For the hell of it...odds on being president Feb 1, 2021

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
60,845
11,600
0
Just for the hell of it, let me put odds on who I think will be president on February 1, 2021. Feel free to add your own. It will be interesting to see how this changes between now and then.

Donald Trump 46%
Joe Biden 35%
Bernie Sanders 5%
Kamala Harris 4%
Beto 3%
Mike Pence 2%
Field 5%

Thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: U.S. Bates

texvet16

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 15, 2017
4,933
7,106
0
Just for the hell of it, let me put odds on who I think will be president on February 1, 2021. Feel free to add your own. It will be interesting to see how this changes between now and then.

Donald Trump 46%
Joe Biden 35%
Bernie Sanders 5%
Kamala Harris 4%
Beto 3%
Mike Pence 2%
Field 5%

Thoughts?
Biden dropped his chances considerably the other day by apologizing for " white man culture " . Looked pretty weak and instead of being the adult in the race he looks like just another pandering Dem.
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,877
4,191
0
Donald Trump 50% but he surprised me last time.
Joe Biden 45%
Bernie Sanders 45%
Kamala Harris zero
Beto 5%
Mike Pence zero
Field 5% if you include Hillary. ;)
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
60,845
11,600
0
Donald Trump 50% but he surprised me last time.
Joe Biden 45%
Bernie Sanders 45%
Kamala Harris zero
Beto 5%
Mike Pence zero
Field 5% if you include Hillary. ;)
We can see who went to Texas and who went to USC...in my math class percentages have to add to 100...:p
 
  • Like
Reactions: U.S. Bates

UTGrad91

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
13,828
6,816
0
Trump - 51%
Darkhorse Dem Candidate - 25%
All Announced Dem Candidates Combined- 24%

BTW: What's so special about who will be President on February 1, 2021, that's 12 days after the inauguration on 1/20/2021.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
6,274
11,064
0
Biden dropped his chances considerably the other day by apologizing for " white man culture " . Looked pretty weak and instead of being the adult in the race he looks like just another pandering Dem.
Best take on my thoughts on Biden when I saw that last week. Just a pathetic look and very weak for someone that wants to be President.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
6,274
11,064
0
Trump - 51%
Darkhorse Dem Candidate - 25%
All Announced Dem Candidates Combined- 24%

BTW: What's so special about who will be President on February 1, 2021, that's 12 days after the inauguration on 1/20/2021.
Adding days in the event of Russian collusion and impeachment following the inauguration.
 

TEXBTP

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
12,663
4,126
0
The economy tanks before the election.
I’m pretty optimistic about the economy. I think all the positive npv projects that were taken on in 2018 (due to corporate tax cut) will start showing a noticeable effect on the economy before Election Day.
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,028
4,001
0
Texas
BTW I just called the Whitehouse and left a message for Trump about his latest Tweet damaging the #1 oil producer in the world, the United States. I can't decide whether he is just ignorant, or he realizes that anyone associated with U.S. Oil and Gas is not going to vote for a Democrat, and a large portion of his base is far more concerned about paying a bit more at the pump for gasoline. But Mr. Trump, just because I won't vote for a Democrat doesn't mean I'll vote for you, so you'll have to find one more person to convince to actually make the effort to vote for you.

But the GOP can look for zero donations and no votes from me as long as he keeps up these jawboning tweets. I emailed Cruz and Cornyn and pointed out that his tweets have dropped the price of crude, but the vote against the GND didn't raise it a bit, since no one in the industry is seriously concerned about that at this time. I dislike the man for a number of reasons, though I agree with some of the things that have happened on his watch, in part due to him. OTOH, I'm not at all sure we'd have a Democrat controlled House now if he weren't President). Anyway when he directly hits my pocketbook so negatively, he's crossed a line for me. Obviously I won't support a Democrat (well, it's possible I might find Manchin acceptable, but that's not something with any remotely realistic chance of happening), but I might sit on my hands when it comes to voting and donations, even to other Republicans. It's not like I actually like many of them either. At some point for me, "lesser of two evils" becomes "**** 'em all".
 

TEXBTP

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
12,663
4,126
0
BTW I just called the Whitehouse and left a message for Trump about his latest Tweet damaging the #1 oil producer in the world, the United States. I can't decide whether he is just ignorant, or he realizes that anyone associated with U.S. Oil and Gas is not going to vote for a Democrat, and a large portion of his base is far more concerned about paying a bit more at the pump for gasoline. But Mr. Trump, just because I won't vote for a Democrat doesn't mean I'll vote for you, so you'll have to find one more person to convince to actually make the effort to vote for you.

