I can't remember if I posted the EV sales for last month, January, 2016. Here they are:
Compare Chevrolet Volt sales in January, 2016, compared to one year ago, and also with December sales (in graphic below).
But even more interesting, look at the total number of EVs sold in the US in 2015 compared with total number of EVs sold in the US in 2014 (in the very, very small print):
If the print is too small to see, regarding total US EV sales in the past two years:
in 2014, total US EV sales were 122,438 units
in 2015, total US EV sales were 116,099 units
Year-over-year, January, 2016, vs January, 2015:
monthly sales increased marginally year-over-year, from 6,057 to 6,291
For the Chevrolet Volt:
month-over-month, sales of Chevrolet Volts fell from 2,114 to 996 units
year-over-over, sales of Chevrolet Volts nearly doubled from 542 units to 996 units
For the Tesla Model S:
month-over-month, sales of the Tesla Model S fell from 3,600 to 850 units (delivered)
year-over-over, sales of the Tesla Model S fell from 1,100 to 850 units (delivered)
I was reminded of all this after Don sent me an ad disguised as a story talking about the "new" Chevrolet Volt:
However, the Volt is just several thousand dollars more than one of
its major competitors - Ford C-Max Energi - and close to $3,200 more
than the Toyota Prius plug-in. It's good to know with all three vehicles
that you save $7,500 through a federal income tax incentive and there
could be additional state and local incentives as well.
Forget about how the Volt looks. Let's face it, people buy a hybrid
for the gas savings. The Volt delivers quite a bit in that department,
upping its electricity-only total by 25 percent to a 53-mile range. It
takes approximately 41/2 hours to recharge a fully depleted battery
(from a 240-volt power). The new gasoline engine gets 42-43 mpg and a
full tank should lead to roughly 420 miles.
This would be a great time to post a poll on this. I'm curious. I would love to have an EV. If I had all the money in the world, as they say in this neck of the woods, and a charging station in the garage, I would love to have an EV. It is my understanding these are incredible cars in terms of responsiveness and pleasure to drive.
And that's why I think the focus on gasoline mileage to sell a hybrid is misplaced. If the only reason folks buy a Chevrolet Volt is to save money on gasoline, these folks have not been paying attention.
So, the poll: would you buy an EV/hybrid because you think it's going to save you money on gasoline or because you like the "feel" of an EV compared to a conventional gasoline engine? Obviously most people make their decision based on a combination of factors. But in the "ad" above, the writer says "Let's face it, people buy a hybrid
for the gas savings." I'm not so sure that's how Chevrolet should
focus the campaign.
In fact, having said that, I'm about ready to nominate the writer of this ad for the 2016 Geico Rock Award for not having noted how inexpensive gasoline is right now and will likely be for quite some time.
Calumet Specialty Products Partners LP, Indianapolis, has completed a long-planned project to more than double crude processing capacity at subsidiary Calumet Montana Refining LLC’s refinery in Great Falls, MT.
The refinery’s 25,000-b/d crude unit is now on stream and scheduled to reach full operating capacity by the end of March, 2016.
Initially intended to lift crude processing at the refinery to 20,000 b/d from its original 10,000-b/d capacity, the $400-million expansion also was to include installation of a 25,000-b/d mild hydrocracker (MHC) to convert gas oil to higher-value distillates, a hydrogen plant to support the MHC, and a treatment unit to handle increased fuel gas production from the MHC.
Alongside expanding overall capacity, the crude unit is designed to process heavy sour crudes to enable Calumet to benefit from nearby access to cost-advantaged heavy Canadian crudes.
Years ago when traveling cross-country, I passed through Great Falls. The amount of oil-truck traffic intrigued me; I did not know why; now I know. Great Falls is another city that would fascinate Ayn Rand.
From a recent presentation (2016) by Calumet:
Keep the graphic above in mind when you read the following excerpts from MDU and Calumet 4Q15 transcripts:
Our refining segment includes the company's 50% interest
in the Dakota Prairie Refinery which began commercial operations just
in May of last year. Our share of 2015 refining results is an adjusted
loss of $20.5 million. Earnings were impacted by unplanned outages in
October and November due to equipment problems that have since been
repaired. Economics have also been affected by historically low Bakken
differentials from the West Texas Intermediate pricing, which has
reduced the discount for our oil feedstock.
In addition, reduced oilfield activity in the Bakken has
decreased the demand for diesel fuel along with the slowdown in
Canadian tar sands development has also reduced the demand for naphtha.
Our share of projected 2016 EBITDA is at a minus $25 million to zero. As
we talk about our overall guidance for 2016, you will see that refining
has been moved from the pipeline business to a separate segment. This
will provide investors with transparency both on the refinery and the
value of our regulated pipeline business.
We're excluding it from adjusted guidance because the
refining industry tends not to give earnings guidance due to the
volatility and unpredictable nature of the key commodity assumptions
supporting its financial results. We believe this approach to adjusted
EPS allows for a narrower, more meaningful range for investors, while
still providing sufficient guidance for investors to evaluate the
refining segment. We are initiating 2016 adjusted guidance in the range
of $1 to $1.15 per share. Adjusted earnings guidance includes results
from the utility, pipeline, and midstream and construction businesses.
