Hey Oil Barons.......

[hornmpa96 2618]

WSJ is reporting the 2 mm number is a cut from the production targets and not actual production.

[Storm the Field 5294]

2 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

WSJ is reporting the 2 mm number is a cut from the production targets and not actual production.

Interesting, I read the exact opposite this morning. Guess it's always worth waiting for the official announcements. 

Saudis now saying that it will represent a "real" cut of about 1.1M barrels a day. 

[Humble Beast 258]

 

so we could keep draining the reserve? Seems like a lopsided, no win scenario for us. We drain reserves more and they’ll still get what they want when we stop. 

[Voldemort86 2259]

 

[Hefeweizen 5310]

Man rooting for OPEC is just bizarre.  Bunch of fucking good for nothing countries.  Saudi, Iran, (not Russia)… if you’re on their side you may want to check yourself.

 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Hefeweizen
Haha not sure why I jumped russkies in there

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

Man rooting for OPEC is just bizarre.  Bunch of fucking good for nothing countries.  Saudi, Iran, (not Russia)… if you’re on their side you may want to check yourself.

 

Totally and unabashedly on their side. I want the domestic industry to thrive and they are doing what they can to do that whereas the administration is trying to harm it. 

[Humble Beast 258]

12 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

Man rooting for OPEC is just bizarre.  Bunch of fucking good for nothing countries.  Saudi, Iran, (not Russia)… if you’re on their side you may want to check yourself.

 

Russia in opec+.
 

They’re all aligning with one common goal. Keep control of the most important market in the world. They have experienced people in charge that treat this as the most important thing for their countries. We have people that downplay its importance while focusing on rainbows and unicorns. Stupid. 
 

https://twitter.com/javierblas/status/1577578162539692032?s=21&t=0aMLMkvVnRlHKN5dm1KesQ
 

 

If it wasn’t affecting the global economy so much, this comedy of errors would all be funny. It only gets worse from here. Wait for our gas export ban, coming soon. The people in charge will be surprised by the effects. 
 

5 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Totally and unabashedly on their side. I want the domestic industry to thrive and they are doing what they can to do that whereas the administration is trying to harm it. 

I get your sentiment, but have problems with these guys jerking us around. Of course if we were taking more advantage of our own resources we wouldn’t be so vulnerable. 
 

I was really hoping the Euro/Germany energy crisis would be wake up call. Today’s reactions to opec cuts are pretty discouraging on that front. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Humble Beast said:

Russia in opec+.
 

They’re all aligning with one common goal. Keep control of the most important market in the world. They have experienced people in charge that treat this as the most important thing for their countries. We have people that downplay its importance while focusing on rainbows and unicorns. Stupid. 
 

https://twitter.com/javierblas/status/1577578162539692032?s=21&t=0aMLMkvVnRlHKN5dm1KesQ
 

 

If it wasn’t affecting the global economy so much, this comedy of errors would all be funny. It only gets worse from here. Wait for our gas export ban, coming soon. The people in charge will be surprised by the effects. 
 

I get your sentiment, but have problems with these guys jerking us around. Of course if we were taking more advantage of our own resources we wouldn’t be so vulnerable. 
 

I was really hoping the Euro/Germany energy crisis would be wake up call. Today’s reactions to opec cuts are pretty discouraging on that front. 

They’re not jerking us around. They are acting in their best interests. Sometimes that is at odds with what is best for our nation. But I’d never fault them for that. In addition, I very intentionally have bought a lot of direct interests in oil and gas properties because I knew we were entering crisis and a Democratic administration. I knew shenanigans like what they’ve done would occur. I never would have guessed the extent of their idiocy, or the speed with which prices have gotten up there. The two are very much related. 

[Humble Beast 258]

1 minute ago, Porterhouse said:

They’re not jerking us around. They are acting in their best interests. Sometimes that is at odds with what is best for our nation. But I’d never fault them for that. In addition, I very intentionally have bought a lot of direct interests in oil and gas properties because I knew we were entering crisis and a Democratic administration. I knew shenanigans like what they’ve done would occur. I never would have guessed the extent of their idiocy, or the speed with which prices have gotten up there. The two are very much related. 

