Archive for Energy – Page 12

What is hydrogen, and can it really become a climate solution?

By Hannes van der Watt, University of North Dakota 

Hydrogen, or H₂, is getting a lot of attention lately as governments in the U.S., Canada and Europe push to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.

But what exactly is H₂, and is it really a clean power source?

I specialize in researching and developing H₂ production techniques. Here are some key facts about this versatile chemical that could play a much larger role in our lives in the future.

So, what is hydrogen?

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but because it’s so reactive, it isn’t found on its own in nature. Instead, it is typically bound to other atoms and molecules in water, natural gas, coal and even biological matter like plants and human bodies.

Hydrogen can be isolated, however. And on its own, the H₂ molecule packs a heavy punch as a highly effective energy carrier.

It is already used in industry to manufacture ammonia, methanol and steel and in refining crude oil. As a fuel, it can store energy and reduce emissions from vehicles, including buses and cargo ships.

Hydrogen can also be used to generate electricity with lower greenhouse gas emissions than coal or natural gas power plants. That potential is getting more attention as the U.S. government prepares new rules that would require existing power plants to cut their carbon dioxide emissions.

Because it can be stored, H₂ could help overcome intermittency issues associated with renewable power sources like wind and solar. It can also be blended with natural gas in existing power plants to reduce the plant’s emissions.

Using hydrogen in power plants can reduce carbon dioxide emissions when either blended or alone in specialized turbines, or in fuel cells, which consume H₂ and oxygen, or O₂, to produce electricity, heat and water. But it’s typically not entirely CO₂-free. That’s in part because isolating H₂ from water or natural gas takes a lot of energy.

How is hydrogen produced?

There are a few common ways to produce H₂:

  • Electrolysis can isolate hydrogen by splitting water – H₂O – into H₂ and O₂ using an electric current.
  • Methane reforming uses steam to split methane, or CH₄, into H₂ and CO₂. Oxygen and steam or CO₂ can also be used for this splitting process.
  • Gasification transforms hydrocarbon-based materials – including biomass, coal or even municipal waste – into synthesis gas, an H₂-rich gas that can be used as a fuel either on its own or as a precursor for producing chemicals and liquid fuels.

Each has benefits and drawbacks.

Green, blue, gray – what do the colors mean?

Hydrogen is often described by colors to indicate how clean, or CO₂-free, it is. The cleanest is green hydrogen.

Green H₂ is produced using electrolysis powered by renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar or hydropower. While green hydrogen is completely CO₂-free, it is costly, at around US$4-$9 per kilogram ($2-$4 per pound) because of the high energy required to split water.

Chart showing different colors of hydrogen and how each is made
The largest share of hydrogen today is made from natural gas, meaning methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas.
IRENA (2020), Green Hydrogen: A guide to policymaking

Other less energy-intensive techniques can produce H₂ at a lower cost, but they still emit greenhouse gases.

Gray H₂ is the most common type of hydrogen. It is made from natural gas through methane reforming. This process releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and costs around $1-$2.50 per kilogram (50 cents-$1 per pound).

If gray hydrogen’s CO₂ emissions are captured and locked away so they aren’t released into the atmosphere, it can become blue hydrogen. The costs are higher, at around $1.50-$3 per kilogram (70 cents-$1.50 per pound) to produce, and greenhouse gas emissions can still escape when the natural gas is produced and transported.

Another alternative is turquoise hydrogen, produced using both renewable and nonrenewable resources. Renewable resources provide clean energy to convert methane – CH₄ – into H₂ and solid carbon, rather than that carbon dioxide that must be captured and stored. This type of pyrolysis technology is still new, and is estimated to cost between $1.60 and $2.80 per kilogram (70 cents-$1.30 per pound).

Can we switch off the lights on fossil fuels now?

Over 95% of the H₂ produced in the U.S. today is gray hydrogen made with natural gas, which still emits greenhouse gases.

Whether H₂ can ramp up as a natural gas alternative for the power industry and other uses, such as for transportation, heating and industrial processes, will depend on the availability of low-cost renewable energy for electrolysis to generate green H₂.

It will also depend on the development and expansion of pipelines and other infrastructure to efficiently store, transport and dispense H₂.

