President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 30, 2014 11:41 AM UTC
46 Comments
For at least a 
International Business Times: Crude Oil Does The Limbo: How Low Can It Go?
So those who view fracking with suspicion aren't necessarily America hating anti- business hippies? Gee whiz.
I'm so confused.
http://fortune.com/2014/11/27/oil-prices-in-freefall-as-opec-fails-to-agree-output-cut/
Oil prices in freefall as OPEC fails to agree output cut
Oil futures fall nearly 8% to their lowest in five years as Saudi Arabia tries to squeeze U.S. shale industry.
Oil prices fell to their lowest level in over five years Thursday as the cartel that produces one third of the world’s output failed to agree on measures to tackle the current glut.
HEH, HEH, THEY ARE FALLING INTO OUR TRAP! I work for a cartel that has cornered the supply of sunshine and wind and we're about to quadruple their prices!
hehehehehehe
Asian market foreshadow Monday Wall Street opener:
It's the same old story in the oil biz, dating back decades. The strong will survive by cutting back to their core and screwing every other employee. The weak will fade off. Same old, same old. The Saudis will then hike the prices back up and the oil biz will be back.
SSDD.
So, let's get this straight: fracking is so little of a threat to OPEC that they chose to cut oil prices (by expanding production) to $66.15 a barrel? Oh REALLY?
Or, oil is a globally fungible commodity. Developing expensive marginal and dubious plays, mining the dregs as it were–regardless of how abundant it appears as a new, technologically exciting, resource–will always always always be the most vulnerable to any animal spirits or otherwise, acting in the volatile commodities market. Thus neither a revolution nor 'energy indepenence.' As long as we are addicts we will behave as addicts, jonesing and binging, jonesing and binging. Occam whispered all that in my ear. What's he telling you boss?
+10 ct for making me laugh about the oil market.
Washington (in particular the American Petroleum Institute lobby and their hand-maidens) have wasted six years in putting us in to a global leadership position on 'energy'. While they have gone to extraordinary lengths to kill the domestic biofuels market, making everyone believe we were the enemy.
It turns out, 'not so much'.
If we stopped pretending that the only 'energy' was hydrocarbons, and treated all domestic, liquid fuels as a the valuable resources they are, we could collectively win this battle with OPEC. Congress, roll up your sleeves, give us an open-fuel standard, let the EPA exercise their authority to eliminate BTX from gasoline, replace it with advanced biofuels and double the strategic petroleum reserve by creating an 'above ground', working reserve. Give a market preference (ie: support) for low carbon blends of gasoline – something no one in OPEC could touch.
Let's remake the American Petroleum Institute in to the 'American Liquid Fuels Institute'. Neither of us can own that market place in full, together we can create a lot of wealth across the rural landscape in America, lower our emissions – and lead the world to a very different place.
GRANTHAM: 'US Fracking Is A Very Large Red Herring'
Jeremy Grantham is not a believer in the shale fracking boom.
Earlier this month, we highlighted Grantham's full quarterly letter to GMO clients, in which he said, among other things, that the US shale boom had been "a very large red herring."
So while some say the fracking boom has helped keep oil prices low and aided the US on its path to energy independence, Grantham thinks it might have set us on a path to nowhere.
But the US boom, which as Grantham notes has accounted for almost all of the increase in global oil production over the past several years, has been undertaken by companies, not countries.
And so with an eye toward profit, Grantham writes, these companies "have drilled, as always, the best parts of the best fields first, and because the first two years of flow are basically all we get in fracking, we should have expected considerably better financial results by now. The aggregate financial results allow for the possibility that fracking costs have been underestimated by corporations and understated in the press."
And with a decline in oil prices set off by too much supply, it will be these companies that are forced to pare production, which will reduce supply, which will create — once again — expensive oil.
"The current fall in price does nothing to offset the squeeze on the total economy from rising costs," Grantham writes. "It merely transfers massive amounts of income from one subgroup (oil producers) to another (oil consumers), in a largely zero-sum game.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/grantham-us-fracking-very-large-165607606.html
It's not a renaissance, it's a retirement party….
Elliot…listen up….
$
Here's a useful chart:
I'm trying to understand this.I understand mining and drilling better than I understand business practices, but I'm expert in neither. The link to the Financial Post, btw, doesn't work.
What is a "Brent price"? Another way to say "break even price", where costs per barrel and profits per barrel are the same?
Why so much variation? Abundance or ease of getting the oil out, stricter or looser regulations, cost of labor, all of the above?
So if, say, the Block 61 Oman price goes below $80 USd/barrel, then the operator starts losing money?
Where do the US oil producer subsidies come into all this? Does the Brent Price reflect taxpayer supports to producers? If so, is it likely that the Kochs and their ilk will start lobbying for ever greater taxpayer support of their industries?
All of the above but more 'Abundance or ease of getting the oil out' and the value of the resource (not all gas/oil is created equal).
Can’t resist weighing in- Brent oil is North sea oil, established by Norway & Great Britain, more costly extraction, higher priced, (and slightly heavier type of crude) On daily listings, the “other oil price is WTI, which is a older standard Abbr. for “West Texas Intermediate,” & is a “sweeter crude” meaning it has less associated refinery costs than say, Venezuela (heavier) or Saudi ( heavier still, sorta classified as bunker oil, to be burnt in ships.) pretty sure subsidies reside in US leasing of sites, I’ll let others & their expertise further the dialog,
Someone please tell me the Kochs lost their asses……at least a bit.
ct…where does the Piceance fall on this chart?
Duke, it doesn't.