It’s more of the optics of offering a minimal increase after an ass kissing trip, then a much larger cut within months.
 

But as you said it’s all in their best interests. We shouldn’t expect states to do otherwise. Just like we shouldn’t have expected them to take a proposed price cap on a member without a response when they don’t have to do that. It’s all so stupid. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Humble Beast said:

 

so we could keep draining the reserve? Seems like a lopsided, no win scenario for us. We drain reserves more and they’ll still get what they want when we stop. 

I don't agree with a ton on this thread, but this I 100% agree with. I'd prefer us not to drain the reserve. I don't think that's a good idea.

[Storm the Field 5294]

2 hours ago, Humble Beast said:

Of course if we were taking more advantage of our own resources we wouldn’t be so vulnerable. 
 

US hydrocarbon production has nearly fully recovered to pre-COVID levels. Domestic crude production is down roughly 1.1M barrels a day from the record of 13M set in December 2019, but essentially offset by an increase of roughly 1.1M/day in NGLs.

EIA predicts domestic crude production to reclaim the previous level of 13M/day and possibly set a new record by late 2023.

Edit to add: Also, the crude numbers are only updated through the end of July 2022. I wouldn't be shocked if we're already bumping back up against 12M/day at this point.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Storm the Field

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

US hydrocarbon production has nearly fully recovered to pre-COVID levels. Domestic crude production is down roughly 1.1M barrels a day from the record of 13M set in December 2019, but essentially offset by an increase of roughly 1.1M/day in NGLs.

EIA predicts domestic crude production to reclaim the previous level of 13M/day and possibly set a new record by late 2023.

Edit to add: Also, the crude numbers are only updated through the end of July 2022. I wouldn't be shocked if we're already bumping back up against 12M/day at this point.

 Couple of thoughts. First the 11.9 mmbbld is inflated. Probably by about half a million. Second, we can’t possibly get to 13 mm for two reasons: a) capital is still scarce b) we’ve drilled our best wells in every basin.  These are my educated thoughts - I could be wrong. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Porterhouse

[jimmyjazz 45893]

3 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

This is a big fuck you to Biden admin and EU. Good. 

It's nice to see you saying the quiet part out loud.

For fuck's sake, and what about "no politics"?   You jackasses can't possibly follow your own rules.  LMAO.

[52-80 19147]

4 hours ago, Humble Beast said:

 

so we could keep draining the reserve? Seems like a lopsided, no win scenario for us. We drain reserves more and they’ll still get what they want when we stop. 

Its a game of chicken except one party is a fox

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Storm the Field said:

US hydrocarbon production has nearly fully recovered to pre-COVID levels. Domestic crude production is down roughly 1.1M barrels a day from the record of 13M set in December 2019, but essentially offset by an increase of roughly 1.1M/day in NGLs.

EIA predicts domestic crude production to reclaim the previous level of 13M/day and possibly set a new record by late 2023.

Edit to add: Also, the crude numbers are only updated through the end of July 2022. I wouldn't be shocked if we're already bumping back up against 12M/day at this point.

This. The entire idea that no one is allowed to produce because of a Dem administration seems to be a red herring. It's not where it was, but it's within spitting distance.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's nice to see you saying the quiet part out loud.

For fuck's sake, and what about "no politics"?   You jackasses can't possibly follow your own rules.  LMAO.

Lulz. I won’t even try to follow that rule. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

This. The entire idea that no one is allowed to produce because of a Dem administration seems to be a red herring. It's not where it was, but it's within spitting distance.

Who here has said that?  Rather, the admin is hostile to the industry because of its obligations to the green energy industry. It is totally political, which makes jimmyjazz and fudgenuggets gripes fucking hilarious. I’m not sure why you are taking the massive leap that ANYONE here actually thinks nobody is allowed to produce.  Talk about presumption and a straw man. 

And we aren’t in spitting distance, and won’t ever get back there. 