Without the infrastructure, H₂ use won’t grow quickly. It’s a modern-day version of “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Continued use of fossil fuels for H₂ production could spur investment in H₂ infrastructure, but using fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases.

What does the future hold for hydrogen?

Although green and blue hydrogen projects are emerging, they are small so far.

Policies like Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions limits and the 2022 U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, which offers tax credits up to $3 per kilogram ($1.36 per pound) of H₂, could help make cleaner hydrogen more competitive.

Hydrogen demand is projected to increase up to two to four times its current level by 2050. For that to be green H₂ would require significant amounts of renewable energy at the same time that new solar, wind and other renewable energy power plants are being built to provide electricity directly to the power sector.

While green hydrogen is a promising trend, it is not the only solution to meeting the world’s energy needs and carbon-free energy goals. A combination of renewable energy sources and clean H₂, including blue, green or turquoise, will likely be necessary to meet the world’s energy needs in a sustainable way.The Conversation

About the Author:

Hannes van der Watt, Research Assistant Professor, University of North Dakota

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Mid-Week Technical Outlook: Oil Hammered Ahead Of Fed

By ForexTime 

Oil markets have been plunged into a bloodbath over the past 24 hours.

The global commodity shed almost 3% this morning, extending a 5% drop on Tuesday after disappointing US economic data fuelled fears of a recession. With oil bears drawing ample strength from weak US factory data and renewed concerns about the US banking sector, further downside could be on the cards ahead of the Fed decision later today.

In the meantime, it will be wise to keep a close eye on the pending US ISM numbers and data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) this afternoon. If the reports reinforce fears around the US economy or the EIA data shows a rise in oil inventories, this could keep bears in the driving seat.

Looking at the technical picture, both WTI and Brent Crude are under intense pressure on the daily charts. WTI extended losses on Wednesday with bears smashing into the $70 level. A strong break and daily close below this point could open a path toward $67 and $64.33 – the lowest level hit this year. Should $70 or $67 prove to be reliable support, prices may experience a technical pullback toward $74 before resuming the downtrend.

It is a similar story for Brent. Prices are trading below the 50, 100, and 200-day SMA while the MACD trades below zero. The bearish trend is healthy with the next key level of interest found at 72.50. Below this point, prices could test $70 and potentially lower.

Since we are discussing commodities, gold secured a daily close above the $2015 resistance as downbeat US economic data and renewed banking fears sparked risk aversion. However, it may take a potent fundamental spark to push prices higher with all eyes on the Fed meeting this evening. Although the central bank is widely expected to hike rates by 25 basis points, investors will be looking for any confirmation that a pause in hikes is on the table. Whatever the outcome, it will certainly impact gold.

The solid breakout above $2015 may open the doors toward $2032 and $2047. Should prices slip back below $2000, this could trigger a decline towards $1970 and $1950, respectively.


Forex-Time-LogoArticle by ForexTime

ForexTime Ltd (FXTM) is an award winning international online forex broker regulated by CySEC 185/12 www.forextime.com

Companies that frack for oil and gas can keep a lot of information secret – but what they disclose shows widespread use of hazardous chemicals

By Vivian R. Underhill, Northeastern University and Lourdes Vera, University at Buffalo 

From rural Pennsylvania to Los Angeles, more than 17 million Americans live within a mile of at least one oil or gas well. Since 2014, most new oil and gas wells have been fracked.

Fracking, short for hydraulic fracturing, is a process in which workers inject fluids underground under high pressure. The fluids fracture coal beds and shale rock, allowing the gas and oil trapped within the rock to rise to the surface. Advances in fracking launched a huge expansion of U.S. oil and gas production starting in the early 2000s but also triggered intense debate over its health and environmental impacts.

Fracking fluids are up to 97% water, but they also contain a host of chemicals that perform functions such as dissolving minerals and killing bacteria. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies a number of these chemicals as toxic or potentially toxic.

The Safe Drinking Water Act, enacted in 1974, regulates underground injection of chemicals that can threaten drinking water supplies. However, Congress has exempted fracking from most federal regulation under the law. As a result, fracking is regulated at the state level, and requirements vary from state to state.

We study the oil and gas industry in California and Texas and are members of the Wylie Environmental Data Justice Lab, which studies fracking chemicals in aggregate. In a recent study, we worked with colleagues to provide the first systematic analysis of chemicals found in fracking fluids that would be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act if they were injected underground for other purposes. Our findings show that excluding fracking from federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act is exposing the public to an array of chemicals that are widely recognized as threats to public health.

Averting federal regulation

Fracking technologies were originally developed in the 1940s but only entered widespread use for fossil fuel extraction in the U.S. in the early 2000s. Since the process involves injecting chemicals underground and then disposing of contaminated water that flows back to the surface, it faced potential regulation under multiple U.S. environmental laws.

In 1997, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that fracking should be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This would have required oil and gas producers to develop underground injection control plans, disclose the contents of their fracking fluids and monitor local water sources for contamination.

In response, the oil and gas industry lobbied Congress to exempt fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Congress did so as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

This provision is widely known as the Halliburton Loophole because it was championed by former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who previously served as CEO of oil services company Halliburton. The company patented fracking technologies in the 1940s and remains one of the world’s largest suppliers of fracking fluid.

Fracking fluids and health

Over the past two decades, studies have linked exposure to chemicals in fracking fluid with a wide range of health risks. These risks include giving birth prematurely and having babies with low birth weights or congenital heart defects, as well as heart failure, asthma and other respiratory illnesses among patients of all ages.

Though researchers have produced numerous studies on the health effects of these chemicals, federal exemptions and sparse data still make it hard to monitor the impacts of their use. Further, much existing research focuses on individual compounds, not on the cumulative effects of exposure to combinations of them.

Chemical use in fracking

For our review we consulted the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry, which is managed by the Ground Water Protection Council, an organization of state government officials. Currently, 23 states – including major producers like Pennsylvania and Texas – require oil and gas companies to report to FracFocus information such as well locations, operators and the masses of each chemical used in fracking fluids.

We used a tool called Open-FracFocus, which uses open-source coding to make FracFocus data more transparent, easily accessible and ready to analyze.

This 2020 news report examines possible leakage of fracking wastewater from an underground injection well in west Texas.

We found that from 2014 through 2021, 62% to 73% of reported fracks each year used at least one chemical that the Safe Drinking Water Act recognizes as detrimental to human health and the environment. If not for the Halliburton Loophole, these projects would have been subject to permitting and monitoring requirements, providing information for local communities about potential risks.

In total, fracking companies reported using 282 million pounds of chemicals that would otherwise regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act from 2014 through 2021. This likely is an underestimate, since this information is self-reported, covers only 23 states and doesn’t always include sufficient information to calculate mass.

Chemicals used in large quantities included ethylene glycol, an industrial compound found in substances such as antifreeze and hydraulic brake fluid; acrylamide, a widely used industrial chemical that is also present in some foods, food packaging and cigarette smoke; naphthalene, a pesticide made from crude oil or tar; and formaldehyde, a common industrial chemical used in glues, coatings and wood products and also present in tobacco smoke. Naphthalene and acrylamide are possible human carcinogens, and formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen.

The data also show a large spike in the use of benzene in Texas in 2019. Benzene is such a potent human carcinogen that the Safe Drinking Water Act limits exposure to 0.001 milligrams per liter – equivalent to half a teaspoon of liquid in an Olympic-size swimming pool.

Many states – including states that require disclosure – allow oil and gas producers to withhold information about chemicals they use in fracking that the companies declare to be proprietary information or trade secrets. This loophole greatly reduces transparency about what chemicals are in fracking fluids.

We found that the share of fracking events reporting at least one proprietary chemical increased from 77% in 2015 to 88% in 2021. Companies reported using about 7.2 billion pounds of proprietary chemicals – more than 25 times the total mass of chemicals listed under the Safe Drinking Water Act that they reported.

Closing the Halliburton loophole

Overall, our review found that fracking companies have reported using 28 chemicals that would otherwise be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Ethylene glycol was used in the largest quantities, but acrylamide, formaldehyde and naphthalene were also common.

Given that each of these chemicals has serious health effects, and that hundreds of spills are reported annually at fracking wells, we believe action is needed to protect public and environmental health, and to enable scientists to rigorously monitor and research fracking chemical use.