The Piceance is gas, not oil. Also, much of the Piceance gas is "tight sands" gas, not "shale" gas. The newer exploration into Niobrara formation shale gas in western Colorado has shown the gas is abundant (or, at least, the wells produce a whole lot for a year or two) but I'm not aware of any analyses that indicate break-even pricing.
Of course, if ct says otherwise, I will allow that I may be wrong!
Badly phrased question, ardy.
I should have asked if the price of nat gas and particularly the liquids upon which, as I understand it, the Piceance boat remains afloat, would take a serious hit from this
circumstance?
Duke – here's an interesting article about that issue as it relates to Japan.
Some people believe this is NOT about fracking at all. In spite of what the Saudis say.
Some people believe that the Saudis are sending a message to Putin to stop supporting the Shiites in control of Iran.
Remember, we can shift our economy towards higher electricity consumption and lower oil consumption over the long run. Then, we can take advantage of our abundant coal resources.
Why don't we just go back to firewood and buffalo dung for fuel, dave?
Coal?…seriously?
There are several industry-funded models (in particular the Wood Mackenzie model) that make the President's Clean Power Plan look more costly than it will actually be – and it perpetuates a very dangerous misconception that the US has vast reserves of economically accessible coal still available; this misconception is not supported by known data and perpetuation of it could have extremely serious implications for the US economy.
It reminds me of the joke: a son asks his father to tell him the difference between potential and reality. He tells the son to ask his mother and sister if they would sleep with Robert Redford for $1 million dollars. The son asks, both of them enthusiastically say "Yes!" ,and he reports this to his father. The father responds, "Son, we're potentially sitting on $2 million dollars; the reality is we live with two tramps."
Doesn't matter
Solar is cheaper than coal.
And soon will be even with massive subsidy for coal in the form of all kinds of externalities (socialized loss).
So, it could serve both purposes– punishing Russia and shale. Two birds, one stone.
As for coal, we could, and we could also take advantage of abundant pulmonary disease, global warming output, acid rain, and mercury poisoning. I'll pass, thanks.
For all my coal-lovin' 'Free Market Patriots' over at the 'Keep Electricity Affordable' coalition: you're killing us both physically and economically. (you've perfected the business model of privatizing profits and socializing costs).
An editorial in the Lexington Herald-Reader that I wish they had had the courage to run before the election:
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/11/30/3567147_coals-costs-keep-adding-up.html?sp=/99/349/&rh=1
Of course we should be electrifying our economy. If we do this, we can then use whatever fuel source is appropriate. We can use coal (for the immediate future), nuclear (in wetter parts of the country), natural gas (for a couple decades), biomass (again, in wetter parts of the country), geothermal (in the few locations this is an option), hydro (but this is pretty much maxed out), and wind & solar (in perpetuity).
We can use the same infrastructure and delivery system regardless of fuel source. It's the only solution that makes sense for the entire country for the long term (as opposed to the sense other options make for the 0.01% for the very short term).
And coal only makes sense as long as we continue to worship at the alter of broken markets. As soon as the price of coal accurately reflects the costs of using it, it will no longer make economic sense to even consider it.
And the reason we are still using any fossil fuels at all is that the huge costs of their externalities are not reflected in the cost of the fuels.
+100
Coal will be available to those few who survive the collapse of civilization, and begin to rebuild beyond a primitive society. Share with the future.
Ever the optimist…I see.
Ever The realist.
😀
Obviously, the answer is to buy more guns!
Lower gas prices are a gift; In the Chuck Todd dichotomy of political camps, its “Chick fil Le “ vs “Starbucks” Righties want (Pew research poll) to “get away” from urban areas while “Starbucks” types want mass transit, urban consolidation. “ Red necks retreat to Dogpatch” (Weld County) & can be seen pinching themselves over diesel prices LOL
…and while our new majorities incessantly whine about their manufactured 'War on Coal', Germany's largest utility has announced it will end its gas and coal generation, transition to renewables and support their already-robust distributed generation model.
Just how much longer can our National Rural Electric Association cling to their 19th-century model of energy production?
Germans are in the process of building a transmission spine, North (off shore wind) to South , to accommodate renewables, and their goal of transitioning from Nuclear as well.
In this country the Price Anderson Act indemnifies Nuke plants from liabilities shifting hazards to US govt, I mean who (insurance companies) in their right mind would insure a nuke plant? Any pol who defers the energy question with the “ all of the above" answer, needs to revisit Fukashima
Price Anderson comes up for reauthorization in 2017 – as if we needed yet another reason to keep a keen eye on the 2016 elections….
Well sure, it sounds bad when you say it like that.
CDOT has floated a local news story about “What to do about dwindling funding of per gallon HWY use taxes” Resulting from more efficient cars,( also a stagnant economy) particularly the pesky Hybrid cars, who in their estimation cause huge untaxed wear & tear upon our hwys. Solution? Test program to tax drivers by the mile driven. Never mind the real culprit, heavy trucks, many of which haul sand gravel, asphalt to build said hwys. Kind of a perpetual motion circle of life.
Stagnation at the national level abounds as well in redoing the funding of the Highway Trust Fund. “ Don’t tax me, don’t tax thee, tax the man (hugging ) behind the tree.”
Given the inflammatory language that has accompanied this subject, is it safe to call this latest development a "declaration of war"?
Remember when POTUS-hopeful 'family values' Newt declared we'd have $10 gasoline if we re-eleted Barack Hussein Obama? Predictions are now that in the reddest of US states, they may see sub-$2 gasoline soon…. And all those hawkish platitudes about taking on Putin? Looks like global markets and a united global community can inflict more harm than our military might: