/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>56125702
>>56124077
I'd say OPEC has an incentive to keep the price between $70 and $80 since they're profitable at those prices, while US shale is still largely marginal with oil below $80. It's a retarded assertion to say OPEC wants to raise the oil price to somehow fuck with the US. The US is the fifth biggest crude oil exporter and the biggest refined product exporter in the world, they benefit from a high oil price more thanks to having high costs per boe. US shale eagerly swing produces when they see oil at $100+, and that aside demand destruction sets in when oil goes above the hundred dollar mark so there really is little incentive for OPEC to get oil prices that high for any sustained period of time. They'd just be throwing the ball to Uncle Sam's court. "Higher for longer" for crude oil is the reasonable gameplan, keeping oil at a sustained, elevated price maybe around $80. (Though I won't turn my nose to all the profits I will share in if oil goes above $100!)
>>56125380
I won some XOM as well but all of my other o&g stocks are Canadian. Most of the growth in North American oil and gas production is going to come from the WCSB for the next few decades. Permian will maybe grow a little bit until the end of the decade with the bigger companies there increasing production, not much production growth coming out the US beside that. Margins and decline rates are better in the WCSB on average too. Canada is also the place to be if you like natgas, which I love considering all the LNG exports from NA are ramping up which will finally pull natgas prices up from the post-shale boom slump as well.
>>56125459
you mean gasoline and diesel prices? Over here they're nowhere near as high as they were during the Russia-Ukraine mess last year but yeah still expensive. It seems people are getting used to high energy prices. I think this will be a theme going forward at least until the end of the decade.

>>56121510
>What are some natgas companies to hold?
Canadian companies are my go-to for natgas exposure because the WCSB is simply the place to be for oil and gas, especially the latter. Tourmaline (20% liquids; biggest natgas producer in Canada), Arc Resources (40% liquids), Canadian Natural (70% liquids but 2nd biggest natgas producer in Canada), and Ovintiv (40% liquids) all have direct exposure to premium LNG pricing since they're big enough companies to have been awarded those supply contracts. Smaller companies don't usually get those. We're talking about >$15/mmBtu here, significantly higher prices than what you get selling in Alberta or Texas or whatever. Some also sell to US West coast where prices get to LNG levels at times. If you want more leverage and access the longer term natty price hike, many gassy SMIDs like Crew, Kelt, Pipestone, Birchliff etc etc exist.
>decays
fuck the commodity ETFs have time decay? Fuck 'em then I'm not touching that shit with a long stick
>>56121527
>How in heck is the Finnish index doing so poorly? Compared to the Swedish or Danish one (or even Norwegian), it's an utter and complete tragedy.
This is a dying economy. There is no fucking growth in this shithole aside from a few companies, and even then it's slow. We have an aging population, a decaying welfare state, and absolutely no attractiveness as an investment destination. The only thing we have really is a big forestry, pulp & paper industry and that's a suffering industry, they're speedrunning those factory closures here and over there in Sweden too. We do have some mineral endowment and Agnico Eagle has a great gold mine up in Lapland, but we really have never truly recovered from the post-Soviet collapse depression of the 90's. Nokia singlehandedly pulled Finland out of the depression in the late 90's. Nokia isn't out there for us anymore, and all of our businesses worth a dime have been bought out. Even fucking Rovio got sold to Sega a while ago.

>>55146865
Honestly, I'm not sure. I'm very unfamiliar with OFS and fracking materials as a sector. I think it's a very hated sector so I think there may be opportunity there. Also I think I've read somewhere that there are some DUCs, drilled and uncompleted wells, that would be cheaper to get to production. I think there's a chance that now that o&g prices are in a bit of a slump producers will seek to cut costs by drilling less verticals and going for DUCs or something. Rig counts have been falling faster than frac spreads which seems to indicate that drilling decreases faster than completions in this price range. Furthermore, it may be that production and production increases are high enough to bring down oil prices. This would mean many upstream producers would begin losing money. The OFS companies may offer a better value proposition in that case.