GAAP earnings per share guidance, which includes results from the
refinery, is expected to be in the range of $0.85 to $1.10 per share.
Q & A on the refinery:
Q: On the refinery, I know market conditions have been
tough there. There seemed to be lot of moving parts, though, this
quarter, and in terms of the unplanned outages, is there a way we can
think about the drag on earnings this quarter for that segment?
A: Yes. Brent, we were down almost approximately a month.
It was all related to the hydrogen plant and we are past that. We're
probably going to have some issues with our vendor on that plant, but
ultimately we think we've got that handle. So, on a go-forward basis
we're really happy with where operations are in terms of operating the
plant day-to-day. I would characterize what we put out there as a 90%
target in terms of about 21 days maybe for the year outage, and so
that's the guidance. I hope that helps.
And:
Q: Okay, and then a follow up, and excuse me if this sounds
like a stupid question, but you mentioned the guidance includes an
expectation for 90% utilization in 2016. I guess that just seems high to
me given kind of the demand outlook. I guess why would you expect it to
run at these levels or why does it make sense to continue running at
these levels if we're going to continue to see losses?
A: Well, there is still a margin on diesel. It's not as
robust as it was. So ultimately that is – as long as there is a margin
we will continue to operate at a percentage. If we don't see it, we
would obviously take it down. Our marketing group has also been having
some success taking some diesel out of the basin also. So we think that
over the whole year period, we think we'll probably be able to attain
those levels, but obviously one of the things you see in our guidance is
we have given a range based on pricing because that's one thing we've
learned over the years we can't control, and so you've got to operate as
well as you can and react to when it's there. So, obviously, if we are
having negative pricing, we would turn down the plant.
And finally:
Q: That's helpful and I guess it would also be helpful to
get your current thoughts kind of longer term strategically thinking
about how the refinery fits in with your longer term plans?
A: Yeah, obviously longer term – short-term, we are working
on optimizing where the plant is at. Longer-term, you know this is a
business you have to get in on scale, not just one refinery, you have to
have several or else you would exit. Obviously, we may not be the right
long-term owner but at this point that decision hasn't been made.
We do have local niche markets that we believe we are
advantaged for in the long-term. I think what we saw in the fourth
quarter was as the Bakken drilling was the slowing down, as diesel
demand continued to drop in that North Dakota region, obviously that
impacted our DPR Refinery significantly. We also saw some carry on
effects in both our Montana, and specifically our Superior refiners.
So what’s happening is as diesel demand was extremely
high one or two years ago, it was pulling diesel in from those out of
state markets, and as the diesel demand started coming back in, what we
saw was a backing up of the diesel back into those respective production
areas. And so we saw a significant drop in the fourth quarter at both
our Superior racks, as well as our Montana rack. As we continue to
launch that, we've seen that the inventory is starting to clear, and the
Superior racks in particular have rebounded significantly here in the
last week or two. So we’re hopeful that as the inventory has been run
off, that we’re going to return back to the more typical supply demand
balances that we have seen in those local regions.
And more:
Let's start with the last one on Dakota Prairie. You
know, clearly that has been weighing on our earnings in the fourth
quarter as the Bakken field has slowed down significantly. We've made
several -- we've taken several steps to improve the profitability of
that operation. Remember in the first place that we just started that
plant up in the middle of last year, and as we work through some of the
startup kinks, I think we're in a position now where our reliability has
been significantly improved, and we hope to be able to realize an
improvement 2016 based on that improvement.
We have also taken some leadership changes, just to be
frank at the plant, and we think that has made a significant change.
We've already seen the difference here in the last couple of months. And
one example of that is we were running a diesel yield at the plant
somewhere in the 32%-33% range, and after we brought in some additional
resources from some of our other assets that were more familiar and
experienced with distillation columns, we were able to make some
significant moves to increase our diesel yield to 44% or in that range.
So those are some of the significant opportunities that
we believe we still have to take at our Dakota Prairie refinery. Our
objective is to be cash flow neutral during this bottom of cycle
condition. I would tell you we're not there yet, but we have many more
steps that we're trying to execute on today to get us into that
position. At that point, once we become cash flow neutral, then the role
that an asset like Dakota Prairie refinery has in my portfolio is it's a
call. It's a call on future increases in crude price, and that has some
value in my portfolio.
Vision:
So when I say we have a vision of becoming a premier
specialties petroleum products company in the world, what I mean is
going forward that's what we're going to be focusing on in terms of our
growth strategy. It doesn't mean we're going to try to fire sale any of
our assets that are currently in our portfolio, because they do have
value to me. However, in the event that someone else views any one of
our assets in our portfolio with a higher valuation than what we view it
at, of course we would consider selling that asset. That would include
any of our field assets, any of our specialty asset, any of our oil sub
services assets to the extent that it has higher value to someone else
because their portfolio has different synergies or competitive
advantages that could take advantage of that asset, we would certainly
consider moving that asset out.