But the GOP can look for zero donations and no votes from me as long as he keeps up these jawboning tweets. I emailed Cruz and Cornyn and pointed out that his tweets have dropped the price of crude, but the vote against the GND didn't raise it a bit, since no one in the industry is seriously concerned about that at this time. I dislike the man for a number of reasons, though I agree with some of the things that have happened on his watch, in part due to him. OTOH, I'm not at all sure we'd have a Democrat controlled House now if he weren't President). Anyway when he directly hits my pocketbook so negatively, he's crossed a line for me. Obviously I won't support a Democrat (well, it's possible I might find Manchin acceptable, but that's not something with any remotely realistic chance of happening), but I might sit on my hands when it comes to voting and donations, even to other Republicans. It's not like I actually like many of them either. At some point for me, "lesser of two evils" becomes "**** 'em all".
Would you please provide a little context here for people that aren’t part of O&G? Maybe @scout3dave has some insight as well?
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,028
4,001
0
Texas
Would you please provide a little context here for people that aren’t part of O&G? Maybe @scout3dave has some insight as well?
It's pretty simple. Trump is making tweets saying the Saudis should lower the price of crude by producing more. Essentially he's asking them to realize revenue from selling more of their oil to replace U.S. domestic revenue. If that wouldn't contribute to the trade imbalance he hates so much, I don't know anything that would.

What is displacing Saudi crude is prolific new U.S. oil from shale oil wells, with the U.S. now being the worlds largest producer, and soon the world's largest exporter of crude plus refined products. Virtually all the revenues remain in the U.S.. This includes not just revenue from the sale of the crude, but includes wages (~350,000 people directly employed in Texas alone, royalties paid to 1)royalty owners (thousands of individuals like me) and 2) (in 2018) around $14 billion in royalties, severance taxes, and property taxes directly to the State of Texas (and University Lands) and local tax districts (schools get a big share of those property taxes). Last year University Lands received around $20 million in royalty just from the very small area of University Lands where I also own overriding royalty.

It's very capital intensive to drill and complete new well in the U.S. to replace production decline (very rapid at least early in the decline curve of shale oil wells). In the Delaware Basin, where a great deal of the boom in production is coming from, depending on th depth and the length of the horizontal leg, I think it's around too drill and complete $18-$20 million per well for a 11,000 foot deep, two mile long horizontal. To a large extent, how much is spent determines how much oil and gas the well will produce over time, and how rapidly it produces most of it. Lower crude prices in recent months have meant that U.S. producers are scaling back capital expenditures, which means less U.S. production.

Obviously the other side of the coin is gasoline prices at the pump. But even there, direct Federal tax at the pump is about $018/gallon and State f Texas is also about $0.18/gallon. California's tax is about $0.55/gallon. Ad all the money spent to buy that gasoline, plus the money spent to dril for it, prodcue it, transport it,, and refine it, which is mostly wages remains in the U.S.

So Trump, appealing to the part of his base that has no clue about all this, but just pays to fill-up their car, "jawbones" to lower the world (and thus domestic) price of crude. This is what I was talking about
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump...-opec-the-world-cannot-take-a-price-hike.html
 
Last edited:

Burnt Orange

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 10, 2012
4,932
2,727
0
It's pretty simple. Trump is making tweets saying the Saudis should lower the price of crude by producing more. Essentially he's asking them to realize revenue from selling more of their oil to replace U.S. domestic revenue. If that wouldn't contribute to the trade imbalance he hates so much, I don't know anything that would.

What is displacing Saudi crude is prolific new U.S. oil from shale oil wells, with the U.S. now being the worlds largest producer, and soon the world's largest exporter of crude plus refined products. Virtually all the revenues remain in the U.S.. This includes not just revenue from the sale of the crude, but includes wages (~350,000 people directly employed in Texas alone, royalties paid to 1)royalty owners (thousands of individuals like me) and 2) (in 2018) around $14 billion in royalties, severance taxes, and property taxes directly to the State of Texas (and University Lands) and local tax districts (schools get a big share of those property taxes). Last year University Lands received around $20 million in royalty just from the very small area of University Lands where I also own overriding royalty.

