Investing

is now the time to invest in oil stocks?

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 4th, 2024 9:55 am
Tags:
Deal Guru
User avatar
Sep 21, 2007
13046 posts
11387 upvotes
...
They finally raised the gas prices in Winnipeg from $1.39 to $1.49.. Did it increase all at the same time across the country?
"An essential aspect of creativity is not being afraid to fail." -- Edward Land
Deal Guru
Aug 17, 2008
10990 posts
13540 upvotes
faken wrote: They finally raised the gas prices in Winnipeg from $1.39 to $1.49.. Did it increase all at the same time across the country?
http://www.TorontoGasPrices.com/retail_ ... 1&units=ca
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him = Never argue with an idiot, they'll only bring you down to their level & beat you with experience
Deal Expert
Jan 27, 2006
21844 posts
15620 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
jerryhung wrote: so everyone is selling "at/near the top" eh, at good prices (oil at 7-year high's)
I wouldn't say selling at/near the top per se as we could have a lot of runway left if the various analysts are to be believed. Right now there are more bulls than bears in the oil sector and a minor correction that we are seeing now is a good thing to keep things moving forward.
Deal Expert
Jan 27, 2006
21844 posts
15620 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
faken wrote: They finally raised the gas prices in Winnipeg from $1.39 to $1.49.. Did it increase all at the same time across the country?
That's a bargain! It's $1.719 here on a good day!
Deal Expert
Jan 27, 2006
21844 posts
15620 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
jerryhung wrote: USO -2%

CNQ -3%
CVE -8%

Interesting wild times

Tech isn't getting love either though, still going down = no sector rotation yet
More talk of an Iranian nuclear deal. I'm not worried however as the demand side of the picture is still sound and OPEC+ has shown to have production issues as they still can't produce up to their own imposed quotas. If Iranian oil is introduced back into the market today, OPEC+'s production would be just above what their quota limits are now. In another month, they should be below those quota limits again as another 400,000 barrels would have been added to the quota.
Deal Fanatic
Apr 25, 2006
8454 posts
3628 upvotes
I am a bit skeptical on WTI prices. Historically, OPEC and shale would just flood the market so fast it kills the price. We all know Saudi's can do that at anytime and we know that US shale is quickly coming online to cash in on the run.

I have started some downside WTI positions, will prob continue to add. There is an obvious market imbalance of demand and supply but I would not bet against US shale and OPEC playing nice and not to cash in on these higher WTI prices.

I would not be surprised if companies started to offload assets because they would be deemed higher valuation when WTI is this high.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/748 ... ng%20wells.
"If you make a mistake but then change your ways, it is like never having made a mistake at all" - Confucius
Deal Expert
Jan 27, 2006
21844 posts
15620 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
1xTiMeR wrote: I am a bit skeptical on WTI prices. Historically, OPEC and shale would just flood the market so fast it kills the price. We all know Saudi's can do that at anytime and we know that US shale is quickly coming online to cash in on the run.

I have started some downside WTI positions, will prob continue to add. There is an obvious market imbalance of demand and supply but I would not bet against US shale and OPEC playing nice and not to cash in on these higher WTI prices.