Based on our findings, we believe Congress should pass a law requiring full disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking, including proprietary chemicals. We also recommend disclosing fracking data in a centralized and federally mandated database, managed by an agency such as the EPA or the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Finally, we recommend that Congress repeal the Halliburton Loophole and once again regulate fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

As the U.S. ramps up liquefied natural gas exports in response to the war in Ukraine, fracking could continue for the foreseeable future. In our view, it’s urgent to ensure that it is carried out as safely as possible.The Conversation

About the Author:

Vivian R. Underhill, Postdoctoral Researcher in social Science and Environmental Health, Northeastern University and Lourdes Vera, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Environment and Sustainability, University at Buffalo

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Murrey Math Lines 31.03.2023 (Brent, S&P 500)

By RoboForex.com

Brent

On H4, Brent quotes are under the 200-day Moving Average, which indicates the prevalence of a downtrend. The RSI is testing the resistance line. In this circumstances, we expect a downward breakout of 1/8 (78.12) and falling to the support at 0/8 (75.00). The scenario can be canceled by rising above 2/8 (81.25), which might lead to a trend reversal and growth to the resistance level of 3/8 (84.38).

Brent_H4
Risk Warning: the result of previous trading operations do not guarantee the same results in the future

On M15, a breakout of the lower line of the VoltyChannel indicator will increase the probability of further price falling.

Brent_M15
Risk Warning: the result of previous trading operations do not guarantee the same results in the future

S&P 500

On H4, the quotes of the S&P 500 index have broken the 200-day Moving Average and are now above it, which indicates a probable development of the uptrend. However, the RSI has reached the overbought area. As a result, in such a situation, a rebound from the level of 4/8 (4062.5) is expected, after which the price could fall to the support at 3/8 (3984.4). The scenario can be canceled by rising above the resistance at 4/8 (4062.5). In this case, the growth of the S&P 500 index will continue, and the index could reach 5/8 (4140.6).

S&P500_H4
Risk Warning: the result of previous trading operations do not guarantee the same results in the future

On M15, further price falling can be supported by a breakout of the lower border of VoltyChannel.

S&P500_M15

Article By RoboForex.com

Attention!
Forecasts presented in this section only reflect the author’s private opinion and should not be considered as guidance for trading. RoboForex LP bears no responsibility for trading results based on trading recommendations described in these analytical reviews.

Murrey Math Lines 10.03.2023 (Brent, S&P 500)

By RoboForex.com

Brent

On H4, the 200-day Moving Average has broken, and Brent quotes are now below it, which means they might develop a downtrend. However, the RSI has already reached the oversold area. As a result, we should expect a breakaway of 4/8 (81.25) upwards and growth of the price to the resistance level of 5/8 (82.81). The scenario can be cancelled by a downwards breakaway of the support at 3/8 (79.69), in which case Brent quotes will continue falling and might reach 2/8 (78.12).

BrentH4
Risk Warning: the result of previous trading operations do not guarantee the same results in the future

On M15, price growth can additionally be supported by a breakaway of the upper border of the VoltyChannel indicator.

Brent_M15
Risk Warning: the result of previous trading operations do not guarantee the same results in the future

S&P 500

On H4, the S&P 500 index quotes and the RSI are in the oversold area, which points on a possible increase in the price. The quotes are expected to rise above 0/8 (3906.2) and then reach the resistance level of 2/8 (3984.4). The scenario can be cancelled by a downward breakaway of the support at -1/8 (3867.2). In this case, quotes might drop to -2/8 (3828.1).

S&P500_H4
Risk Warning: the result of previous trading operations do not guarantee the same results in the future

On M15, a breakaway of the upper border of VoltyChannel will increase the probability of an increase in the price.

S&P500_M15

Article By RoboForex.com

Attention!
Forecasts presented in this section only reflect the author’s private opinion and should not be considered as guidance for trading. RoboForex LP bears no responsibility for trading results based on trading recommendations described in these analytical reviews.

After oil: the challenge and promise of getting the world off fossil fuels – podcast

By Nehal El-Hadi, The Conversation and Daniel Merino, The Conversation 

Our dependence on fossil fuels is one of the biggest challenges to overcome in the fight against climate change. But production and consumption of fossil fuels is on the rise, and expected to peak within the next decade.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly, we speak to two researchers who examine the political challenges of transitioning to a world after oil, and what it means for those states who rely on oil for resources.

Oil is not only used as a fuel, but is integral to everyday life through its applications in plastics, manufacturing processes, fabrics, paints and chemicals. In order to consider alternatives to oil, we need to be aware of the scale of its integration into our lives.

Caleb Wellum is an assistant professor of U.S. history at the University of Toronto Mississauga, Canada.

“I almost hesitate to say this, because this kind of depiction of deep dependence on oil has actually been a strategy of oil companies themselves to say, look, you can’t have a modern world, a modern way of life without oil,” Wellum points out. “So this is not to say it’s inescapable, but it’s to say that the challenges are significant to transitioning to some kind of after-oil.”

Defining that transition can be tricky, because it carries different stakes depending on how it is interpreted: does it mean continuing to extract oil “until the last drop,” or finding alternatives right now?

Wellum notes that the 1970s oil crisis was a significant moment in human history that helped shape our current consumption patterns. There was a debate between environmentalists and economists that signalled a moment at the crossroads for our current relationship with oil.

“I noticed there was a need to transition away from oil. And there was also a free market argument that argued the energy crisis was a sign of bad government policy of governments intervening in markets and making it inefficient,” he said. “Eventually, this market argument won out and there was no energy transition.”

There was a growing awareness of the environmental impact of the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels, and the urgent need to combat climate change to reduce global warming. And recently, governments around the world — including in countries dependent on oil revenues — are committing to finding energy alternatives.

Natalie Koch is a professor of human geography at the Geography Institute at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. Her research looks at how petrostates have presented spectacular alternative energy projects to distract from the need to move away from oil.

“There’s a focus on spectacular sustainability projects, and by that you see the scale and the size is just enormous. And that’s what spectacle does — it’s supposed to attract a lot of attention because the size range of the project is really quite impressive,” Koch said.

But these ambitious alternative energy projects aren’t all as they seem, she cautions. Koch describes how a solar farm in the desert in Morocco — one of the largest such projects in the world — is facing challenges because of the amount of water required.

A PBS report on the world’s largest solar farm in Morocco.

To transition to a world post-oil, whatever that may look like, requires more than successful and sustainable alternative technologies.

“There are a lot of factors that go into why it is that we’re dependent on oil, but they’re not just about the convenience of the source of energy,” Wellum points out. “It’s about political decisions.”

Listen to the full episode of The Conversation Weekly to find out more.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was produced and written by Mend Mariwany, who is also the show’s executive producer. Sound design is by Eloise Stevens, and our theme music is by Neeta Sarl.

You can find us on Twitter @TC_Audio, on Instagram at @theconversationdotcom or via email. You can also sign up to The Conversation’s free emails here. A transcript of this episode will be available soon.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed, or find out how else to listen here.The Conversation

About the Author:

Nehal El-Hadi, Science + Technology Editor & Co-Host of The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation and Daniel Merino, Associate Science Editor & Co-Host of The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Brent Keeps Trying to Grow

By RoboForex Analytical Department

The crude oil sector fights with the news flow, trying to climb higher. A Brent barrel now costs 85.25 USD.

China has changed its forecast for economic growth in the country to 5.0% from 5.5% earlier. This made capital market really unhappy because it had really counted on the demand on energy carriers from China. Last year, the Chinese GDP grew by just 3%. Hence, the decrease in the target for 2023 might be an attempt to place more realistic goals and reach them efficiently. However, at the moment things look bad.

For now, the market has few fundamental reasons for optimism, yet local waves of purchases happen.

On H4, Brent has formed a consolidation range around 83.83. With an escape upwards, a pathway to 87.52 will practically open. After this level is reached, a link of correction to 83.83 might happen, followed by further growth to 87.52. And this is just a half of the wave. After the goal of growth is reached, a decline to 83.83 might follow, and then — growth to 94.80. Technically, this scenario is confirmed by the MACD: its signal line is above zero in the histogram area suggesting growth to new highs.

On H1, the structure of the fifth wave of growth to 85.80 has been completed. Today a consolidation range is forming below it. An escape downwards and a link of correction to 83.83 are not excluded. With an escape upwards, the wave might continue to 87.50. The target is local. After it is reached, a link of decline to 83.83 and growth to 90.00 might follow. Technically, this scenario is confirmed by Stochastic. Its signal line is above 20, aimed strictly upwards.