[52-80 19147]

Some folks publicly proclaim that oil companies are so evil that they don’t mind befriending Venezuela instead

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-plans-to-ease-venezuela-sanctions-enabling-chevron-to-pump-oil-11665005719

[jimmyjazz 45893]

44 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Who here has said that?  Rather, the admin is hostile to the industry because of its obligations to the green energy industry. It is totally political, which makes jimmyjazz and fudgenuggets gripes fucking hilarious. I’m not sure why you are taking the massive leap that ANYONE here actually thinks nobody is allowed to produce.  Talk about presumption and a straw man. 

And we aren’t in spitting distance, and won’t ever get back there. 

You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, but I'm glad that you're ignoring the "rules".  Permaban time.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, but I'm glad that you're ignoring the "rules".  Permaban time.

I know exactly what I’m talking about. Since you summoned me over to CR, I went, and likely won’t go back. They have zero clue. I challenge you to refute one incorrect thing I’ve said. 

[Cornpop 230]

7 hours ago, Humble Beast said:

Russia in opec+.
 

They’re all aligning with one common goal. Keep control of the most important market in the world. They have experienced people in charge that treat this as the most important thing for their countries. We have people that downplay its importance while focusing on rainbows and unicorns. Stupid. 
 

https://twitter.com/javierblas/status/1577578162539692032?s=21&t=0aMLMkvVnRlHKN5dm1KesQ
 

 

If it wasn’t affecting the global economy so much, this comedy of errors would all be funny. It only gets worse from here. Wait for our gas export ban, coming soon. The people in charge will be surprised by the effects. 
 

I get your sentiment, but have problems with these guys jerking us around. Of course if we were taking more advantage of our own resources we wouldn’t be so vulnerable. 
 

I was really hoping the Euro/Germany energy crisis would be wake up call. Today’s reactions to opec cuts are pretty discouraging on that front. 

If we hadn't tied a rope around our own necks and then handed them the other end, we wouldn't be getting jerked around like this. 

[cactusflinthead 27598]

Asked what level the price of West Texas Intermediate oil would need to hit to get publicly traded oil and gas companies back into growth mode, 29% of executives said that their expansion plans weren't dependent on price. Another 9% named a price above $120 a gallon.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oil-production-prices-us-companies-wont-increase-2022-dallas-fed-survey/

[bluto 4914]

If they don’t expand until $120 a gallon then putin can just light the nukes for all I care

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, bluto said:

If they don’t expand until $120 a gallon then putin can just light the nukes for all I care

He pulled that directly from the article. There were a lot of funky numbers from that article but the sentiments are exactly what I hear. There is little incentive for a major or large independent to ramp up.  Development out of cash flow has been the name of the game for a few years now.

For me personally, buying assets right now is extremely cheap.  The futures curve is a farce, yet, that is the basis for purchase valuations. I’d like to accumulate as much as I can through acquisition. I wouldn’t consider drilling a new well. 

[cactusflinthead 27598]

7 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

He pulled that directly from the article. There were a lot of funky numbers from that article but the sentiments are exactly what I hear. There is little incentive for a major or large independent to ramp up.  Development out of cash flow has been the name of the game for a few years now.

For me personally, buying assets right now is extremely cheap.  The futures curve is a farce, yet, that is the basis for purchase valuations. I’d like to accumulate as much as I can through acquisition. I wouldn’t consider drilling a new well. 

Address the point Rex. Oil companies do not want to increase domestic production. 

Tell me when we are going to see a new refinery. Why is no one building a new refinery? 

Rig counts are kinda meh. Better than it was, but dudes that used to work oil are in NM working on wind.

Why is that Rex?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

Address the point Rex. Oil companies do not want to increase domestic production. 

Tell me when we are going to see a new refinery. Why is no one building a new refinery? 

Rig counts are kinda meh. Better than it was, but dudes that used to work oil are in NM working on wind.

Why is that Rex?

Why would any company give a shit about domestic production? Or refineries, a midstream concern?  Shrinking refining capacity in the NE is significantly increasing their gasoline, since you brought it up.

