Make no mistake, Doomberg is a national treasure. I have thoroughly enjoyed my podcasts with him, and his Substack is worth every penny. The last time Doomberg was on the podcast, we had Chris Wright, our new Secretary of Energy, on the panel.
This podcast is also going out on David Blackmon’s Substack and podcast channels, and he had some fantastic points and questions for Doomberg.
Thank you both for your energy, leadership, and your time – Stu
Highlights of the Podcast
00:00 – Introduction
03:00 – California’s Refining Crisis
08:30 – California Politics & Oil
13:20 – Trump’s Energy Team
17:40 – OPEC’s Decline & Co-Product Economics
23:00 – Oil Price Volatility & Strategy
26:30 – NGLs & Changing Energy Definitions
33:00 – Permian, Consolidation & Costs
36:00 – Breakevens and Co-Product Economics
39:00 – LNG, Natural Gas, and Arbitrage
45:00 – LNG Tankers, Jones Act, and Energy Exports
49:00 – $50 Oil as Geopolitical Strategy
53:00 – Russia, NATO & War Risks
57:00 – Canada, Trump, and Final Thoughts
David Blackmon [00:00:20] Oh, I like that jazzy music Stu has with his Energy Newsbeat podcast. Hello everybody. This is David Blackman. Welcome to Energy Impacts. Uh, I’m David Blackmon, obviously Stu Turley is with me, cohost, uh, with his Energy Newbeat podcast with us today. Very special guest who we’ve interviewed several times in the past and who is just a voice of knowledge and reason. In a world that’s gone completely stark, raving, damn mad. Doomberg, how you doing today?
Doomberg [00:00:55] Stu, David, thanks for having me back on. David, Thanks for that introduction. It’s always great to chat with you guys. And by the way, it’s not like there’s a paucity of things for us to discuss.
David Blackmon [00:01:04] Yeah, there’s a few things going on. It’s not a slow news day. It never is with Donald Trump in the white house. He makes sure that every morning and every evening, uh, two o’clock in the morning, whenever he’s on his iPhone, uh tweeting or whatever you call it these days, and as Brett Baker says, Doomburg is our favorite green chicken. Absolutely. Absolutely. So we’re going to try to cover a lot of things with you. I know you’ve been doing some fantastic writing as always. At your substack. Tell people where they can find you first before we go any further on substack
Doomberg [00:01:40] Yeah, doomberg.com is the landing page for everything we do. We have our monthly articles. We try to publish between seven and nine times a month. We have all of our podcast appearances, like this there under our Doomcast page. And then we have a pro tier, where in addition to our articles, we do a monthly webinar. Pretty popular amongst the subset of people who want a bit more Doomberg. Usually 45 minutes to an hour. We’ve got a really exciting one to heat up this month. I’ll give you the. Exclusive, we’re going to take a look at the abiotic theory of oil, Tom Gold’s stuff, and we’re gonna do a balanced assessment of the forbidden hypothesis, the current working subtitle of the presentation.
David Blackmon [00:02:22] Oh my God, that one.
Doomberg [00:02:23] It’ll cost you, maybe I’ll comp you David.
David Blackmon [00:02:28] All right, well, yeah, I’ve got a little budget for that. Not a big budget for that, though. Anyway, so thank you. Thank you very much. One of the pieces, and Stu was talking about this before we got on, is this piece she wrote last week, I believe it was last week, about Governor Moonwalker, Gavin Newsom in California. Tell us about your views on Gavin, what Gavin Newsom’s been doing with refiners and the oil. And energy industry in general out in California lately.
Doomberg [00:03:01] Sure, I think we should start by talking about the man himself and the politician, because actually I think many of his critics substantially underestimate him. He is a very effective retail politician. He looks the part. He’s handsome, he’s got great hair, he is charismatic, he a good debater. It’s not an accident that he is distilled up to the top of the big blue machine in California. Even single party states are tough to navigate through. It takes a mix of. Of political instincts, raw power, and frankly, probably a healthy dose of psychopathy to get to the top in such environments, but he has, and he shouldn’t be underestimated, and he has ambitions. He’s term-limited now, so he can’t run again in California, and clearly is eyeing a promotion to the job in 2028. And he will be a formidable candidate when people who are Trump supporters or are opposed to Nusant’s policies. Think we’re being a little optimistic about his potential impact at the national stage, we remind people that Trump only beat Vice President Harris by 1.5% in the popular vote, and he’s at least two points better than she was as a candidate. So we shall see. And by the way, Trump is almost certainly not running again, and so there’s a subset of the population that voted for him, the man, that might not show up again. To vote for whoever replaces him. So his chances of getting into the White House are real and should not be minimized. To your question about the refineries, well, we’ve written several pieces on this developing crisis, because eventually it will turn into a crisis, where one major refinery explosion away from an energy crisis in either Northern or Southern California, is because the first that we should say. Is you have to view the gasoline market in California as two isolated islands, Northern California and Southern California. They both burn the same fuel, made to the same spec, in the same grades, but there’s really no pipelines connecting the two, and there’s only really outbound pipelines to support Arizona-Nevada with the same grade of gasoline. That whole part of the country, west of the Colorado, is disconnected from the energy grid of the rest of the United States, and so that’s one sort of axiom of analysis. The second axiom of analysis is. California is an incredibly difficult place to do business in if you’re a fossil fuel company or a hydrocarbon company, depending on how our Zoom presentation goes on abiotic oil. And state regulators don’t want refiners to make money. They browbeat them all the time. All manner of regulations and lawsuits and so on. And frankly, the people who operate in California don’t make money there. And then the last point of analysis This is the. The companies that are operating the final refineries, and there’s a list of them there on the screen, to them, California is a nuisance relative to their global operations. They don’t actually want to be operating in California. Many of them are still in business simply because they don’t want to take the clean up legacy costs as a charge when they inevitably pull out of the state. And so what you see is Gavin Newsom in their infinite wisdom, the California State assembly. Passed a new law that mandates that refiners substantially increase the volume they keep on hand in inventory in order to avoid these price spikes that were happening. And that was kind of the last straw. And so since that bill was signed, Phillips 66 announced the closure of a large refinery just outside of Los Angeles, and Valero is closing its refinery outside of San Francisco. So Northern California will have precisely two large refineries left, and Southern California will have four, and if one of those refinerys has an explosion, by the way, handling flammable hydrocarbons often leads to such unintended accidents that happen all the time in the industry. California today only has something like 11 or two week worth of gasoline in inventory. You have a run on the pumps, it’s coming. Like we’ve written about this for a year. It’s going to happen. And when it happens, though, just like the fires in Los Angeles, you know, it’ll be all manner of blame storming and the, but by the way, go back to that chart. Cause there’s one more thing I want to say. The biggest refiner, the biggest refinery in Northern California, that Richmond Chevron sits right on top of the Hayward Faults. Yeah. And it’s a hundred and it’s like decades overdue. It has a major earthquake every, I forget what the number, maybe a hundred and some odd years, and they’re like 20 years or 15 years overdue for a major
Stuart Turley [00:08:07] So do you think President Trump should rename that fault the Biden fault?
David Blackmon [00:08:28] It’s all publicly available.
Doomberg [00:08:29] It’s all publicly available. And you can just do the math. Nobody wants to make that special California grade. It’s a nuisance. And by the way, since there’s no pipelines, they have to rely on imports. Imports don’t just arrive, they have to sail. And you’ll quickly run out of gasoline. You can pretend like fossil fuels don’t matter, and that you don’t need them, but they do. Yeah, go ahead.
Stuart Turley [00:09:02] Mr. Doomberg, do you think that when Gavin Newsom, before Gavin Newsome got into power, California was energy independent, basically, by the refineries? I talked to Mike Umbro out of California Cool Cat and also interviewed Ronald Stein about this issue and Mike Umbreau brought up a great point. The refinerys in California are set up for Alaskan oil. Why in the world are we allowing a, and as Ronald Stein has said, this is too smart for me, I’m not that smart, but he said California is now a national security risk with all the airplanes, it’s the largest airplane fuel use in the area, and the refineries could use Alaskan oil that we wouldn’t even have to, you know, import. They import 75 or more of their oil from countries that hate us.
Doomberg [00:10:02] Look, California could be Texas. It has enormous oil deposits. It has a giant shale that nobody ever talks about, because everyone just assumes it’s off limits for exploration and development. The potential of that shale is regularly de-emphasized by the progressive environmental left, because they don’t want that shail to be developed. The difference between California’s energy production and Texas’ energy production is not a function of geology. It is a function of politics and policy, and so you have the integrated impact of insane policies year after year after a year, and eventually something breaks because physics is physics and physics doesn’t care about your platitudes. So if you make it impossible to do business in your state, people will no longer do business in you state. That’s why all the rich people moved to Austin. This is why Chevron finally left the state. There’s only so much you can do before something breaks. And we are predicting that the thing that will break. By the way, I’m really happy that you figured out how to use the PDF generator for Doomburg. Substack made that feature just for us, you should know. Yeah, awesome. So that which can’t go on forever usually doesn’t. It’s by the way like Oil was largely a California thing in the beginning in the U.S. Over time, things have shifted, politics has shifted. So Alaska, of course, which is the subject of a future doom zoom, probably next month. The Great Alaska Pipeline, well, production is being constrained there because of the relationship between Washington and Alaska. That pipeline, by the way, is barely flowing enough oil to keep it going. This is an under-reported national security risk. The reserves that have been set aside remind me of much of the US Gulf Coast and what is now the Gulf of America. So much more oil could be flowing out of the Gulf America than currently is. And these are all, again, political choices, which again, when people talk about peak I have to roll my eyes because there’s so much oil. To be had, that it literally is just a matter of political choices. And when oil goes to 300, because we’re short of it, those politics will be wiped away. So even California might produce from its shale resource in such an environment. So I think Gavin Newsom’s hope, and the point of this piece, Moonwalker, is he’s suddenly instructing his appointees to play nice with the refiners and try to find win-win solutions, where California has access to the gasoline it needs and refiners Earn a respectable profit. It’s just a total 180-degree about face. Last thing I’ll say is, it’s why I personally am no member of the Doomburg team and I suspect neither of you could ever run for public office, because we’re just incapable of doing a complete about face and acting as though we hadn’t been saying the opposite for 10 years.
David Blackmon [00:13:18] Well, I mean, that all fits right in with his podcast, right? I mean he’s, he’s mounting this podcast now. He’s interviewing conservative guests, or at least he started out doing it. So he can train himself to say things he doesn’t actually believe, or maybe he doesn’ actually believe the way he’s governed all the time, but it’s just basically an exercise in trying to train himself and prepare himself for the 2028 election by learning how to adopt a different set of talking points from the other side. And so the man doesn’t believe anything. He’s this empty vessel for others to fill with their own ideas. And, and, you know, so that makes him just like who just exactly like Barack Obama. And, so, and he’s probably a better retail politician than Obama was. So yeah, people really do understand.
Doomberg [00:14:07] We wrote about that podcast in March in a piece called The Magician’s Trick, talking about how California blames wildfires on big oil, but the real culpability, of course, lies in Sacramento. And the opening story for that piece was actually quite entertaining podcast that he had with Steve Bannon.
David Blackmon [00:14:28] Oh, yeah, that was fantastic.
Doomberg [00:14:29] It’s great. And you know, by the way, you found yourself giving Newsom credit for at least talking to Steve Bannon and having the banter. And of course, Steve Bannan is a very effective debater. So it’s interesting to watch. But as I was watching it, I was like, I’m falling for the trick. Yeah, exactly. If it’s working even temporarily on me, it’s going to work on 3% of the people, which is a swing from a Trump landslide to a Newsom presidency.
Stuart Turley [00:14:55] You know, the, uh, the one thing that all, all three of us have been is that all three of, uh on this podcast podcast with Chris Wright and I’ll tell you, I just want to say it’s a breath of fresh air that we have Doug Burgum, uh secretary of the energy, uh Lee Zeldin with the EPA and the regulations coming around and we have Chris Wright, who I think is one of the classiest guys on the planet. Let me show you this last comment that I just, we had here.
Video Speaker Chris Wright [00:15:24] Of myself, because there’s energy sources that swallow money and don’t deliver value. So I’m not for them, but I am for all energy sources that are affordable, reliable, secure, and better system.
Stuart Turley [00:15:41] Isn’t that great having a secretary of energy that actually understands energy?
Doomberg [00:15:48] Yeah, I mean, I think it’s great for everybody except for the producers of energy because as we’ve long warned, and I think that’s the part that I kind of find amazing, maybe a bit of a sidetrack here, Trump ran on American energy dominance. I bet 95% of the oil and gas industry executives voted for him. And when you have American energy dominants, it means that the world, he really means he wants oil prices low so he can catalyze the manufacturing reindustrialization across U.S. And more oil means lower-priced oil, which means producers suffer. And how can you say you want American energy dominance if production in the U.S. Is going to be curtailed? Well, it doesn’t really want American dominance, it wants cheap oil. And one of the ways to do that is to jawbone and to cut deals with OPEC, which I’m sure we’ll get into. But it was never going to be a surprise. It’s like I saw Javier Blas, who’s a great… Commodities Reporter for Bloomberg, reporting out from the big energy conference that Chris Wright spoke at and talking about the rumblings amongst the energy industry executives that we thought Chris Wright was our guy and he’s really a Trump guy. He’s like, no, he’s an energy guy, an energy abundance guy. By the way, his old company Liberty was a services provider and did well scaled on volume, not price. And so, I mean, everybody benefits when price is high, but midstreamers and service Providers do well regardless of price. And so, his manifesto that he published before Trump selected him made very clear, he’s in all of the above, produce energy abundance, energy is life, all of things that we talked about before, yep, that’s right, bettering human lives, he is a human first person, to better human lives by producing abundant energy, somebody’s going to take the hit and the equity stack of producers in the U.S. Is probably going to suffer.
Stuart Turley [00:17:43] But let me throw this at us because as a my real day job is looking at oil and gas investments and deals. And that’s how I make my job. I just do podcast hosting so I can get my fix for being a podcast host. But when we take a look at the difference between OPEC and the rest of the world, the United States has capitalism at its beck and call and Saudi Arabia and OPEc, Saudi Arabia is trying to control OPEC and plus. You have Russia with a 4.2% GDP growth, I believe, in the last year, and they’ve avoided sanctions with the dark fleet. And then we have Kazakhstan and Iran all going over their quotas, I believe very heavily. And that’s why we wanted to get in here and talk about OPEC and what Saudi Arabia is trying to do. But the United States can recover because of our capitalism and and being able to spin back up when the money is right. That’s different than the state owned fair assessment.
Doomberg [00:18:53] Yeah, I have a different view of what’s going on with OPEC that we’ve written about several times now. A deal was struck between Trump and the Saudis, perhaps even with Russia, and we don’t know what was exchanged. Look, for weeks you had Russia, the United States, and Saudi Arabia engaged in high stakes diplomacy. The cover story was the war in Ukraine. History teaches us when you have significant turning points, the contemporary reporting of what is actually going on is wrong. And a deal was struck, Trump wants $50 oil, he looks like, did he get it? I think this is the end of OPEC, really. I know we’ve been out there on that call, like how OPECs ends was a piece we wrote last year. We think, look, the market for crude oil has changed substantially, and in order to understand what’s going on in crude oil, you can’t just look at crude oil anymore. In the US, there are now three types of hydrocarbon producers. Those that produce just crude oil. Those that produce just natural gas, and those that co-produce both NGLs and the mix of lights that come out of, say, the Permian. 50% of U.S. Crude production and 75% of natural gas production is now subject to co-product economics. And anybody who has ever operated in industry, and I have, where you have a co- product economic situation, you get wildly different impacts than you might imagine. So, imagine a world where tomorrow… Natural gas in the Permian was $8.00 a million. Oil would suddenly become the product, people would give away in a rush to drill for natural gas.
David Blackmon [00:20:32] And we’ve been there before, yeah.
Doomberg [00:20:33] Right. And people can’t even contemplate that. So today, because OPEC has kept crude oil prices artificially high, because that’s what a cartel does, oil is a managed market. People need to know that. So OPEP keeps crude oil prices artificically high. Drillers in the Permian are giving away natural gas to get the crude. Natural gas trading at a dollar a million BTU or $16 a barrel oil gets soaked up. Engines get switched, and prices eventually have to converge. And the existence of OPEC guarantees its eventual demise, to which credit it has been the most effective cartel in modern economic history.
David Blackmon [00:21:14] It really has.
Doomberg [00:21:15] But its time is over and it will have been undone by the wave of light hydrocarbons coming that are selling at a huge discount that are precipitating engine switching across all supply chains starting in the US. We’re seeing it in China. We did a whole doomsday on natural gas liquids and not Bellevue and the fact that there’s hundreds of millions of, but the Montbellevue NGL storage infrastructure is within spinning distance of how much oil we have in the strategic petroleum reserve. It’s a massive facility. It’s all brand new. And engines are switching. Ethanol-only crackers are replacing NAFTA crackers and LNG powered trucks are replacing diesel trucks in China and LNG powered cargo ships are replacing bunker oil. The world is going lighter and in a world where OPEC basically only produces crude oil, their time is up. So a deal was cut. Trump wants $50 oil. I don’t know what was given in exchange. A hunch, gold price is allowed to run. Saudi Arabia owns a lot of gold. Who knows? Something was done. When OPEC poured oil on a burning tape that Thursday after Liberation Day, we sat up in our chair and said, whoa, this is different. This is historic. Something has shifted. And as we just wrote in a sort of a follow-up piece of the week that was where we covered three stories, OPEc, the Canadian election, and the blackout in Spain, Trump wants $50 oil. WTI settled between 60 and 65, so Saudi came out again. And stomped on the tape that we’re going to 50. I don’t know who’s buying oil at 62, but they don’t like money.
David Blackmon [00:22:58] Yeah, it does feel like we’re going to be a 50 pretty quick too.
Doomberg [00:23:01] I mean, it might be the bottom, by the way, like we’re close to finding a new equilibrium. Yeah. And then what you’ll see, which is what we’ve seen historically, is the big companies will buy the small companies at distressed prices. They’ll wait for a democratic administration and they’ll print cash. So our general view of the world is that infrastructure gets built during Republican administrations and money gets made during democratic administrations. Um, and it’s funny to watch, amusing to watch. Conservative-oriented executives in a conservative industry vote for Trump and wonder why oil prices are going down. The man ran on a platform of cheap oil.
David Blackmon [00:23:44] And he didn’t lie to anybody about it.
Doomberg [00:23:46] And lie to anybody about it, and Chris Wright, you know.
Stuart Turley [00:23:52] I don’t disagree with anything that you’re saying, but when we take a look at normal decline curves around the world, and I do not believe that we, one basin does not make a, um, uh, you can’t determine that the Permian, yes, it’s going to be more oil going on because we have water problems going on in the Permians. One base output doesn’t say that we’re at peak oil. Where haven’t he begun to hit peak oil in my opinion? Uh, as we sit here and we take a look, I forgot my damn question. I was on a roll here. I pulled a David Blackmon. Holy smokes!
David Blackmon [00:24:30] I think you were fixing to say something about the fact that the Permian Basin may have peaked, at least temporarily.
Doomberg [00:24:38] This is the capital cycle. You’re basically saying, hey, won’t we have curtailment and then we’ll have a shortage in price. Yes, all of those things are true. What’s important to do is to not draw a tangent line to a sine wave. The demand and production for oil goes up and to the right with a sine-wave function for two reasons. One, the demand for energy is infinite, but two, the capital deployment cycle and the business cycle can sometimes get out of phase. And so you alternate between gluts and shortages and gluts and shortages, and glutes and shortages. And with each glut, the industry gets better and better at finding oil and bring it to the market. And the breakeven price of natural gas in Appalachia is, what, $250 million BTU now. I think at a strip price of $4 a million BTUs, everybody’s earning their cost of capital, which means $10 landed LNG, everybody is earning their cost of capital. And since that’s $58 Brent, that’s probably the equilibrium price for international oil because the two are switchable. That’s how we view the world. So I think low 50s WTI is probably a bottom. I’m not sure if it’ll be a tradable bottom. And I think the big wild card in a piece, I think it was called As the Pieces Lie. Here’s the thing, in this business, there’s a whole… architecture of content creators, Twitter accounts, industry executives who want the price of oil to go up. And I get that, right? Everybody makes money when numbers go up, but I think as an analyst and not an advocate, you have to play the pieces as they lie. And a classic example, an account I won’t name has a large following, never saw a headline that they couldn’t spin bullish, and posted on Twitter. That NGLs don’t count.
David Blackmon [00:26:29] I think I may know who this is, but anyway.
Doomberg [00:26:30] And like, you know that meme where you’re pointing at the mirror? It’s like, it’s not that you don’t understand energy. It’s that NGLs don’t count. I mean, what are you talking about? NGL don’t count. Tell that to the NAFTA cracker that just shut down in the Netherlands because a giant ethanol-only cracker opened up in Pennsylvania. I, mean, of course they count. What happens to that NAFDA gets recirculated back into the quote unquote oil infrastructure and it gets used to co-mingled with heavy crude in Alberta or Venezuela or whatever, pick your favorite. In the end, all hydrocarbons get burned to create heat to do work, period, and we will switch the engines. And the very price differentials that exist in the US, $3 a million BTU natural gas, pick your favorite price for Ngls. People will not have the cleanest burning, cheapest sources of hydrocarbon selling at Discount for app. Right. NGLs don’t count, imagine.
David Blackmon [00:27:33] Yeah, it’s probably best we don’t name who that is. I may be wrong.
Doomberg [00:27:37] Yeah, exactly.
Stuart Turley [00:27:38] The one thing, you know, the International Monetary Fund on OPEC said that the Saudis, this is bringing up a huge question. And that is, as you look at the end of, I think NATO has out-served its thing. The EU has out served its trading block. Trading blocks are changing around the world. But also the The taking a look at not only the OPEC needing the International Monetary Fund says that needs a ballpark of $95 oil just to meet their normal sovereign fund, wealth fund and social building projects and everything else. I’ve always crayoned off on the side that we’d be around the $80 oil worldwide based off of the $4 trillion that we need just to meet normal decline curves, making the assumption that if China remains somewhat afloat and then India is increasing at the percentages they’re increasing, that’s kind of where I came up with that ballparkish number. Does that make sense?
Doomberg [00:28:59] Yeah, I think it’s a fine number. Look, an $80 oil in today’s dollars is not $80 dollar oil 20 years ago. The deflationary power of the technology companies. But this fiscal breakeven price, which you’re referencing, is also a bit of a sort of bullish canard. We We view Saudi Arabia as a giant ExxonMobil. Saudi Rainco is an extremely well-run company, and they too will scoop up distressed assets at below. They’re happy to run at $50 for years. They’re a good credit. People are gonna lend them money. They’re not too concerned. It’s the countries like Venezuela and so on that’ll suffer, but by the way, that might be part of the plan. It sure seems that way. The US, again, we wrote a piece. All we write about is energy, basically, the occasional China chip piece that nobody reads, but we wrote a piece called Misreading the Room, where we talked about how Maduro wasn’t getting what was going on. And there’s going to be regime change in Venezuela. Look, when we talk about peak oil, let’s just talk about this. Venezuela is Canada, except it only produces a million barrels a day instead of five. I mean, so okay, where’s the next increment of 4 million barrels of air going to come from? Argentina Vaca Mirota is a resource that could be the Permian. The only thing that’s missing is stable government and a critical mass of service providers, engineering firms, pipelines, and so on. If the price was right, we’d take the team that’s assembled in Guyana and move it down to Argentina. Off the west coast of Africa sits a similar pre-salt formation that sits off the coast of Brazil. We haven’t even looked across Africa, but if you just take the top four oil producers in Africa and take a statistical review of world energy, we have so interfered with that continent and with Libya and Clinton and Benghazi and the Qadhafi being overturned and we just ruined country after country after the country and we wonder why their oil production isn’t high. We know where to go. I have plenty of contacts in the industry, like you guys and I have a friend who is executive order. Very happy executive at a company you would know, so I won’t name him. But Jimmy, when we need to find it, we know where to look, right? The concept of peak oil is such nonsense. It really is. And we’re just so good at getting it. Some of the best parts of the Gulf of America are just off limits. We just decided politically. Hey, you can’t Of course, we’ll drill there at $150. Of course we will, right, eventually. Yes, of course. It’s managed, and that’s probably prudent. But if you just look at the demand for oil, we will produce 120 million barrels a day of oil before the demand of oil, quote unquote, rolls over. But actually, what I think is going to happen, and what we’ve written about that’s what happened and what you’re going to see the Saudi Arabia’s and the rest of the … Remnants of OPEC do, including Russia, is they’re going to switch to natural gas. The break-even price on natural gas production is such that lower energy prices still produce good profit. And these people are in the drilling business. So they’ll just drill for gas instead. And the people in the pipeline business will just build gas pipelines instead of oil pipelines. And the cars will run off gas instead of like, by the way, you cook in your house with natural gas and don’t even worry about ventilation. You wouldn’t bring your barbecue inside. Right? So natural gas is clean and has lots of advantages. Yes, it’s a gas. Yes. It’s hard to handle. Is that worth $50 a barrel energy equivalent? No. That arbitrage will close. The world is trending lighter. We’re going to go from heavy crude to crude to light crude to condensates to NGLs to natural gas. That is the arc of hydrocarbon trajectory. And if you think you can model the price of crude by just looking at crude inventories, You’re missing what the market is telling you.
Stuart Turley [00:33:08] That’s cool. You know, I interviewed Nick DeLulius over at CNX and he is a cool cat. I love our exploration and and he’s a great guy. I love them. They’re just like Chris Wright and the other ones. We’ve got some great entrepreneurs out there. And he was saying that the Marcellus is so prevalent with natural gas that CNG. Would be, you would be able to drill and put a CNG machine right there to go ahead and get the compressed natural gas into cars. Why don’t we go that way?
Doomberg [00:33:46] You know, gasoline stations are a durable moat, and there’s plenty of gasoline, and then instead of doing that, you could just molecularly transform lights into gasoline. I mean, refineries know how to do this. Chemists are talented. If the Germans can make jet fuel out of coal, we can make gasoline out of natural gas. If we had to, we don’t have to today, but Pearl GTL exists, right? Right. And we wrote a piece. A couple years ago, a follow-up to our peak cheap oil is a myth piece, which triggered so much hate. A certain skeptic
Stuart Turley [00:34:22] Your comments are,.
David Blackmon [00:34:23] Yeah, we all get that.
Doomberg [00:34:26] You know, the fact that GTL, gas to liquids technology, exists is fissure tropes, gee, it’s an iron catalyst, I mean I think we know what we’re doing, that breakeven price of that facility is rumored to be about $50 or $60 in peril, well, that puts a ceiling on the equilibrium price of oil, because if it stretches too far above that for too long, we’ll just build those GTL plants, because they’ll be incredibly profitable. Hydrocarbons are burned. To create heat to do work. And the long arc of the industry is starting heavy coal, getting lighter crude, and now getting lighter and lighter still. And the very definition of oil is undergoing a semantic shift. Our view is oil needs to be defined as any hydrocarbon that finds its way to a refinery, And a fractionator is a refinery. I like that. That’s why NGLs count.
David Blackmon [00:35:25] They definitely do count. Yeah, you touched on this a minute ago And I just want to have you expand on a little bit because I think it’s something everyone needs to understand At $50 oil in the Permian Basin and these other oil heavy shale basins $50 all means the big companies are gonna come gobble up the smaller companies, right? Yeah I mean, this is exactly what Exxon Mobil and Chevron and Oxy have been tooling their businesses to take advantage of in those basins. And so, I mean, you know, we’ve had a lot of consolidation already, but do you really expect another wave of consolidation?
Doomberg [00:36:06] This is forever thus, David, and this is how the industry operates. You’ve been around it long enough to know. You have all kinds of independents who get over their skis and have leveraged balance sheets but are sitting on great assets that might not be great for the next 18 months and they’re hated because the oil is $40 a barrel and they can’t give it away except the people who have been running Exxon know how to run Exxons and have managed through many, many, cycles and they just pile up the cash and wait and they are not afraid to lose a couple of bucks a share each quarter. And they still pay their dividends because they know that you don’t draw tangent lines of sine waves. And so they know when they make all their money and they know to wait and buy all their resources to make all of their money in the future. By the way, Trump’s not going to give nothing to the oil industry. We’re going to get long-term leases on federal land. They’re going turn out the refilling of the strategic controllers in a way that you can hedge your production and have a good baseline. And Chris Wright knows how the energy industry works. But the big majors are going to win. And by the way, if you ever go to an oil and gas conference, all you hear from the independents and the small players is how much they hate the big players. They don’t hate the government. They hate the players.
David Blackmon [00:37:16] And the pipeline companies.
Doomberg [00:37:17] Right. And the midstreamers who are running an oligopoly. And everybody’s dipping their beak, wetting their beak in my VIG. It’s the same story, right? And so I guess that was a bit of a pun considering that I choose to identify as a green chicken. Yeah, and by the way, this is a perfect curve. Put that curve back up. OK. This curve is actually irrelevant. Because what’s the breakeven cost of the combined production of natural gas and oil?
Stuart Turley [00:37:52] Exactly. I was thinking of that while I because I use this all the time because, you know, everybody’s saying it’s and so as we’re doing this now it needs to be updated from the this is from the Dallas Fed and I love the survey. So the question that the Dallas Fed needs to ask now if I’m following our conversation, if I am in the same podcast needs to updated.
Doomberg [00:38:17] Yeah, well, look, so a classic example of co-product economics in the chemical industry is the possum process, propylene oxide, styrene monomer. You make both. And if the price of propylene oxide skyrockets, you just dump your styrene Monomer onto the market. Well, all the styrene-only producers don’t like that, right? And they lose money. Well, you don’t care, because you’re making all bank on your propylene oxides. It’s the exact same thing with natural gas and oil. And so what’s happening in the permeate? There’s a tiering system of the quality of the wells, right? And right now, you know, low gas to oil ratio wells are considered premium because you can’t give away the gas in the Permian and you want to produce more oil. Well, that just means that we’ve been distilling all of these high GOR wells waiting to be, you know completed. And if the price of natural gas goes to $4 in the permian, the breakeven price of oil is irrelevant. In fact, natural gas went negative in the Permian for most of the last year. What’s the breakeven price for natural gas in the permian? There is none because nobody wants it. But we have a good friend, Sir JJ writes the Market Fives newsletter, trade it all for 50 years. He has a great quote, which is pretty profound when you think about it, oil is worthless until it gets to a refinery.
David Blackmon [00:39:37] Pretty much, yeah.