And what I would say Christina, is in the past I don’t
think we really held that view. We pretty much held on the assets until
like they were in our portfolio for good. And I think what I'm bringing
to the discussion now is an openness to say hey, maybe other people view
these assets at a higher valuation than we do. So that's our philosophy
going forward.
Now, go back to the graphic above. Note that the MDU-Calumet refinery in Dickinson is not even listed. Not listed. Not loved. Just a matter of time for ...
It's Just a Matter of Time, Brook Benton
Perhaps it's just me, perhaps it's just this recording, but all of a sudden I long for the good ol' days when we had the 1950's wooden cabinet "hi-fi" and the vinyl records. And the living rooms the children were not allowed to go into.
From CNN: the walls are there, but people are free to walk in and out of the Vatican grounds. The doors are always open.
I'm sure the wall that the Donald is proposing will also have doors that are always open. Revolving doors. Trump will put Disney in charge of a) line management; and, b) tickets. I envision a "3-day hopper" in which folks can save money by purchasing a ticket that allows them to hop back and forth between the two countries (the US and Mexico) for three days. Latinos will call the "3-day hopper" the "tres-dias-conejo" -- the Spanish word for rabbit is conejo. Not to be confused with mules which move drugs across borders.
Wow, when The Donald gets going, one never knows where things will lead. Now we see that a pre-historical builder of walls -- no doubt, a conservative -- was building walls in the Holy Land, or at least very near the Holy Land. Whatever. But no sooner do Pope Francis and Donald Trump get into argument about walls and Yahoo posts a story on that wall:
A new map of an ancient wall
that extended 93 miles (150 kilometers) in Jordan has left
archaeologists with a series of mysteries, including questions over when
the wall was built, who built it and what its purpose was.
Known today
as the "Khatt Shebib," the wall's existence was first reported in 1948,
by Sir Alec Kirkbride, a British diplomat in Jordan. While traveling by
airplane in Jordan, he saw a "stone wall running, for no obvious
purpose, across country."
Archaeologists with the Aerial Archaeology in Jordan (AAJ) project have been investigating the remains of the wall using aerial photography.
The researchers found that the wall runs north-northeast to
south-southwest over a distance of 66 miles (106 km). The structure,
they found, contains sections where two walls run side by side and other
sections where the wall branches off.
Posted earlier: sometime later this year it will be quite a spectacle to see 75 wind turbine towers, and 225 blades roll out from east of Williston to north of Tioga for the new wind farm there.
The Houston Chronicle discusses the increasing logistical challenge of moving these incredibly big structures. The new blades are in excess of 200 feet long. A football field is 300 feet long. But one does not get a true feeling for how big these blades are until a truck hauling one passes you at 75 mph on the freeway.
General Electric Co. is shutting down a factory that produces towers
for wind turbines in Brazil that it picked up as part of its acquisition
of Alstom SA’s energy assets.
The plant in Rio Grande do Sul state employs about 80 people.
GE
is the biggest turbine maker in North America, and typically buys
towers from outside suppliers instead of making them in-house. Closing
the Brazil plant will continue that strategy.
Man-camp update in Williston, North Dakota: arguments did not sway commission. Williston commission still on track to require man-camps within one-mile of city limits to be closed by July 1, 2016. So many story lines. But it certainly suggests that even the folks in the oil and gas industry (HAL) were broadsided by the incredible shale revolution. In hindsight, it seems the writing was on the wall, but no one was paying attention. Except that part about the "global economic slowdown."
Crushing oil prices are hitting U.S. shale producers hard and the
outlook for 2016 shows little sign of a let-up. Production has continued
to prove resilient but the odds are that something has to give at these
prices. However there are still sweet spots in U.S. shale plays where
producers are increasing acreage and drilling new wells. The headline
plays that many analysts talk about are the Delaware and Midland basins
in the West Texas Permian but as we outline in today’s blog there is
also continued interest in the relatively less well-known central
Oklahoma SCOOP and STACK plays.
The Anadarko basin covers approximately 60,000 square miles centered
in the western part of Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle and extending
into western Kansas and southeast Colorado. Like the Permian Basin in
West Texas, the Anadarko is certainly not a “new” oil and gas basin but
has been extensively and successfully exploited since the 1920s using
conventional vertical drilling technology. Over the past four years the
basin has been successfully targeted by producers using horizontal
drilling and fracturing technology to extract unconventional oil and
condensates from shale. The Anadarko basin is also similar to the
Permian Basin in that it contains multiple layers of oil-bearing
formations that can be exploited by drilling at different depths.
The Anadarko basin encompasses four main shale era plays - the
Mississippian Lime to the northeast, Cana Woodford to the southeast,
Granite Wash to the southwest and Cleveland/Tonkawa to the northwest.
The Anadarko shale is less consistent and harder to “unlock”
hydrocarbons from as compared with the bigger plays like the Bakken or
the Eagle Ford. However - as we have discussed in previous blogs – it
has been the subject of much excitement in the drilling community with
huge wells coming in that promise rich rewards. We talked about some of
these opportunities back in December 2012. We also referred to the ingenuity of Anadarko producers in cracking the code back in October 2013.
The Apple Page: can the federal government force Apple to create something that does not exist?