It's very capital intensive to drill and complete new well in the U.S. to replace production decline (very rapid at least early in the decline curve of shale oil wells). In the Delaware Basin, where a great deal of the boom in production is coming from, depending on th depth and the length of the horizontal leg, I think it's around too drill and complete $18-$20 million per well for a 11,000 foot deep, two mile long horizontal. To a large extent, how much is spent determines how much oil and gas the well will produce over time, and how rapidly it produces most of it. Lower crude prices in recent months have meant that U.S. producers are scaling back capital expenditures, which means less U.S. production.

Obviously the other side of the coin is gasoline prices at the pump. But even there, direct Federal tax at the pump is about $018/gallon and State f Texas is also about $0.18/gallon. California's tax is about $0.55/gallon. Ad all the money spent to buy that gasoline, plus the money spent to dril for it, prodcue it, transport it,, and refine it, which is mostly wages remains in the U.S.

So Trump, appealing to the part of his base that has no clue about all this, but just pays to fill-up their car, "jawbones" to lower the world (and thus domestic) price of crude. This is what I was talking about
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump...-opec-the-world-cannot-take-a-price-hike.html
Local economics aside, trump is right in demanding lower price of crude. I read somewhere that for every 10 dollar drop in crude oil, US gdp goes up by about 3%.
 

scout3dave

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
8,213
2,677
0
Local economics aside, trump is right in demanding lower price of crude. I read somewhere that for every 10 dollar drop in crude oil, US gdp goes up by about 3%.
That’s not even close. Trump should not try picking winners just as Obama shouldn’t have. It is stupid. The market will take care of swings in prices. The best cure for high oil prices is high oil prices. Same for low oil prices.

There is nothing damaging about the price range we seem to be operating in. Trump already set up the Saudi’s once when he reneged on the Iran sanctions. I am sure they will be happy to get screwed again.
 

bodieman

Member Who Talks
Oct 29, 2008
890
894
0
Maybe Trump’s “hard line” to OPEC regarding oil prices is connected to the current story that we’re sharing sensitive nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia.

He’s not complicated.

Media says, “Trump is in bed with The Saudis”. Trump says, “No one has ever been tougher on the Saudis ever before in history. I’m pressuring OPEC to lower oil prices for the good of all.”

He also just said wind power is bad because the wind doesn’t blow all the time.

Everything’s fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: U.S. Bates

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,028
4,001
0
Texas
Local economics aside, trump is right in demanding lower price of crude. I read somewhere that for every 10 dollar drop in crude oil, US gdp goes up by about 3%.
Completely wrong.

The U.S. is now about a net exporter of oil and oil products (but not crude oil, quite). The oil products kind of confuses the whole issue but here is the breakdown by Forbes. Basically we export a lot of products too ( and those are higher value than crude). And all the revenue from oil produced in the U.S, as I said above stays in the U.S. And Saudi oil production (which Trump wants them to increase since that is the only way they can affect the price of oil) replaces U.S. production over a relatively short period of time, (Do you need me to explain that?) Did you even really read my post? Or glance at it and start parroting a pull it out your ass number you've "read somewhere" or heard from some leftist you listened to? Maybe that genius of economics, AO-C?

EDIT of above. @Burnt Orange, that can't be right. Does it seem reasonable to you that when the price of oil dropped roughly $26.5/BBL from October 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018, GDP for that quarter rose on an annualized basis by roughly 8% (the number was actually 3.4% annualized)? Or that when it rose by roughly 11.50/ BBl since January 1, 2019 through today, it dropped by over 4.5% on an annualized basis. Since GDP grew by around 2.9% in 2018 when oil rose by roughly $15/BBL in the first 9 months of 2018 when the economy averaged roughly 3% growth (annualized) it would have grown by another 1.5% if the price of oil hadn't risen. Really?

Now let's talk about just the "local economics" of the State of Texas, which accounts for about 8.8% of the U.S.. population.

The State of Texas, every ISD, and most counties in Texas all tax the roughly 5 million barrels of oil (about 5% of world oil production), or 210 million gallons to you, produced every day in Texas currently. The State takes 4.6% severance of the value of all oil produced anywhere in Texas and 7.5% of the value of all natural gas. Counties and ISDs tax the total value of the oil and gas at the same rate as they do any other real property (except for the royalties received by University Lands and the State of Texas owned land). That value is about 4 years annual production revenue for working interest and 5 years annual production revenue for royalty. University Landsreceives a royalty interest equal to 25% of the revenue (before severance tax) from the oil produced from University Lands. 350,000Texans are employed in the oil and gas industry directly. Over 600,000 Texas families own oil and gas royalties and receive royalty payments mostly varying between 12.5% and 25% of the price of each barrel. Now figure what they do with that money, and how many people in Texas indirectly benefit. As virtually everyone in Midland - Odessa (pop. ~300,000) will tell you, they may not work for an oil company, but they are in the oil business. Then look at say, Houston.