Disclaimer

Any forecasts contained herein are based on the author’s particular opinion. This analysis may not be treated as trading advice. RoboForex bears no responsibility for trading results based on trading recommendations and reviews contained herein.

With Inked Deal, Oil & Gas Co. To Own 100% of Subsidiary

Source: Bill Newman  (3/3/23)

With the transaction close, the acquirer will also assume total interest in the now jointly owned oil asset, noted a Research Capital Corp. report.

CanAsia Energy Corp. (CEC:TSX.V) agreed to buy Andora Energy’s common shares owned by minority shareholders for US$1.7 million (US$0.044 per share) in cash, reported Research Capital Corp. analyst Bill Newman in a March 2 research note. This will take CanAsia’s ownership of Andora’s common shares to 100% from 88.2%.

The deal is expected to close by this month’s end, noted Newman, and will likely catalyze CanAsia’s stock.

“We view this transaction as positive,” Newman added.

Research Capital maintained its Speculative Buy recommendation and CA$0.50 per share price target on CanAsia, noted Newman. The stock is currently trading at CA$0.22 per share, which implies a significant, or 127%, potential return on investment from here.

Stake in Resource To Change

Newman pointed out that with the transaction, the portion of the Sawn Lake resource net to CanAsia will increase to 100%, according to the updated resource previously prepared by Sproule Associates and effective Dec. 31, 2022.

The risked best estimate contingent resource net to CanAsia will increase to 248,200,000 barrels (248.2 MMbbl) from 218.9 MMbbl.

Accordingly, the after-tax net present value discounted at 15% of this resource will change to CA$198 million (CA$198M), or CA$3.98 per share, previously CA$175M, or CA$3.51 per share.

Disclosures:
1) Doresa Banning wrote this article for Streetwise Reports LLC. She or members of her household own securities of the following companies mentioned in the article: None. She or members of her household are paid by the following companies mentioned in this article: None.

2) The following companies mentioned in this article are billboard sponsors of Streetwise Reports: CanAsia Energy Corp. Click here for important disclosures about sponsor fees. As of the date of this article, an affiliate of Streetwise Reports has a consulting relationship with: None. Please click here for more information.

3) Statements and opinions expressed are the opinions of the author and not of Streetwise Reports or its officers. The author is wholly responsible for the validity of the statements. The author was not paid by Streetwise Reports for this article. Streetwise Reports was not paid by the author to publish or syndicate this article. Streetwise Reports requires contributing authors to disclose any shareholdings in, or economic relationships with, companies that they write about. Streetwise Reports relies upon the authors to accurately provide this information and Streetwise Reports has no means of verifying its accuracy.

4) This article does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer. This article is not a solicitation for investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company mentioned on Streetwise Reports.

5) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their immediate families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise from the time of the decision to publish an article until three business days after the publication of the article. The foregoing prohibition does not apply to articles that in substance only restate previously published company releases. As of the date of this article, officers and/or employees of Streetwise Reports LLC (including members of their household) own securities of

 


Want to be the first to know about interesting Oil & Gas – Exploration & Production investment ideas? Sign up to receive the FREE Streetwise Reports’ newsletter.Subscribe

 

Disclosures:
1) Doresa Banning wrote this article for Streetwise Reports LLC. She or members of her household own securities of the following companies mentioned in the article: None. She or members of her household are paid by the following companies mentioned in this article: None.

2) The following companies mentioned in this article are billboard sponsors of Streetwise Reports: TAG Oil Ltd. Click here for important disclosures about sponsor fees. As of the date of this article, an affiliate of Streetwise Reports has a consulting relationship with: None. Please click here for more information.

3) Statements and opinions expressed are the opinions of the author and not of Streetwise Reports or its officers. The author is wholly responsible for the validity of the statements. The author was not paid by Streetwise Reports for this article. Streetwise Reports was not paid by the author to publish or syndicate this article. Streetwise Reports requires contributing authors to disclose any shareholdings in, or economic relationships with, companies that they write about. Streetwise Reports relies upon the authors to accurately provide this information and Streetwise Reports has no means of verifying its accuracy.

4) This article does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer. This article is not a solicitation for investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company mentioned on Streetwise Reports.

5) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their immediate families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise from the time of the decision to publish an article until three business days after the publication of the article. The foregoing prohibition does not apply to articles that in substance only restate previously published company releases. As of the date of this article, officers and/or employees of Streetwise Reports LLC (including members of their household) own securities of CHECK a company mentioned in this article.

Disclosures for Research Capital Corp., CanAsia Energy Corp., March 2, 2023

Analyst Certification: I, Bill Newman, CFA, certify the views expressed in this report were formed by my review of relevant company data and industry investigation, and accurately reflect my opinion about the investment merits of the securities mentioned in the report. I also certify that my compensation is not related to specific recommendations or views expressed in this report. Research Capital Corporation publishes research and investment recommendations for the use of its clients. Information regarding our categories of recommendations, quarterly summaries of the percentage of our recommendations which fall into each category and our policies regarding the release of our research reports is available at www.researchcapital.com or may be requested by contacting the analyst. Each analyst of Research Capital Corporation whose name appears in this report hereby certifies that (i) the recommendations and opinions expressed in this research report accurately reflect the analyst’s personal views and (ii) no part of the research analyst’s compensation was or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific conclusions or recommendations expressed in this research report.

Relevant Disclosures Applicable to Companies Under Coverage: Relevant disclosures required under IIROC Rule 3400 applicable to companies under coverage discussed in this research report are available on our website at www.researchcapital.ca

General Disclosures: The opinions, estimates and projections contained in all Research Reports published by Research Capital Corporation (“RCC”) are those of RCC as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice. RCC makes every effort to ensure that the contents have been compiled or derived from sources believed to be reliable and that contain information and opinions that are accurate and complete; RCC makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, in respect thereof, takes no responsibility for any errors and omissions which may be contained therein and accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss arising from any use of or reliance on its Research Reports or its contents. Information may be available to RCC that is not contained therein. Research Reports disseminated by RCC are not a solicitation to buy or sell. All securities not available in all jurisdictions.

Company Specific Disclosures: Within the past 12 months, Research Capital has provided investment banking services to the issuer. The Analyst currently owns or is short shares of the issuer, which represents less than 1% of shares outstanding.

Potential Conflicts of Interest: All Research Capital Corporation (“RCC”) Analysts are compensated based in part on the overall revenues of RCC, a portion of which are generated by investment banking activities. RCC may have had, or seek to have, an investment banking relationship with companies mentioned in this report. RCC and/or its officers, directors and employees may from time to time acquire, hold or sell securities mentioned in our Research Reports as principal or agent. RCC makes every effort possible to avoid conflicts of interest, however readers should assume that a conflict might exist, and therefore not rely solely on this report when evaluating whether or not to buy or sell the securities of subject companies.

RC USA INC.: Information about Research Capital Corporation’s Rating System, the distribution of our research to clients and the percentage of recommendations which are in each of our rating categories is available on our website at www.researchcapital.com. The information contained in this report has been drawn from sources believed to be reliable but its accuracy or completeness is not guaranteed, nor in providing it does Research Capital Corporation assume any responsibility or liability. Research Capital Corporation, its directors, officers and other employees may, from time to time, have positions in the securities mentioned herein. Contents of this report cannot be reproduced in whole or in part without the express permission of Research Capital Corporation. US Institutional Clients – Research Capital USA Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Research Capital Corporation, accepts responsibility for the contents of this report subject to the terms and limitations set out above. US firms or institutions receiving this report should effect transactions in securities discussed in the report through Research Capital USA Inc., a Broker – Dealer registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

Murrey Math Lines 03.03.2023 (Brent, S&P 500)

By RoboForex.com

BRENT

On H4, the quotes have broken through the 200-day Moving Average and are now above it, revealing possible development of an uptrend. The RSI is testing the support level. As a result, we are to expect an upward breakaway of 6/8 (84.38), followed by growth to the resistance level of 8/8 (87.50). The scenario can be cancelled by a downward breakaway of the support level of 5/8 (82.81). In this case, the pair may return to 4/8 (81.25).

BRENTH4
Risk Warning: the result of previous trading operations do not guarantee the same results in the future

On M15, the upper line of VoltyChannel is broken away, which increases the probability of further growth of the price.