Why don’t you make your little point about renewables that you sorely want to make?  Otherwise it a sounds like you’re just lobbing random shit you’ve heard in a feeble attempt to sound educated in front of your cloaky buddies. 

[52-80 19147]

6 hours ago, Cornpop said:

If we hadn't tied a rope around our own necks and then handed them the other end, we wouldn't be getting jerked around like this. 

David carradine did this and look what happened to him

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

There is a lot of dumb in this thread.  Let's review how we got here, shall we?  Not going to take it back to before 2014, but in the latter half of 2014, Saudi decided that it didn't want to support the oil market, and it lowered its published price to Asia in order to stamp out US oil producers (I believe 2014 was the first year the US outstripped anyone from an oil production perspective).  Saudi's decision was done because wells developed in the height of the market were coming online, and Saudi was willing to fight for market share.  We saw a $40 drop per bbl in the latter half of 2014.  Things stayed in a band between $40 and $75 from Jan 2015 until the end of 2017.  In 2018, prices were creeping back up to $85 a bbl, and then fell 30% to just over $50 a bbl.   The former President took credit for that, even though it put a lot of small companies in trouble, and he continued to cater to Saudi and ask them to send prices lower.

We then hovered in the $55 to $70 range during 2019.  In February 2020, COVID really took off, and in March of 2020, Russia and Saudi got into a pissing match.  They sent the price of crude tumbling.  Financial markets had negative pricing, and the month of March averaged about $23 a bbl.  Things slipped further as most of the world shut down at the end of March, and in April, we realized this was not a short term blip and demand had cratered, and crude tanked further to $20 a bbl.  By May 2020, demand had rebounded as parts of the world were coming out of that first lock down.  Crude rebounded to $40 a bbl.  Since then, we have seen prices continue to rise as demand comes back from where it was prior to the pandemic.  There have been some setbacks as demand has taken hits as certain parts of the world go back on restrictions to combat the virus (we saw it in October 2020 and then again in November 2021).  And then in late February 2022, Putin made the monumentally stupid decision to invade Ukraine.  The full price impact of that was not felt until May 2022 when physical Russian crude was no longer allowed for delivery (after sanctions, you could still take delivery, if you had contracted it before the sanctions).  

Prices have fallen since, which is probably driving the OPEC+ decision.  

Unlike US producers, whose main driver is economics (though to be fair to a lot of the producers in the US, financials institutions are less willing to lend them money due to a number of factors), Saudi and Russia depend on higher prices of crude to fund their governments.  They are both horrific regimes with troubling human rights records.  Venezuela, who is sitting on the world's largest reserves would be a good alternative source, but their government is also a problem.  The US cannot produce enough crude to meet it's daily demand, and even if we could, it isn't the right type for a lot of the complex refineries on the Gulf Coast.  Canada has crude we like, but there are logistics issues, that even if the Keystone pipeline were to be built, it would not come online for at least 8 years (it was slated to be operational in 2030 until it was shut down).  Mexico could be another source, but Mexico has corruption problems.  

So, it is a situation of being damned either way.  

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

7 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

Why would any company give a shit about domestic production? Or refineries, a midstream concern?  Shrinking refining capacity in the NE is significantly increasing their gasoline, since you brought it up.

Why don’t you make your little point about renewables that you sorely want to make?  Otherwise it a sounds like you’re just lobbing random shit you’ve heard in a feeble attempt to sound educated in front of your cloaky buddies. 

New York has followed California in prohibiting new gasoline cars being sold after 2035.  That will help with the refinery issue, don't you think?

[babysdaddy 2721]

1 minute ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

There is a lot of dumb in this thread.  Let's review how we got here, shall we?  Not going to take it back to before 2014, but in the latter half of 2014, Saudi decided that it didn't want to support the oil market, and it lowered its published price to Asia in order to stamp out US oil producers (I believe 2014 was the first year the US outstripped anyone from an oil production perspective).  Saudi's decision was done because wells developed in the height of the market were coming online, and Saudi was willing to fight for market share.  We saw a $40 drop per bbl in the latter half of 2014.  Things stayed in a band between $40 and $75 from Jan 2015 until the end of 2017.  In 2018, prices were creeping back up to $85 a bbl, and then fell 30% to just over $50 a bbl.   The former President took credit for that, even though it put a lot of small companies in trouble, and he continued to cater to Saudi and ask them to send prices lower.