Now ,what do you think a severe drop in the price of crude does to the 'local economy' that is the State of Texas.

But you probably think it's all about "Big Oil".

P.S. I hope all those actual and factual numbers weren't off-putting to you. I mean I could have just said "You're full of ****, but I like to, you know, sometimes, post real numbers to back up my conclusions and opinions, instead kind, of sort of remembering "something I read somewhere"
 
Last edited:

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,028
4,001
0
Texas
Local economics aside, trump is right in demanding lower price of crude. I read somewhere that for every 10 dollar drop in crude oil, US gdp goes up by about 3%.
One more number that tells me your number is completely wrong. The entire value of oil and oil products consumed in the U.S. in 2018 was about 0.0375% of GDP, less than 4% of 1% of GDP.
 

Bobcat 9

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 24, 2012
4,019
2,679
0
Houston, Texas
Just for the hell of it, let me put odds on who I think will be president on February 1, 2021. Feel free to add your own. It will be interesting to see how this changes between now and then.

Donald Trump 46%
Joe Biden 35%
Bernie Sanders 5%
Kamala Harris 4%
Beto 3%
Mike Pence 2%
Field 5%

Thoughts?
I'm surprised Pocahontas Warren isn't on this list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: padrehorn11

Burnt Orange

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 10, 2012
4,932
2,727
0
Completely wrong.

The U.S. is now about a net exporter of oil and oil products (but not crude oil, quite). The oil products kind of confuses the whole issue but here is the breakdown by Forbes. Basically we export a lot of products too ( and those are higher value than crude). And all the revenue from oil produced in the U.S, as I said above stays in the U.S. And Saudi oil production (which Trump wants them to increase since that is the only way they can affect the price of oil) replaces U.S. production over a relatively short period of time, (Do you need me to explain that?) Did you even really read my post? Or glance at it and start parroting a pull it out your ass number you've "read somewhere" or heard from some leftist you listened to? Maybe that genius of economics, AO-C?

EDIT of above. @Burnt Orange, that can't be right. Does it seem reasonable to you that when the price of oil dropped roughly $26.5/BBL from October 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018, GDP for that quarter rose on an annualized basis by roughly 8% (the number was actually 3.4% annualized)? Or that when it rose by roughly 11.50/ BBl since January 1, 2019 through today, it dropped by over 4.5% on an annualized basis. Since GDP grew by around 2.9% in 2018 when oil rose by roughly $15/BBL in the first 9 months of 2018 when the economy averaged roughly 3% growth (annualized) it would have grown by another 1.5% if the price of oil hadn't risen. Really?

Now let's talk about just the "local economics" of the State of Texas, which accounts for about 8.8% of the U.S.. population.

The State of Texas, every ISD, and most counties in Texas all tax the roughly 5 million barrels of oil (about 5% of world oil production), or 210 million gallons to you, produced every day in Texas currently. The State takes 4.6% severance of the value of all oil produced anywhere in Texas and 7.5% of the value of all natural gas. Counties and ISDs tax the total value of the oil and gas at the same rate as they do any other real property (except for the royalties received by University Lands and the State of Texas owned land). That value is about 4 years annual production revenue for working interest and 5 years annual production revenue for royalty. University Landsreceives a royalty interest equal to 25% of the revenue (before severance tax) from the oil produced from University Lands. 350,000Texans are employed in the oil and gas industry directly. Over 600,000 Texas families own oil and gas royalties and receive royalty payments mostly varying between 12.5% and 25% of the price of each barrel. Now figure what they do with that money, and how many people in Texas indirectly benefit. As virtually everyone in Midland - Odessa (pop. ~300,000) will tell you, they may not work for an oil company, but they are in the oil business. Then look at say, Houston.

Now ,what do you think a severe drop in the price of crude does to the 'local economy' that is the State of Texas.

But you probably think it's all about "Big Oil".

P.S. I hope all those actual and factual numbers weren't off-putting to you. I mean I could have just said "You're full of ****, but I like to, you know, sometimes, post real numbers to back up my conclusions and opinions, instead kind, of sort of remembering "something I read somewhere"
You are clearly emotional about this (as you are with several things), so I wont get too much into it. I did not mean 3% on an annualized basis. But 3% on a NPV basis for the economy as a whole. It was not some leftist propaganda (I am not sure what left or right has to do with it), it was a internal company memo, that was evaluating the impacts of the oil collapse (It was a trading firm, and we traded commodities). So I cannot reference it, like I would have other documents.

