. Free Trade was the label affixed to a trade policy defined by and for multinational companies and banks. Under Reagan, America began shipping jobs rather than goods abroad. When Reagan fired the Professional Air Traffic Controls Organization (PATCO) strikers (who supported him in the 1980 election), he signaled to corporate America that it was open season on unions. The combination was lethal for America's manufacturing base and for the family wage that was the signature of America's broad middle class. His trickle down economic tax cut to the wealthy while RAISING taxes in 7 of 8 years for everyone else also started the shift of wealth from middle class to the upper class. Lastly Reagan NEVER had a balanced budget during his Presidency, in fact the deficit increased to nearly $3 trillion, roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether. But we know this mess was started by Obama and it's all his fault. You sir are clueless!
Please don't feel sorry for me. I'm a big boy and can handle myself. Feel sorry for the less fortunate who struggle day to day and live paycheck to paycheck while the fat cats stress out worrying which beach house they will fly to this weekend. BTW you are one of the most narrow minded, hard headed individuals that I have had the pleasure of never meeting in person.
Saudi Arabia risks destroying Opec and feeding the Isil monster
'Saudi Arabia is acting directly against the interests of half the cartel and is running Opec over a cliff,' says RBC
The rumblings of revolt against Saudi Arabia and the Opec Gulf states are growing louder as half a trillion dollars goes up in smoke, and each month that goes by fails to bring about the long-awaited killer blow against the US shale industry.
Algeria's former energy minister, Nordine Aït-Laoussine, says the time has come to consider suspending his country's Opec membership if the cartel is unwilling to defend oil prices and merely serves as the tool of a Saudi regime pursuing its own self-interest. "Why remain in an organisation that no longer serves any purpose?" he asked.
"The expectation that a swift tailing-off in tight oil would lead to a rapid rebalancing in the market has proved to be misplaced," said the IEA. Costs are plummeting as rig fees drop and drilling time is slashed.
There is a time-lag effect. Shale cannot keep switching to high-yielding wells forever. Their hedging contracts are running out. The US energy department expects a further erosion of 600,000 b/d next year, but this is not a collapse.
By then Opec will have foregone another half trillion dollars. "What is winning supposed to look like for the Saudis? Can they really endure another year of this?" said Ms Croft.
Opec can certainly bankrupt high-debt frackers but this does not shut down US shale in any meaningful way. The infrastructure and technology will remain. Stronger players will move in. Output will bounce back as soon as oil nears $60.
Shale frackers will respond with lightning speed to any rebound and create a permanent headwind for Opec over years to come, or a sort of "whack-a-mole" effect, contrary to warnings by the IEA this week that Mid-East producers may regain their 1970s stranglehold once rivals are cleared out.
Yes I do especially with the cost cutting measures that are in place and the new technology being used to extract oil and gas. They obviously can't continue to ignore the more expensive wells forever but they can continue to focus on optimization projects in the near term. They are still 70% hedged for oil in 2016 at an average price of approximately $90 per Bbl and 100 % hedged on natural gas production through 2017 at average prices ranging from $4.48 to $5.12 per MMBtu. Obviously the distribution won't be coming back under these conditions but Linn could conceivably still be around for the next couple of years with $60 oil.
As soon as oil creeps back up to the $60 area whoever owns the rights to the wells at that time will open the spigots once again. The oil is not going away. The weaker players might but someone will take their place and pump away when the price creeps back up. Technology is improving every year and it's getting cheaper to find and remove the oil because of this. The Saudis might succeed in reducing output in the short term but they can't do it forever.
Insulting someones post doesn't make your dribble any easier to comprehend. The hedged oil and NG numbers are right off Linn's website and were just released during last earnings call. Are you implying management is lying about the hedge percentages and time frame? If you could actually comprehend what I posted you would know I said they were mostly working with the low cost optimal projects right now. I never said they were drilling new wells or starting new projects. I posted a scenario in which Linn could survive the next couple of years on $60 oil based on the information the company provided during the last CC. Accusing someone else of cut and paste is quite hypocritical coming from the King of cutting and pasting. You sir are a soulless, demented fool.
Look back even further, our invasion of Iraq was very shrewd, right. In January 2010, there were 112,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. By the end of May 2010, that number had been reduced to 88,000. General Odierno made the decision in May 2010 that positive developments in the security sector permitted the drawdown to go forward as planned. At that time there were over 600,000 Iraqi security forces in Iraq. Don't you think the Iraqi forces should have been able to deal with ISIS who they probably outnumbered 30 to 1. What about Syria, just keep pouring our kids into a region that won't even protect itself. I bet Saddam could have taken care of Iraq.
It's not desperation. It's called proactive management and don't forget Linn was one of the first to start cutting capex and the distribution as well. Obviously they put themselves in this situation by over leveraging at the worst possible time but this drop in oil price caught even the best of the best off guard. It's all about staying in the game until their cards start to change, using a poker analogy. No one knows how long this will play out so it's best to do what ever you can right now just in case. These restructurings take months to put together so why not plan ahead while the money is available and start the process as opposed to waiting until the 11th hour when they would have to act out of desperation. Obviously with hindsight Linn could have handled things better a couple of years ago but they have been doing about the best that they possibly could this past year or so. No use crying over spilt milk now because that ship has already sailed, now it's survival and hopefully when things turn around a leaner more profitable company will emerge. I'm an optimist so I won't mention what's behind door number two:)
HOUSTON, Nov. 13, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- LINN Energy, LLC (LINE) (“LINN” or the “Company”) and LinnCo, LLC (LNCO) (“LinnCo”) announced today that LINN has entered into a series of privately negotiated transactions to exchange an aggregate principal amount of $2 billion of the Company’s senior unsecured notes (the “Unsecured Notes”) for an aggregate principal amount of $1 billion of newly issued senior secured second lien notes (the “Second Lien Notes”). These exchanges are expected to improve LINN’s balance sheet and reduce interest expense.
The Company has entered into exchange agreements with certain unsecured noteholders pursuant to which the noteholders have agreed to exchange certain of their existing Unsecured Notes for newly issued Second Lien Notes at a price of 50 percent of the principal amount of the Unsecured Notes set forth in the table below. The Second Lien Notes will be issued pursuant to the terms and conditions of an Indenture to be entered into between the Company and U.S. Bank, National Association, as trustee (the “Indenture”), will bear interest at a rate of 12.0 percent per annum and have a scheduled maturity date of December 2020, subject to potential earlier maturity under the conditions to be outlined in the Indenture (“Springing Maturity”).
Strategic advantages of these exchanges:
Reduce total debt by $1 billion,
Decrease annualized interest expense by approximately $16 million;
Reduce the nearest senior unsecured debt maturities (due in 2019) by approximately $1.4 billion, or 53 percent, subject to the potential Springing Maturity of the Second Lien Notes; and
Preserve $500 million of second lien capacity for potential future issuance of new secured debt.
“This transaction and its positive effects on the Company’s financial position represent another meaningful step forward in improving our balance sheet,” said Mark E. Ellis, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. “These exchanges result in a material debt reduction and also improve our cash interest expense by approximately $16 million per year.”