I would not be surprised if companies started to offload assets because they would be deemed higher valuation when WTI is this high.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/748 ... ng%20wells.
A couple of things...
1. The Saudis only flooded the market to drive the US shale producers out of the market. According to various published reports, the Saudis (as well as most of OPEC+) NEED $80+ WTI pricing in order to balance their books as they really have no other industries in most of these countries.
2. The US shale producers were in a drill baby drill philosophy for years as they were able to get financing to do so. In the last 4 years or so, that financing has dried up as the investors have finally realized that they go back next to nothing from their investments. The financing has continued to be dry even as various pundits predicted a resurgence in drilling as oil when into the $40s (as that's the reported break-even point for shale), then the same cries came in the $50s, then the $60s, and the $70s. Drilling by the majors and most public companies have not returned in any meaningful way in the US. Sure, some will point to the increasing rig counts in the US as a sign that drilling is back baby! But look at the actual increase rather than the headlines... I believe the US added three (yep, 3) new rigs last month. To put that in perspective, in November of 2018, the US had just under 1100 rigs running where they have 613 as of Feb 4, 2022. Have a look at this chart to see the change - https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_rotary_rigs.
3. Any increase drilling will take time for production to come online so just because they drill today, doesn't mean oil will be available tomorrow.
4. OPEC+ isn't producing their own stated quotas - they have a short fall in production of 800,000 barrels so about 2 months of quota increases.
Deal Fanatic
Apr 25, 2006
8454 posts
3628 upvotes
craftsman wrote: A couple of things...
1. The Saudis only flooded the market to drive the US shale producers out of the market. According to various published reports, the Saudis (as well as most of OPEC+) NEED $80+ WTI pricing in order to balance their books as they really have no other industries in most of these countries.
2. The US shale producers were in a drill baby drill philosophy for years as they were able to get financing to do so. In the last 4 years or so, that financing has dried up as the investors have finally realized that they go back next to nothing from their investments. The financing has continued to be dry even as various pundits predicted a resurgence in drilling as oil when into the $40s (as that's the reported break-even point for shale), then the same cries came in the $50s, then the $60s, and the $70s. Drilling by the majors and most public companies have not returned in any meaningful way in the US. Sure, some will point to the increasing rig counts in the US as a sign that drilling is back baby! But look at the actual increase rather than the headlines... I believe the US added three (yep, 3) new rigs last month. To put that in perspective, in November of 2018, the US had just under 1100 rigs running where they have 613 as of Feb 4, 2022. Have a look at this chart to see the change - https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_rotary_rigs.
3. Any increase drilling will take time for production to come online so just because they drill today, doesn't mean oil will be available tomorrow.
4. OPEC+ isn't producing their own stated quotas - they have a short fall in production of 800,000 barrels so about 2 months of quota increases.
All I know and we know for certain is that US shale is coming back online. The height of WTI prices in 2018 was about 70-75 bucks, we saw the highest number of shale rigs.

We are at $90. Shale industry yes, got smoked because of lower prices but it is inevitable... we see the market imbalance be addressed with shale.

If you are saying OPEC and OPEC+ will forgo output to try to sustain higher prices, then yeah, I can see WTI staying up here. But if you are telling me OPEC and OPEC+ have short term production issues, I would think the supply will come back sooner than later, and demand will fall as it always does when no one is looking.

Buying WTI here is just nuts, shorting it, I can see a clearer path.
"If you make a mistake but then change your ways, it is like never having made a mistake at all" - Confucius
Deal Expert
Jan 27, 2006
21844 posts
15620 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
1xTiMeR wrote: All I know and we know for certain is that US shale is coming back online. The height of WTI prices in 2018 was about 70-75 bucks, we saw the highest number of shale rigs.
And we are at less than 60% of the rig count number that we were back then with ONLY 3 rigs added last month. If the US industry was serious about getting their production back online, we should be seeing a much steeper rig count curve over the past year as the price of WTI went up but we didn't. If you look at US production numbers, they haven't even gotten back to pre-COVID levels and seems to be range-bound in the past year - https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_crude_oil_production - as the rig count increased. In other words, their increased rig count basically made up for their decline rates. So, unless there is a large increase in rigs soon, we aren't going to see any material US shale oil for at least 6 months to a year.

1xTiMeR wrote:
If you are saying OPEC and OPEC+ will forgo output to try to sustain higher prices, then yeah, I can see WTI staying up here. But if you are telling me OPEC and OPEC+ have short term production issues, I would think the supply will come back sooner than later, and demand will fall as it always does when no one is looking.
I'm saying that their share capacity is done for many of the OPEC+ nations as I'm sure those OPEC+ members who can produce to the quota are. The problem is those that have quota room and are running at max right now as those countries can't increase production even if they wanted to right now. Can they fix that? Of course they can. But given the current supply chain issues, getting the parts to fix it might be a problem regardless of how much money they want to throw at the problem.

Now, if you combine the above with the rapid dropping of Omicron cases across the Western world, we might see demand surge again before supply can come online.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 21, 2005
5865 posts
1672 upvotes
London, ON
kool1 wrote: Buy the oil dips!!!
Looks like it was buy day yesterday…

8.1M DROP in oil inventory per EIA vs a slight build
💡😃😂😄
Deal Guru
Aug 17, 2008
10990 posts
13540 upvotes
Added to AAV and BIR last week. Unfortunate timing. Added to AAV this morning as well.