Just because the US is a net exporter does not mean that the oil price increase/drop will negatively hit the economy. The US is a huge producer across the board, and an increase in the price of oil is an increase in the cost of goods sold for several companies. If our only business was oil, I would say it hurts the US. But its not. So in general Trump is looking for some kind of a stimulus (not created by him) that will keep the economy chumming in a key election year. Since Texas is going to vote for him anyway... he does care much about its business prospects. And I am always looking at the US in general, and if we are to have a manufacturing renaissance, then a low oil price will help a lot.

Does it hurt Texas... of course it does to producers. But distallates and other products continue to enjoy good margins, so not sure how much hurt we are seeing there. I have very little data on that.

Having said all this, there continue to be new finds of oil across the globe. I am a trader myself, and I have interacted with oil traders a lot, and they seem to be a very pessimistic bunch... I used to trade oil stocks heavily, but have started to distance myself from producers to the extent that I can. I like refiners some, but this whole industry continues to face headwinds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasPalladin

UTGrad91

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
13,828
6,816
0
The key obviously is whether the economy holds up. If it does, Trump wins, if it doesn't he loses. We're due for a recession and the inverted yield curve shows one is on the horizon, does it hit before 11/2020 or after, enquiring minds want to know!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexanBlood

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
6,274
11,064
0
If this were true, we should subsidize every O&G producer in this country to flood the market and jack our GDP up like 50%
Makes sense. This will correspondingly drop our debt to gdp ratio to only 50%. Just like that, the stupids in Washington will think they can spend even more money.
 
Last edited:

Bobcat 9

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 24, 2012
4,019
2,679
0
Houston, Texas
Field.

She ain't gonna win.
It would have been good if she had run in the last election because she is or was popular with the democrats and she might have been a voice of reason when compared to the histrionics of Trump. IMHO of course.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
60,845
11,600
0
It would have been good if she had run in the last election because she is or was popular with the democrats and she might have been a voice of reason when compared to the histrionics of Trump. IMHO of course.
She is less popular now. Plus I think there will be a backlash because she will remind a lot of voters of the ghost of Hillary Clinton. Same strident northeastern accent, same age-ish, same result against Trump. Her Native American thing and then the way she handled it means she's toast.
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,028
4,001
0
Texas
You are clearly emotional about this (as you are with several things), so I wont get too much into it. I did not mean 3% on an annualized basis. But 3% on a NPV basis for the economy as a whole. It was not some leftist propaganda (I am not sure what left or right has to do with it), it was a internal company memo, that was evaluating the impacts of the oil collapse (It was a trading firm, and we traded commodities). So I cannot reference it, like I would have other documents.

Just because the US is a net exporter does not mean that the oil price increase/drop will negatively hit the economy. The US is a huge producer across the board, and an increase in the price of oil is an increase in the cost of goods sold for several companies. If our only business was oil, I would say it hurts the US. But its not. So in general Trump is looking for some kind of a stimulus (not created by him) that will keep the economy chumming in a key election year. Since Texas is going to vote for him anyway... he does care much about its business prospects. And I am always looking at the US in general, and if we are to have a manufacturing renaissance, then a low oil price will help a lot.

Does it hurt Texas... of course it does to producers. But distallates and other products continue to enjoy good margins, so not sure how much hurt we are seeing there. I have very little data on that.

Having said all this, there continue to be new finds of oil across the globe. I am a trader myself, and I have interacted with oil traders a lot, and they seem to be a very pessimistic bunch... I used to trade oil stocks heavily, but have started to distance myself from producers to the extent that I can. I like refiners some, but this whole industry continues to face headwinds.
Here's a CNBC article from last May , and we produce much more oil now than last May, that says some economists now say the price of oil is about a wash for the U.S.. economy overall.. It's certainly nothing like your claim. As for distillate margins, those may be important to a trader of refiners, but they are a small part of the big picture of the oil industry in this country , and they go to mainly a few large refining companies, some partially foreign owned. Refinery profits amount to nowhere near oil and gas royalty payments, which mostly go directly to individuals American citizens, though the Feds, The States, and University lands get some. And those (after taxes ) have no cost unless someone buys them from someone else.

But I can see that you don't care to read fact-based arguments using actual numbers this case, rather than broad statements of what you think, so why should I bother to proceed?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TexasPalladin