Doomberg [00:39:38] Oil can be worthless if everyone wants your natural gas, and by the way, maybe you start seeing these off-grid AI pods that we’ve been writing about where natural gas goes in one side of the building and data comes out the other, it’s not connected to the grid, and at $5 a million BTU for 10 years, the data center operators and the hyperscalers might want to take that. Well, at$ 5 a million, natural gas in the Permian, the breakeven price of oil could be negative, especially with the high GOR wells. But the fact that this is still. Utilized and published and surveyed tells you just how disconnected the market has become from the underlying tectonic shifts that are occurring, which is what we try to keep our subscribers ahead on. Because again, if you’re only analyzing the breakeven price of oil in the Permian, you’re missing the story. It’s hydrocarbons. These are fungible. In the long run, all hydrocarbons will sell the same price corrected for logistics and energy content. Wow. And major deviations are tradable opportunities. And you might say, wow, we have no crude inventory in the US. Why is oil so inexpensive? Well, because crude oil, it’s just one input into the price of crude oil. It just is. Diesel in China is cheap because LNG trucks are coming onto the market. Right. Diesel and China is cheap. Diesel, the rest of the world is cheap, because diesel is a globally traded commodity. So the the rain levels in Sichuan province impact the price of coal in Appalachia. Why? Because in China, hydropower and coal power are fungible. The government in dry years amps up its coal, and in wet years it dampens down its coal. Well, if it rains a lot in Sichuán province, coal is a globally traded commodity. It’s a solid. You put it on a boat, it’s no big deal. If it rains lot in China you don’t want to be long coal. Once you understand That energy is fungible and the market is getting more and more efficient. So with each new LNG import and export terminal installed and with each pipeline built, that arbitrage closes. You can’t have substantial differences, stuff that do the same thing, can’t trade for different prices indefinitely. This is Arbitrage 101. Right now, I’m waiting for the latest statistical review of world energy to come out in June, which is Christmas Day here in the Coug, but in 2023, which is the last year that we had data for it, 14% of global natural gas found its way to an allergy carrier. Well, you’re getting to the point where that’s a lot of intramarket penetration that stabilizes price.
David Blackmon [00:42:15] That’s a higher percentage than I would have expected, actually.
Doomberg [00:42:18] Well, the war in Ukraine has accelerated that.
David Blackmon [00:42:20] Yeah,
Doomberg [00:42:22] Look at the US, the US is trying to double its LNG export capacity by the early 2030s. Look, 10 BCF per day of natural gas is a huge amount of gas. Once you have enough floating inventory, regional price discrepancies are going to get closed. And the world will be left with a far more efficient energy infrastructure, and that is frankly, bearish for the price of crude oil. The long-term arc of the real cost of energy is Thinking we’re running out of oil or that oil will be sustainably expensive is a giant short bet on human ingenuity. Now, luckily for the majors, their cost of produce is down too because they invest in technology and they perform acts indistinguishable from magic on a daily basis. So this is why you can make money at $2.50 a million BTU in the Mercedes-Benz shale when for years years before. They started to produce there, there were many advocates who said there would never be economic natural gas produced in the Shale Patch. Here we are, drowning in the stock. Like you literally can’t give it away, right? And so, in the long run, this is what will happen. And the deviations in supply-demand mismatch that drive price spikes, and by the way, the occasional super spike in energy is the seduction that draws bulls into the energy sector. And our view is very simple. It’s far better to fade price spikes than to try to guess their timing. So war breaks out in the Middle East, oil goes to 125, great. Wait till oil drops to 100 and then buy $50 puts, because you’re going to make a lot of money in about 12 months. Far better to fade these spikes. We have a great Nassim Tlaib quote that we’ve used to open a piece and work it into a pro-tocket. Something to the effect of I’ve never seen Gluts followed by shortages, but I’ve always seen shortages followed by gluts Like whatever you have a shortage of a highly inelastic commodity what happens is price spikes and Everybody runs to produce more and you get a glut six to nine months later. And so That that price spike you can make a lot of money if you get lucky But it’s like hitting it at the casino, you know, you got to know when to walk out
Stuart Turley [00:45:05] Yeah, this whole conversation is phenomenal. And again, thank you for your time today. Cause I just, I’m, my head’s exploding with how cool this really is here. This is a cool conversation, but I got a question for you here on, uh, president Trump, it was saying that he wants to export turn LNG. And Chris Wright announced that LNG will be our number one export product very soon. I have been talking about it. I think we’ve got a weakness. We have one LNG flag tanker that’s about a buck 95. It’s about as big as this hat. I mean, it’s not very big at all. And I just noticed yesterday that president Trump was talking about buying tankers, Apollo snaps up LNG tacker tanker platform from Norway and they have just so happens 10 tankers in that order from that I’m like. President Trump does what he says he’s gonna do. I mean, it’s just an amazing kind of a politician, even though he’s not a politician.
Doomberg [00:46:13] Yeah, look. The dollar value I saw as I was preparing this piece we’re publishing, hopefully Friday or Saturday, the dollar value of LNG exports was already the fifth highest among US exports in 2024. Yeah, and so the path from five to one is not necessarily all that crazy to project and especially since we’re probably going to double our LNG export capacity. You know, U.S. Flagged elegy carriers is interesting, and if the President wants it, I can understand why the Apollo’s of the world are trying to front run that trade. It’s not necessarily all that important in our view, because once the gas gets on the global markets, who cares where it goes or how it’s treated, it’s going to be does speak to a broader issue of U.S. Shipbuilding capacity and Trump’s desire to re-industrialize. The real issue is we just don’t build those ships, not that we don’t own them.
Stuart Turley [00:47:16] That’s all we got to get around the Jones Act somehow
Doomberg [00:47:18] There’s also the Jones Act so that we could ship LNG to California and we can ship LNG to Boston, which is crazy, but it is what it is. To be fair, California does not have an LNG import terminal whereas Boston does, but even if California did, they couldn’t get it from the Gulf Coast. They’d have to take it from Canada, which is again, a whole other ball of
David Blackmon [00:47:43] We’ll have to do a show about Canada.
Doomberg [00:47:45] Yeah, and we had a good run on our Canadian predictions, I must say.
Stuart Turley [00:47:49] But what about the super majors? I mean, California is a super democratic rule of Hawaii is really pathetic when you consider that 75% of their oil, I mean their energy, electricity is done by fuel oil, which is about the worst that they can possibly have. And they can’t even import because they don’t have an LNG import facility yet. Pathetic.
Doomberg [00:48:18] Well, again, there was a time during the peak of the European energy crisis where natural gas in California traded for a crazy high number and it was negative in the Permian. And I think it was $55 a million BTU in California minus $1.50 in the permian spot prices. That just tells you where the problem is, right? And so that’s why this, you know, to circle back to Davam, Newsom in California and the inevitable refinery crisis that will transpire in California, like this is all just, it’s not like building and offering refineries in a way that steadily, incredibly produces supply and dampens price spikes is a mystery, like people know how to do it, they’ve just chosen not to. And so, you have to, as Putin famously said about European natural gas buyers, you have made your bed, now lie in it. That’s what we’re gonna have to see.