We then hovered in the $55 to $70 range during 2019.  In February 2020, COVID really took off, and in March of 2020, Russia and Saudi got into a pissing match.  They sent the price of crude tumbling.  Financial markets had negative pricing, and the month of March averaged about $23 a bbl.  Things slipped further as most of the world shut down at the end of March, and in April, we realized this was not a short term blip and demand had cratered, and crude tanked further to $20 a bbl.  By May 2020, demand had rebounded as parts of the world were coming out of that first lock down.  Crude rebounded to $40 a bbl.  Since then, we have seen prices continue to rise as demand comes back from where it was prior to the pandemic.  There have been some setbacks as demand has taken hits as certain parts of the world go back on restrictions to combat the virus (we saw it in October 2020 and then again in November 2021).  And then in late February 2022, Putin made the monumentally stupid decision to invade Ukraine.  The full price impact of that was not felt until May 2022 when physical Russian crude was no longer allowed for delivery (after sanctions, you could still take delivery, if you had contracted it before the sanctions).  

Prices have fallen since, which is probably driving the OPEC+ decision.  

Unlike US producers, whose main driver is economics (though to be fair to a lot of the producers in the US, financials institutions are less willing to lend them money due to a number of factors), Saudi and Russia depend on higher prices of crude to fund their governments.  They are both horrific regimes with troubling human rights records.  Venezuela, who is sitting on the world's largest reserves would be a good alternative source, but their government is also a problem.  The US cannot produce enough crude to meet it's daily demand, and even if we could, it isn't the right type for a lot of the complex refineries on the Gulf Coast.  Canada has crude we like, but there are logistics issues, that even if the Keystone pipeline were to be built, it would not come online for at least 8 years (it was slated to be operational in 2030 until it was shut down).  Mexico could be another source, but Mexico has corruption problems.  

So, it is a situation of being damned either way.  

 

Can't really argue with a bunch of this.  One thing I'd add is public E&P companies got their asses handed to them back in 2014-2015 when Wall Street decided they should be valued on their cash flow rather than their reserves.  That drove underinvestment across the board which is adding to supply concerns. 

Not for nothing, but Bin Salaman pointed towards the Federal Reserve and their efforts at demand destruction as the reasoning for the cut.  But clearly related to SPR drains as well. 

[52-80 19147]

14 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

There is a lot of dumb in this thread.  Let's review how we got here, shall we?  Not going to take it back to before 2014, but in the latter half of 2014, Saudi decided that it didn't want to support the oil market, and it lowered its published price to Asia in order to stamp out US oil producers (I believe 2014 was the first year the US outstripped anyone from an oil production perspective).  Saudi's decision was done because wells developed in the height of the market were coming online, and Saudi was willing to fight for market share.  We saw a $40 drop per bbl in the latter half of 2014.  Things stayed in a band between $40 and $75 from Jan 2015 until the end of 2017.  In 2018, prices were creeping back up to $85 a bbl, and then fell 30% to just over $50 a bbl.   The former President took credit for that, even though it put a lot of small companies in trouble, and he continued to cater to Saudi and ask them to send prices lower.

We then hovered in the $55 to $70 range during 2019.  In February 2020, COVID really took off, and in March of 2020, Russia and Saudi got into a pissing match.  They sent the price of crude tumbling.  Financial markets had negative pricing, and the month of March averaged about $23 a bbl.  Things slipped further as most of the world shut down at the end of March, and in April, we realized this was not a short term blip and demand had cratered, and crude tanked further to $20 a bbl.  By May 2020, demand had rebounded as parts of the world were coming out of that first lock down.  Crude rebounded to $40 a bbl.  Since then, we have seen prices continue to rise as demand comes back from where it was prior to the pandemic.  There have been some setbacks as demand has taken hits as certain parts of the world go back on restrictions to combat the virus (we saw it in October 2020 and then again in November 2021).  And then in late February 2022, Putin made the monumentally stupid decision to invade Ukraine.  The full price impact of that was not felt until May 2022 when physical Russian crude was no longer allowed for delivery (after sanctions, you could still take delivery, if you had contracted it before the sanctions).  

