Diggity said:
Friday's are his best days
Probably posting from the Chili's bar!
Houston..we have a problem....
7,317,711 Views |
28750 Replies |
Last: 3 days ago by Bibendum 86
Probably posting from the Chili's bar!
No it is.AgZoidberg said:
Egon,
Funny. It seems like the price of oil is more reflective of global consumption (growth, wars, pandemics, etc) than which president is in office. Now I'm sure someone will try to say a president has direct influence on say, the '08 housing market collapse, the '15 saudi market flooding, or the COVID pandemic.
Seems like most things in life are always way more complex than, which president is holding office.
I guess I get annoyed when you 'learn' how the sausage is made and people spout off random nonsense and then go vote based upon that.
Hell, I saw someone's care the other day in the Upper NE side of Houston with "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less" still on the car.
The same idea of O&G regulations should be looked at via car regulations. I have seen a post (not here) that literally listed EVERY argument from like 1970's to today about every car innovation/regulation/requirement.
From seat belts (freedoms!) to air bags (make those cars cost $$$$ way more than basic!) to removing lead (cars will be boring and slow) to lowering sulfur in gasoline (cars won't go vroom!) to essentially eliminating sulfur (cars will be super expensive) to lowering sulfur in diesel (truck won't go vroom!) to DEF requirements, etc.
I agree that change for change's sake is not good. But pushing technology forward and requiring innovation/improvements needs to happen. If not, someone else will do it; and since I've been alive, most of that has happened outside the US.
I have yet to see real, actual leadership from US based companies. I see fire-fighting managers, but not leadership. The closest I see is Elon Musk. Don't defend or condone him; just he has leadership (mostly in the eyes of SpaceX).
~egon
Not trying to snark, but do you still have environmental groups doing this or has this been thrust upon you?Comeby! said:
Our time is getting completely bogged down with environmental regulations and requirements that weren't there before Obama took office. Even I'm having to drop what I'm doing to deal with the regulatory bodies directly.
In the design world, we used to have environmental groups do to that sort of stuff. Now, since client's don't want to pay for it but hire a 3rd party outsider (single guy vs. small group in our large department), I get to do more env. stuff that I did before.
But that's based upon client needing it (outgassing of tanks, discharge/emissions list, etc.) and not changing regulations. And the client being cheap.
~egon
We have an environmental contractor helping out. Unfortunately they need data from us constantly to respond to the regulatory bodies. Then at some point they need the answer to 'ok, what do you want to do?'
Ah so all oil execs are crooks running a ponzi. Got it.
I'm playing devils advocate here, but there is all kinds of finger pointing when oil prices are in the gutter. Yes, there are greedy execs, but there are greedy shady people at all levels, not just the top.
As far as convincing Wall Street about a pipe dream, I honestly think most of those execs were convinced themselves, too. I find it hard to believe every exec that hasn't provided a return to their shareholder was just lying through their teeth. They'd look like they sh*t gold at $80/bbl.
I don't think any poster on here were screaming that shale was a bubble back in 2014.
I'm playing devils advocate here, but there is all kinds of finger pointing when oil prices are in the gutter. Yes, there are greedy execs, but there are greedy shady people at all levels, not just the top.
As far as convincing Wall Street about a pipe dream, I honestly think most of those execs were convinced themselves, too. I find it hard to believe every exec that hasn't provided a return to their shareholder was just lying through their teeth. They'd look like they sh*t gold at $80/bbl.
I don't think any poster on here were screaming that shale was a bubble back in 2014.
They were running into ditch at $60 oil. Poor incentives, bad metrics and growth over profitability.
Except for OP?
When there's a bunch of dumb money chasing a paradigm shift (like in 2010-2014), it goes to the most outrageously optimistic, often charismatic people. You end up with wildly unrealistic plans, way too much money chasing not enough market, and few people stopping to realize that if you add up everyone's growth plans there would be 120 million barrels of production chasing a 100 million barrel market.
That does not require malice, it's just psychology and behavior at the margins. Although I'm sure some people were intentionally fraudulent and I think the golden parachutes for destroying billions of dollars of capital are a disgrace.
That does not require malice, it's just psychology and behavior at the margins. Although I'm sure some people were intentionally fraudulent and I think the golden parachutes for destroying billions of dollars of capital are a disgrace.
I would mirror that comment with LNG.
In 2012-2014, in the US there were announcements of nearly 125 Mt/a. At the time, the market worldwide was almost 300 Mt/a. The largest producer was Qatar, at 90 Mt/a.
We took client's money to design, but knew that most projects wouldn't go forward. But other design houses were thinking everything was going to go forward.
~egon
In 2012-2014, in the US there were announcements of nearly 125 Mt/a. At the time, the market worldwide was almost 300 Mt/a. The largest producer was Qatar, at 90 Mt/a.
We took client's money to design, but knew that most projects wouldn't go forward. But other design houses were thinking everything was going to go forward.
~egon
Feeling like the nuclear guys are starting to really chirp about how different they are than oil and gas. It is the oil industry targeting coal all over again, thinking environmental groups will ever be happy with anything less than 100% renewables.
This is always a fun listen. PXD is the motherfracker
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-05-04/einhorn-attacks-frackers-says-pioneer-burns-cash
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-05-04/einhorn-attacks-frackers-says-pioneer-burns-cash
I watched part of it. Thought I was listening to Cyp01 at first.
It's a non-durable business model.
I think the majority of people (at least on this board) don't mind CEOs making a bunch of money if they deserve it. The problem is that for a lot of these shale companies they have had massive layoffs while the C-suite continues to reward themselves. Hell, you've even seen several companies reward their execs through bankruptcy! Yes, not all execs are doing that, but when you see it happen again again I get why people are upset.CaptnCarl said:
Ah so all oil execs are crooks running a ponzi. Got it.
I'm playing devils advocate here, but there is all kinds of finger pointing when oil prices are in the gutter. Yes, there are greedy execs, but there are greedy shady people at all levels, not just the top.
As far as convincing Wall Street about a pipe dream, I honestly think most of those execs were convinced themselves, too. I find it hard to believe every exec that hasn't provided a return to their shareholder was just lying through their teeth. They'd look like they sh*t gold at $80/bbl.
I don't think any poster on here were screaming that shale was a bubble back in 2014.
I can't post the pic, but there's a chart in this article that shows shale CEOs have had rising salaries the past three years despite their poor performance and relatively weak pricing.
Executive comp in the multi-millions while shareholders take 50%+ baths (much worse with biggest offenders) is really hard to process. Moving from equity to cash comp before filing is another one.
It all needs a hard reset and we need to shrink.
It all needs a hard reset and we need to shrink.
This is some serious coin. Thoughts on the RRC race?
https://www.expressnews.com/news/politics/texas_legislature/article/Billionaire-Mike-Bloomberg-drops-2-6-million-in-15675656.php
https://www.expressnews.com/news/politics/texas_legislature/article/Billionaire-Mike-Bloomberg-drops-2-6-million-in-15675656.php
That is crazy. Why does he care?Boat Shoes said:
This is some serious coin. Thoughts on the RRC race?
https://www.expressnews.com/news/politics/texas_legislature/article/Billionaire-Mike-Bloomberg-drops-2-6-million-in-15675656.php
And can the damn yankee carpet baggers just stay the hell out of our politics.
"I'm glad to support Chrysta in her campaign to be the next railroad commissioner because she has the vision and experience needed to build a safer, healthier and more environmentally prosperous future for the state of Texas," Bloomberg said in a Monday release from Castaeda's campaign.BiochemAg97 said:That is crazy. Why does he care?Boat Shoes said:
This is some serious coin. Thoughts on the RRC race?
https://www.expressnews.com/news/politics/texas_legislature/article/Billionaire-Mike-Bloomberg-drops-2-6-million-in-15675656.php
And can the damn yankee carpet baggers just stay the hell out of our politics.
Bolded portion is why he cares. It is a religion.
nope. they want control everywhere.BiochemAg97 said:That is crazy. Why does he care?Boat Shoes said:
This is some serious coin. Thoughts on the RRC race?
https://www.expressnews.com/news/politics/texas_legislature/article/Billionaire-Mike-Bloomberg-drops-2-6-million-in-15675656.php
And can the damn yankee carpet baggers just stay the hell out of our politics.
My guess is money invested in renewable energy sources. Higher gas prices are probably good for him.
Interesting article about bankruptcy and bonuses. Essentially what has been mentioned here before; BS that those that drove the car into the lake get paid for watching it get pulled out AND driving it into the lake.
Chapter 11 Businesses
Mention a couple of O&G businesses as well. CHK being the big one.
~egon
Chapter 11 Businesses
Mention a couple of O&G businesses as well. CHK being the big one.
~egon
It's nuts.
I have no issue with executives getting their money when times are good and company performance is high. However executives getting paid crazy pre-bankruptcy bonuses or seeing an increase in their compensation while overseeing massive layoffs and obliterating capital with little to no shareholder return is disgusting.
Anybody heard rumors of a few offshore drilling contractors merging together in the next 4-8 weeks?
Yep, before being laid off I was part of a service company merger. I was on the synergy savings tracking team and a lot of what they were doing was absolutely revolting. We merged in Q4 2019, so times were never "good" post merger. However, the executives were "massaging" the numbers to show synergy savings to meet goals to get their bonuses. I mean if anyone just took a step back and asked common sense questions it would've been eye opening. For example, as a customer, you're telling me your proppant synergy savings are 35%. Yet, your price is the same as your competition. So are you vastly overcharging me or are you putting market savings (that everyone is seeing) in a synergy savings bucket?????