David Blackmon [00:49:18] So, President Trump, I got one question I just got to ask you here before we wind this up. President Trump keeps saying, and he has been saying since at least December, that he wants $50 oil because he believes $50 is an incentive for Putin to negotiate a peaceful end to the Ukraine war. And I have to admit that I’m not clear. On why that would be such an incentive for Putin to do that, but I wonder if you have a view on it.
Doomberg [00:49:54] So we were advocating for such a policy all the way back in 2022, when the sanctions war was rolled out and we correctly predicted that not only would they fail, they would backfire. Oh, yes. And the piece, I believe, was called Crazy Pills. I have a slightly photogenic memory for the pieces we’ve written. That’s a great, great title, yeah. Because I felt like I was taking crazy pills. Watching this. Clown on 60 Minutes talk about how they were going to destroy the Russian economy by driving the price of oil higher because we’re going to limit Russia’s supply to the international markets. Okay. Got it.
Stuart Turley [00:50:33] Right
Doomberg [00:50:35] If we had done it then, if the US had done it then and driven the, like what happened in the first Gulf War? James Baker went around the world and crashed on skulls. And he said, listen, fellas, we’re going to turn the spigots on. We’re going to flood the market with oil. Then we’re going go into Baghdad and do what we need to do. And you’re going do it. You’re going pump oil, you’re going to lose money, and you’re And everybody did. And it works.
David Blackmon [00:51:05] It’s what he did, yes.
Doomberg [00:51:06] The whole Kuwait thing got snowed up. The Saudis participated in stabilizing the market. If Joe Biden had assembled the CEOs of all the major American oil and gas companies during the outbreak of the war in 2022 and said, we need $20 oil, and I’m going to help you offset your losses, you’re going to get long-term leases to federal lands, we’ll give you some assets, if your balance sheet’s a little sketchy, we’ll guarantee some loans. We’re going to temporarily drive the price of all the $20 a barrel instead of $125 a barrel. The Russian budgetary situation would not have been such that they could have rebuilt their military industrial complex to the extent that they have. It might be a little late now for that. I mean, better late than never. But if the U.S. Had done it in 2022, it would have had significantly.
David Blackmon [00:51:56] Oh, I totally agree with that.
Doomberg [00:51:57] A higher effect. Three years later, with a bigger military producing three times as many weapons as all of NATO combined, and deep partnership with China, things are different. Should have did that in 2022. Directionally, it is a correct statement. But I read somewhere where oil exports are now just 14% of Russia’s budget, as opposed to much higher before.
David Blackmon [00:52:25] Yeah, it was like 22% sure, right?
Doomberg [00:52:27] Sure. Right. Right? So the time to turn the screws was three years ago. Yeah. And we did the opposite. We, the U S did the option. I keep saying, we, I get scolded by, by the editor. Yes. We is I, I have to keep remembering saying that to myself. The U S could have done this in 2020.
Stuart Turley [00:52:45] It says the man who identifies is a green chicken.
Doomberg [00:52:51] But $120 oil was a gift to Putin, printing cash at that level, and that cash was then recycled into its military industrial complex to great effect. So it is what it is. You can only point out such problems in real time and that Trump sees it now. I just worry that Trump sometimes boasts about having far more leverage than he actually does in reality, and this be one of those circumstances.
Stuart Turley [00:53:17] I’ve, I’ve done a series with George McMillan on the, on the war and his president Trump staff does not have the current information that they need in order to end the Ukraine war because president Putin had a 4.2% GDP growth in his GDP through his energy exports and everything else. Germany’s had two years of GDP decline and sanctions have not. Hurt President Putin. There’s what? 1400 ballpark ghost ships of those. I think two or 300 of them are propane and other molecules. And so they figured out a way to get around those. I think Russia’s ballpark 500 tankers or so. Yeah, I think that the right way to get Putin to end the war would be to do business with him as opposed to trying to beat him up.
Doomberg [00:54:23] Wars should be avoided because sometimes you lose them.
Stuart Turley [00:54:29] They’re bad.
David Blackmon [00:54:31] And to learn, isn’t it?
Doomberg [00:54:32] And losing wars is really hard, and NATO has lost the war against Russia. I think there’s a lot of denial, even amongst probably the people listening to this, that the war is lost. Russia stared down the totality of NATO support in Ukraine. The New York Times reports US generals were directing campaigns and giving targeting information. It was a war between the US and and the U.S. Has lost that war. Losing wars is hard. And how NATO loses this war is dangerous. Just even now, as Trump has tried in vain to end the war, while Trump may not fully have the facts on hand to understand the lack of leverage that he has, the Europeans are just delusional. They’re dictating surrender terms to Russia as a pull out of Ukraine and the four regions completely, and then we’ll set up more crimes against Putin. Like, might is right, unfortunately. There was diplomatic off-ramps to this. All the way back to 2015, again in 2022, they were ignored or cast aside. And then if you’re going to embark on a full-fledged war…
Stuart Turley [00:55:59] Ordered to be not done.
Doomberg [00:56:01] Sure, then you should expect that the outcome will be imposed militarily. And I suspect that that’s where we’re heading. There’s a lot of danger in that. Like we’re still talking about nuclear powers and huge, you know, false flag risk. And just to put it on people’s radars, you know Victory Day celebration on May 9, Xi Jinping is in Moscow and Lula’s in Moscow and other world leaders are in Moscow, and Ukraine has threatened to… That parade. And if they do, it could very quickly escalate to a nuclear situation. And some of the more bombastic parts of the Putin regime have been implying as much on Medvedev said that if Kiev attacks the Victory Day parade on May 9th, then Kiev itself might not exist on May 10th, and there’s only so many ways that a city this size No longer exist. And so let’s pray that that doesn’t happen. By the way, if you’re Ukraine and the leadership of Ukraine, you’re very angry. You’re right to be angry. You and your countrymen have suffered more than any other participant in this war by a wide margin. And suddenly Trump shows up and says, oh, let’s make a deal. Well, so you can understand what’s going on. You can even be empathetic to what’s coming on, but that doesn’ t make it less dangerous. And I think. The Starmers of the world, and the Macron’s of the world, the Vanderleens of the world, and the Murchis of the world live in a wholly different reality than the facts on the ground. And it’s almost scary to observe. And it is a real warning to not get into wars. Like the next piece we’re publishing is on the potential for a war with Iran. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen.
Stuart Turley [00:57:57] Oh, no, I hope not.
Doomberg [00:58:01] We’ll see very mixed signals coming out of the Trump administration. If war breaks out in Iran, it will be the end of the trump administration. It will torpedo his presidency, so let’s hope that.