Prices have fallen since, which is probably driving the OPEC+ decision.  

Unlike US producers, whose main driver is economics (though to be fair to a lot of the producers in the US, financials institutions are less willing to lend them money due to a number of factors), Saudi and Russia depend on higher prices of crude to fund their governments.  They are both horrific regimes with troubling human rights records.  Venezuela, who is sitting on the world's largest reserves would be a good alternative source, but their government is also a problem.  The US cannot produce enough crude to meet it's daily demand, and even if we could, it isn't the right type for a lot of the complex refineries on the Gulf Coast.  Canada has crude we like, but there are logistics issues, that even if the Keystone pipeline were to be built, it would not come online for at least 8 years (it was slated to be operational in 2030 until it was shut down).  Mexico could be another source, but Mexico has corruption problems.  

So, it is a situation of being damned either way.  

 

This is all historically true.

So are the obvious facts that in any given market, prices are ultimately dictated by supply and demand.  Which are in limited control by industry (chiefly OPEC+ as they're aligned by agreement) through levers of supply; and also by politicians through policies and signaling of policies (stimulating or stifling demand, exercise of reserve capacity, tax legislation).

These things are all as plain and fundamental as the sky is blue.  So the only derisible part is when politicians (or their supporst) flip flop having 0 influence one day, or claiming credit the next day, or rhetorically demonizing the industry one day, and then pleading to them the next.

That schoolyard shit should be pointed out and mocked at every opportunity.

[jimmyjazz 45893]

12 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

I know exactly what I’m talking about. Since you summoned me over to CR, I went, and likely won’t go back. They have zero clue. I challenge you to refute one incorrect thing I’ve said. 

The fact that you point at Joe Biden tells me all I need to know.  You see this as political, and you like it, because you have somebody to blame besides the people who are (work with me here) exactly to blame.

[jeevsie 3733]

36 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

financials institutions are less willing to lend them money due to a number of factors

As I caught up on this thread, I saw the neg bombing going on (always comical to me). I can appreciate that Penelope actually followed it up with a post unlike so many.

The quoted portion above is glossed over too quickly.  From my sector of the industry, this is all too visible.  This cycle is unlike any I've ever been through (admittedly, close to an old, so I've been through a few).  Previous cycles - downward cycle is shrinkage through going belly up, parking and Reduction in Force. Upswing is expansion (sometimes rapid), consolidation, and startups.  Consolidation this upswing has only been from those wanting to exit the sector. Practically NO startups this cycle. No capital to fund them. The oil industry has been painted as an unattractive investment, plain to see.

 

[Tex48 840]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The fact that you point at Joe Biden tells me all I need to know.  You see this as political, and you like it, because you have somebody to blame besides the people who are (work with me here) exactly to blame.

The reality is energy is a political issue and nothing Porterhouse has said is wrong. Who do you believe is to blame then? 

[jimmyjazz 45893]

2 minutes ago, Tex48 said:

The reality is energy is a political issue and nothing Porterhouse has said is wrong. Who do you believe is to blame then? 

I can't make a political argument here -- my post will get moderated and I'll most likely get a vacation.  I'm not on the "right" side. 

I'll leave it at this -- the idea that this administration is at the nexus of current O&G dynamics is absolutely laughable.