But the integration officer met his goal, took his $10+mm bonus, and never looked back.
But the integration officer met his goal, took his $10+mm bonus, and never looked back.
Unfortunately, if you tie executive compensation to stock price (or even profit/loss), executives will likely be rewarded to some extent when overseeing massive layoffs. It is not uncommon for stock prices to get a bounce after there are layoffs since cutting costs improves the bottom line. Often though, cost cutting can just kill future growth as you don't have enough people or resources during a recovery.Silver Arrows said:
I have no issue with executives getting their money when times are good and company performance is high. However executives getting paid crazy per-bankruptcy bonuses or seeing an increase in their compensation while overseeing massive layoffs and obliterating capital with little to no shareholder return is disgusting.
If you tie executive compensation to revenue and not profit to avoid profiting off layoffs, you can incentivize debt driven acquisitions to increase revenue and kill the future of the company by saddling it with massive debt.
Either way, given the c suite bankruptcy bonuses is insane. And I'm not convinced leaving the team that ran the ship into the ground should be left in charge. All this about "but they know the business" is not convincing. It is generally the people (far) below them that are actually running the day to day operations and if the c suite had the strategic vision to turn things around, they probably wouldn't be in the position they are in.
BiochemAg97 said:
Either way, given the c suite bankruptcy bonuses is insane. And I'm not convinced leaving the team that ran the ship into the ground should be left in charge. All this about "but they know the business" is not convincing. It is generally the people (far) below them that are actually running the day to day operations and if the c suite had the strategic vision to turn things around, they probably wouldn't be in the position they are in.
Agreed. The problem is those making the decision are kind of in a bind. You have to hire someone to come in and turn the ship around, essentially wiping your ass. There's not a lot of teams or executives that can do that consistently and if there is, they aren't cheap and are ridiculously expensive. Normally the board hires Bob and Bob (some ridiculously priced advisor on a day rate) to tell them what the issues are which ultimately cost them more than the original but newly incentivized management team. The result is often the same, consultants and lawyers get bank and investors and employees get F'ed.
As far as ESG and Chrysta/Bloomberg. You guys really don't understand what's coming if you're surprised by this. The game is over. Step change in production profile is coming whether we like it or not.
which equals higher prices.
Indeed.
Time to buy a bunch of stripper wells?
Maybe I'm talking to the wrong people, but I'm not seeing companies shed off stripper wells right now.
No body wants to take a loss unless they are forced to. Maybe after some of these mergers shake out, they will shed some.
Please let me know if I'm looking in the wrong place.
No body wants to take a loss unless they are forced to. Maybe after some of these mergers shake out, they will shed some.
Please let me know if I'm looking in the wrong place.
CaptnCarl said:
Maybe I'm talking to the wrong people, but I'm not seeing companies shed off stripper wells right now.
No body wants to take a loss unless they are forced to. Maybe after some of these mergers shake out, they will shed some.
Please let me know if I'm looking in the wrong place.
That's all that for sale on the market now, bunch of junk with P&A obligations. There is no loss with stripper wells, they've been losing and now is the time to shed gas stripper wells.
I'd honestly like to see an experiment with the VP group and below being kept and the SEC reportable group being let go. Move everyone on up and see how it runs.Comeby! said:BiochemAg97 said:
Either way, given the c suite bankruptcy bonuses is insane. And I'm not convinced leaving the team that ran the ship into the ground should be left in charge. All this about "but they know the business" is not convincing. It is generally the people (far) below them that are actually running the day to day operations and if the c suite had the strategic vision to turn things around, they probably wouldn't be in the position they are in.
Agreed. The problem is those making the decision are kind of in a bind. You have to hire someone to come in and turn the ship around, essentially wiping your ass. There's not a lot of teams or executives that can do that consistently and if there is, they aren't cheap and are ridiculously expensive. Normally the board hires Bob and Bob (some ridiculously priced advisor on a day rate) to tell them what the issues are which ultimately cost them more than the original but newly incentivized management team. The result is often the same, consultants and lawyers get bank and investors and employees get F'ed.
Essentially fire the Majors, call up the A or AA minor league and see how they would run it. You know, the ones running it while the ship was going into the ground.
~egon
Good for those with large PDP components, not just buying fringe acreage and praying. However, I still don't like New York billionaires trying to subvert the desire of Texans to reject the extremist environmentalist narrative in Texas.Cyp0111 said:
which equals higher prices.
Featured Stories
See All
Any direct path to Atlanta for Texas A&M goes through South Carolina
by Olin Buchanan
42:43
10h ago
4.3k
5:17
4h ago
1.8k
6:21
7h ago
1.8k
Key Matchups: No. 10 Texas A&M at South Carolina
by Olin Buchanan
DannyDuberstein
Mark Stoops complaining Kentucky playing too many night games.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
148
bmc13
Mark Stoops complaining Kentucky playing too many night games.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
144