David Blackmon [00:58:19] Just be another Middle East quagmire.
Doomberg [00:58:23] Correct. When was the last war that we won the peace of?
Stuart Turley [00:58:29] No, I can’t, there would be an absolute, just, just stay in the ball, uh, stain of his presidency. And I don’t think it’ll happen. I think Pakistan, uh fighting India is going to curtail that a little bit. It’s causing it. That one’s heating up pretty bad.
Doomberg [00:58:47] Whole other can of worms in it. Yeah. The last war that we won the piece of was Granada, by the way. That’s the answer.
Stuart Turley [00:58:53] Yeah, let me let me share this one thing of zero edge. Tyler Durham asked President Trump a fantastic question. I’d love your opinion on this one. Let me just share this one clip. I love the fact that President Trump has opened it up to podcast hosts.
Video Speaker 1 [00:59:10] Thank you for letting us in here. I’m with ZeroHedge in the last administration and us on social media, so we’re really grateful to be in the White House. This is not exactly sports related, but I’ve been dying to ask you this question for a long time, which is that two and a half years ago, the Nord Stream pipeline blew up. And despite what people like John Brennan and all the hawks said, you were one person who said Russia probably did not blow up its own pipeline.
Video Speaker Donald Trump [00:59:34] We can believe they said Russia blew it up, yeah.
Video Speaker 1 [00:59:37] And so I’m wondering now, your president, if you would consider launching a formal investigation into what happened there and who actually did blow it up.
Video Speaker Donald Trump [00:59:45] Well, probably, if I asked certain people, I’d be able to tell you without having to waste a lot of money on an investigation, but I think a lot of people know who blew it up, but I was the one that blew it Originally because I wouldn’t let it be built. When Biden got in, he allowed it to be built.”.
Stuart Turley [01:00:02] I thought that was absolutely a hoot. A shout out to Zero Edge and Tyler. But, holy smokes.
Doomberg [01:00:09] Yeah, it’s a real whodunit, Stu. I mean, it was really difficult to understand who might have had the means and the motive and the opportunity. I think after having studied it carefully, it was the cast of Gilligan’s Island.
Stuart Turley [01:00:26] Or the Ukrainian feels, that was absolutely a hoot.
Doomberg [01:00:29] Oh, it was a three-hour pleasure cruise, too, and they just decided on their own, with no help from any intelligence agencies whatsoever, to go on a bit of a scuba dive and blow up a deca-billion dollar piece of energy infrastructure. All kidding aside, I think everybody knows.
Stuart Turley [01:00:49] But let me ask this, energy as a export service, when president said, hey, what about managing the Russian nuclear plants in Ukraine as a service, Secretary Wright went, I’ll do that. But then there’s been the rumblings of President Trump stepping in and managing the natural gas out of Russia. In order to help get the business because the trading block for Russia has moved to India South Korea and All the other areas they’re building the railroads to help Get more trade into the Asian market for Russia. I Don’t like that idea. I I think we don’t need to be in the middle of the European Union and Russia in my opinion But just wanted your opinion
Doomberg [01:01:42] Neither of those things is ever going to happen. So no, the US is not going to manage a nuclear power plant in the disputed part of the Donbass. And no, The US is going to take over the midstream role of operating the remaining Nord Stream pipeline. The Europeans is so far afield on Putin and Russia compared to where Trump is. I’m not saying whether they’re right or wrong. So don’t come at me in the comments. Bye. They wouldn’t even loosen banking sanctions against a Russian bank needed to get the Black Sea deal, grain deal, back into works that the U.S. Had agreed to. So yeah, that’s our view there.
Stuart Turley [01:02:29] I loved your opinion. Uh, and then we have another great comment, uh, from this one right here, uh from John, how would that 20 Saudi?
Doomberg [01:02:41] Yeah, we’re not going to get to $20 a barrel, at least not sustainably. $20 a barrel is deep in the hurt locker. And again, don’t forget, we are at a point where you have $3,300 an ounce gold. And the last time we had $20 oil, I think we had a $300 oil. So I think 50 is the equilibrium price. If we go too far from it, then it becomes interesting to potentially get long, the players that can survive it. But we won’t be at 20 for very long.
David Blackmon [01:03:09] And this next one has to be the last question. We’re way over time here.
Doomberg [01:03:15] Yeah, that’s a 20-minute answer, though.
David Blackmon [01:03:17] We’re occupying Doomberg’s whole afternoon here. That’s all right.
Doomberg [01:03:20] You can put the question back up, I’ll address it. I think Canada needs to unstick Alberta’s energy. Canada’s constitution is highly unsettled, its borders are fragile. The relationship between the provinces and the provinces with Ottawa and the country with Britain is complex, filled with lots of history. Carney, as a globalist delight, is the one politician who can credibly make a deal with Alberta. So here’s what we think is going to happen. Alberta will trigger a fake constitutional crisis. Mark Carney will cut a deal Daniel Smith. The Quebec question will be settled as part of a grand solution. Um, and Canada will leave the Trump era more unified, and its constitution settled and its energy unstuck than it otherwise would have, and it’s all because of the threat of Orange Man bad, which is air cover for doing all of this. And so given Carney’s past, he is probably the only politician who can credibly cut a deal with Alberta, and Alberta is playing its role. And we think. That protests against major infrastructure projects that on stake Alberta’s energy will be surprisingly muted because the Canadian press will go along. And references to climate change itself will begin to fade from the Canadian lexicon as the new Canada emerges from the Trump era.
David Blackmon [01:05:04] That would just be a blessing for all mankind if that happened.
Doomberg [01:05:08] Look, that’s a long shot prediction. And, you know, we, we did call Carney winning the election over the conservatives when Carney wasn’t even a contract that you could bet on on poly market, so maybe we’re running a parlay and pressing our luck and we should just take our chips and exit the Canadian casino, having made a good call, but, um, you now we’ve got a piece to publish every four days, so why not go out on a few limbs?
Stuart Turley [01:05:31] I like it. All right. I’d like to say thank you, Mr. Doomberg. I really appreciate you and your great leadership.
Doomberg [01:05:40] It’s really great to be here. I enjoyed it. Yeah, the hour and 10 minutes flew by, so.
David Blackmon [01:05:43] It did, always does with you.
Stuart Turley [01:05:47] All right.
David Blackmon [01:05:48] Thanks everybody for joining us.
Energy News Beat