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

There is a lot of dumb in this thread.  Let's review how we got here, shall we?  Not going to take it back to before 2014, but in the latter half of 2014, Saudi decided that it didn't want to support the oil market, and it lowered its published price to Asia in order to stamp out US oil producers (I believe 2014 was the first year the US outstripped anyone from an oil production perspective).  Saudi's decision was done because wells developed in the height of the market were coming online, and Saudi was willing to fight for market share.  We saw a $40 drop per bbl in the latter half of 2014.  Things stayed in a band between $40 and $75 from Jan 2015 until the end of 2017.  In 2018, prices were creeping back up to $85 a bbl, and then fell 30% to just over $50 a bbl.   The former President took credit for that, even though it put a lot of small companies in trouble, and he continued to cater to Saudi and ask them to send prices lower.

We then hovered in the $55 to $70 range during 2019.  In February 2020, COVID really took off, and in March of 2020, Russia and Saudi got into a pissing match.  They sent the price of crude tumbling.  Financial markets had negative pricing, and the month of March averaged about $23 a bbl.  Things slipped further as most of the world shut down at the end of March, and in April, we realized this was not a short term blip and demand had cratered, and crude tanked further to $20 a bbl.  By May 2020, demand had rebounded as parts of the world were coming out of that first lock down.  Crude rebounded to $40 a bbl.  Since then, we have seen prices continue to rise as demand comes back from where it was prior to the pandemic.  There have been some setbacks as demand has taken hits as certain parts of the world go back on restrictions to combat the virus (we saw it in October 2020 and then again in November 2021).  And then in late February 2022, Putin made the monumentally stupid decision to invade Ukraine.  The full price impact of that was not felt until May 2022 when physical Russian crude was no longer allowed for delivery (after sanctions, you could still take delivery, if you had contracted it before the sanctions).  

Prices have fallen since, which is probably driving the OPEC+ decision.  

Unlike US producers, whose main driver is economics (though to be fair to a lot of the producers in the US, financials institutions are less willing to lend them money due to a number of factors), Saudi and Russia depend on higher prices of crude to fund their governments.  They are both horrific regimes with troubling human rights records.  Venezuela, who is sitting on the world's largest reserves would be a good alternative source, but their government is also a problem.  The US cannot produce enough crude to meet it's daily demand, and even if we could, it isn't the right type for a lot of the complex refineries on the Gulf Coast.  Canada has crude we like, but there are logistics issues, that even if the Keystone pipeline were to be built, it would not come online for at least 8 years (it was slated to be operational in 2030 until it was shut down).  Mexico could be another source, but Mexico has corruption problems.  

So, it is a situation of being damned either way.  

 

100% correct. All of this I’ve said repeatedly. I’ve lived it. Not sure what the point is - that Biden has a coherent energy policy?  He doesn’t.

You seem to be perturbed Biden is mentioned.  The reason for this is that he is going to exacerbate the severity of the shock of the crisis for short term political gain. It’s as plain as day, and no amount of dismissal by the CR crew coming in here calling it “a lot of dumb” or negging sprees is going to stop that narrative. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

New York has followed California in prohibiting new gasoline cars being sold after 2035.  That will help with the refinery issue, don't you think?

The straw man issue?  Sure, I guess. Not sure what the collective point is. 

[52-80 19147]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I can't make a political argument here -- my post will get moderated and I'll most likely get a vacation.  I'm not on the "right" side. 

I'll leave it at this -- the idea that this administration is at the nexus of current O&G dynamics is absolutely laughable.

i personally wouldnt claim that.  but the fact that energy is foundational to governments, and that politicians comment prominently on o&g, makes o&g inextricably political. 

and if they both comment on it, and do actually have non-zero influence on its dynamics, compels them to be a subject of discussion.

**

"right" is a matter of subjectivity.  you can say what you mean and let everyone else judge.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The fact that you point at Joe Biden tells me all I need to know.  You see this as political, and you like it, because you have somebody to blame besides the people who are (work with me here) exactly to blame.

You wade in here like an idiot without having kept up with the thread and make statements like “tells me all I need to know”. I’ve said repeatedly we’d be in this crisis regardless of who was president. Trump could tweet at the saudis about producing more (that REALLY pissed me off when he did that in 2019, and I said so here), and it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference. There is a reason I point to him, and it is not because I think he’s to blame. 