BRENT_M15
Risk Warning: the result of previous trading operations do not guarantee the same results in the future

S&P 500

On H4, the quotes are under the 200-day Moving Average, which indicates prevalence of a downtrend. The RSI has pushed off the resistance line. A test of 1/8 (3945.3) is expected, followed by a breakaway and decline to the support level of 0/8 (3906.2). The scenario can be cancelled by rising above the resistance level of 2/8 (3984.4). In this case, the index may rise to 3/8 (4023.4).

S&P 500_H4
Risk Warning: the result of previous trading operations do not guarantee the same results in the future

On M15, the decline can additionally be confirmed by a breakaway of the lower border of VoltyChannel.

S&P 500_M15

Article By RoboForex.com

Attention!
Forecasts presented in this section only reflect the author’s private opinion and should not be considered as guidance for trading. RoboForex LP bears no responsibility for trading results based on trading recommendations described in these analytical reviews.

Crude Oil Couldn’t Care Less About “Fundamentals”

Instead, here’s historic evidence it adheres to Elliott waves

By Elliott Wave International

If there’s one financial market that investors evaluate based on “market fundamentals,” it’s crude oil.

This Feb. 10 Reuters news item provides an example:

Oil may resume its rally in 2023 as Chinese demand recovers after COVID curbs were scrapped and lack of investment limits growth in supply, OPEC country officials told Reuters, with a growing number seeing a possible return to $100 a barrel.

Of course, whether the price of crude oil rises to $100 this year remains to be seen. The point is to show you a typical forecast based on “fundamentals.”

Yet, over the decades, there have been scores of crude oil forecasts based on “fundamentals” which have simply not panned out. Indeed, quite a few times, prices will move in the opposite direction from the consensus of the “fundamentalists.”

However, Elliott Wave International has observed that crude oil tends to follow Elliott wave patterns of investor psychology.

Let’s look at a historical example. Back in 2008, crude hit an all-time high of almost $150 a barrel. Predictably, the mainstream saw more upside; calls for $200 a barrel were common. But here’s a chart from our June 2008 Global Market Perspective with the “5” wave label (indicating an Elliott wave end to oil’s rise). The commentary from that issue is below the chart:

The fifth wave has carried to the upper line, which signals that the rally is nearing an end. Oftentimes, prices will “throw over” the upper channel for a brief period.

As you can see at the bottom of the chart, the Daily Sentiment Index (courtesy trade-futures.com) revealed that 90% of traders were expecting oil’s price to keep rising. Many energy observers were citing “fundamentals” as the reason why. Meanwhile, both Elliott waves and sentiment agreed: A major top was near.

Indeed, a dramatic “throw over” did occur as crude oil topped a little more than month later. Prices then plummeted 78% in just 5 months, as this chart shows:

Mind you, no analytical method can offer a guarantee about a financial market, and that includes the Elliott wave method.

That said, Elliott wave patterns are far preferrable to “fundamentals” as a way of anticipating crude oil’s turns and trends.

If you’d like to learn how the Elliott wave method can help you in your analysis of financial markets, read Elliott Wave Principle: Key to Market Behavior — the Wall Street classic by Frost & Prechter. Here’s a quote from the book:

Although it is the best forecasting tool in existence, the Wave Principle is not primarily a forecasting tool; it is a detailed description of how markets behave. Nevertheless, that description does impart an immense amount of knowledge about the market’s position within the behavioral continuum and therefore about its probable ensuing path. The primary value of the Wave Principle is that it provides a context for market analysis. This context provides both a basis for disciplined thinking and a perspective on the market’s general position and outlook. At times, its accuracy in identifying, and even anticipating, changes in direction is almost unbelievable.

If you’d like to read the entire online version of the book, you may do so for free once you join Club EWI, the world’s largest Elliott wave educational community. A Club EWI membership costs nothing, yet members enjoy complimentary access to a wealth of Elliott wave resources on investing and trading without any obligation.

Become a Club EWI member now and enjoy the benefits, including free access to Elliott Wave Principle: Key to Market Behavior (just follow this highlighted link to get started).

This article was syndicated by Elliott Wave International and was originally published under the headline Crude Oil Couldn’t Care Less About “Fundamentals”. EWI is the world’s largest market forecasting firm. Its staff of full-time analysts led by Chartered Market Technician Robert Prechter provides 24-hour-a-day market analysis to institutional and private investors around the world.