BIR clowns were expected to release their ER bmo, but like other Cdn O&G co's, BIR needs to improve their governance wrt to reporting.
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him = Never argue with an idiot, they'll only bring you down to their level & beat you with experience
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 21, 2005
5865 posts
1672 upvotes
London, ON
MrMom wrote: Added to AAV and BIR last week. Unfortunate timing. Added to AAV this morning as well.

BIR clowns were expected to release their ER bmo, but like other Cdn O&G co's, BIR needs to improve their governance wrt to reporting.
Been adding to AAV as well last week& yesterday; hoping the street starts to recognize its low(est) cost structure. The carbon storage could be a freebie Smiling Face With Open Mouth And Smiling Eyes
💡😃😂😄
Deal Guru
Aug 17, 2008
10990 posts
13540 upvotes
Birchcliff Energy Ltd. Announces Unaudited 2021 Full-Year and Fourth Quarter Results and 2021 Reserves Highlights
February 09, 2022 16:00 ET
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-rele ... ights.html


“For 2022, we remain committed to maintaining capital discipline, maximizing free funds flow generation and significantly reducing indebtedness. As set forth in our press release dated January 19, 2022, we expect to generate approximately $590 million of adjusted funds flow in 2022, with F&D capital expenditures between $240 million and $260 million, resulting in $330 million to $350 million of free funds flow. Free funds flow generated in 2022 will be primarily allocated towards debt reduction and we are targeting total debt of $175 million to $195 million at December 31, 2022(5).”
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him = Never argue with an idiot, they'll only bring you down to their level & beat you with experience
Deal Fanatic
Jul 23, 2007
5134 posts
4928 upvotes
I've kept ENB and TRP in the portfolio long term but sold off the producers and service companies we owned in 2014-2015. The only one I should of kept was CNQ, but others like AKT, CEU and ESI I don't miss at all. All paid good dividends at one time, but AKT and ESI eventually eliminated their's and CEU is now paying out a fraction of what they used to. Always easy to look back and realize which one's should of kept, and those that should have been offloaded. When the storm hits a sector, not quite so easy.
Deal Addict
Sep 2, 2004
3138 posts
2300 upvotes
Stryker wrote: I've kept ENB and TRP in the portfolio long term but sold off the producers and service companies we owned in 2014-2015. The only one I should of kept was CNQ, but others like AKT, CEU and ESI I don't miss at all. All paid good dividends at one time, but AKT and ESI eventually eliminated their's and CEU is now paying out a fraction of what they used to. Always easy to look back and realize which one's should of kept, and those that should have been offloaded. When the storm hits a sector, not quite so easy.
I recently added IMO as a long-term dividend hold. Time will tell if that's a good decision or not but they have have a dividend grower for 27 years. Like you, I sold my VET and continue to hold positions in BIR, WCP, SCL, SU, and CNQ in various accounts (not including pipelines). Probably sooner rather than later I need to determine what my exit strategy will be on these, if any. You seem to be a lot better at focusing on pure dividend payer/grower holdings than I am.
Deal Guru
Aug 17, 2008
10990 posts
13540 upvotes
@Capt. I give this zero value, but as an FYI, GS upgraded IMO from "neutral" to a "buy."
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him = Never argue with an idiot, they'll only bring you down to their level & beat you with experience
Deal Fanatic
Jul 23, 2007
5134 posts
4928 upvotes
Capt. wrote: I recently added IMO as a long-term dividend hold. Time will tell if that's a good decision or not but they have have a dividend grower for 27 years. Like you, I sold my VET and continue to hold positions in BIR, WCP, SCL, SU, and CNQ in various accounts (not including pipelines). Probably sooner rather than later I need to determine what my exit strategy will be on these, if any. You seem to be a lot better at focusing on pure dividend payer/grower holdings than I am.
The way I remember IMO in the early 2000's was that it was a pretty good dividend grower, but not quite the higher yields that I was seeing from Exxon, Imperial Oil's parent company in the U.S. I was envious to say the least. I notice that the yield on IMO has risen since then, but no I never bought the stock. Which would survive as an entity on the TSE, both Imperial and Shell Canada, or only one of the two? As it turns out IMO is still there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Canada

I never know until after the fact.

Top