[jimmyjazz 45893]

Was the Trump administration behind this price swing?

[jimmyjazz 45893]

2 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

You wade in here like an idiot without having kept up with the thread and make statements like “tells me all I need to know”. I’ve said repeatedly we’d be in this crisis regardless of who was president. Trump could tweet at the saudis about producing more (that REALLY pissed me off when he did that in 2019, and I said so here), and it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference. There is a reason I point to him, and it is not because I think he’s to blame. 

You're clearly giddy because this is happening with a Democrat in the White House.  You care more about Republican politicians than you do the United States and its people.

Don't try to walk it back now.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Was the Trump administration behind this price swing?

What?  Can you read words typed here, or have I fully lost you to fantasy land?

[Tex48 840]

23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'll leave it at this -- the idea that this administration is at the nexus of current O&G dynamics is absolutely laughable.

I'd argue any US administration is is a nexus for O&G dynamics. I'll give my viewpoints of how the current admin has influenced the global dynamics of the oil and gas industry without jumping into if I think the admin right or wrong. 

We are the largest exporter of refined products in the world. Our domestic policy on refining has a global impact. The current admin has publicly stated they are considering a refined export products ban. This will cause refiners to not invest domestically.

The administration has had one oil lease sale since they have been in office. The lease sale ended up being stopped in court afterwards. There is drillable land available that the administration through the BOEM controls. The administration has made the choice to not put up more land to be leased. 

SPR release. The government is releasing a million barrels a day in an extremely tight market. 

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You're clearly giddy because this is happening with a Democrat in the White House.  You care more about Republican politicians than you do the United States and its people.

Don't try to walk it back now.

I was really pissed too when Trump made the comment about the Saudis. I do not think Trump was perfect or great for the industry by any means. 

 

 

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Was the Trump administration behind this price swing?

The administration was not behind the price swing at the bottom. It was a delivery issue. There was no available storage for oil due the supply dynamics at the time. 
 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Tex48

[jimmyjazz 45893]

1 minute ago, Porterhouse said:

What?  Can you read words typed here, or have I fully lost you to fantasy land?

That was posted almost simultaneously with your last post.  Pardon me for not F5 every time I copy and past an image I had to go find and edit.

It doesn't change the fact that you are thrilled this can be blamed on Biden.  It's your fucking words, own them.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

You're clearly giddy because this is happening with a Democrat in the White House.  You care more about Republican politicians than you do the United States and its people.

Don't try to walk it back now.

I’m giddy because prices are high and going higher, absolutely true and I’ll never walk that back.  That’s usually the case when a Dem is in charge. As to the other comment, I challenge you to find anything I’ve ever said about the GOP here. You can search posts from me and Dr. Beeper. Find in 2019 when Beeper was livid about Trump lobbying the Saudis for more crude - with success - and the rest of the thread was pretty silent. You have no idea what you’re talking about. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That was posted almost simultaneously with your last post.  Pardon me for not F5 every time I copy and past an image I had to go find and edit.

It doesn't change the fact that you are thrilled this can be blamed on Biden.  It's your fucking words, own them.

Except it’s not my words. Go ahead, keep diluting your own argument. I’ll wait for the next evolution since you’re flailing. 

[MoJames 8244]

3 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I’m giddy because prices are high and going higher, absolutely true and I’ll never walk that back.  That’s usually the case when a Dem is in charge. As to the other comment, I challenge you to find anything I’ve ever said about the GOP here. You can search posts from me and Dr. Beeper. Find in 2019 when Beeper was livid about Trump lobbying the Saudis for more crude - with success - and the rest of the thread was pretty silent. You have no idea what you’re talking about. 

When will you bring in your friendship to the double eagle dudes so that we can delete another one of your accounts?

[jimmyjazz 45893]

1 minute ago, Tex48 said:

The administration has had one oil lease sale since they have been in office. The lease sale ended up being stopped in court afterwards. There is drillable land available that the administration through the BOEM controls. The administration has made the choice to not put up more land to be leased. This has directly influenced prices. 

Less than half of some 26 milliion acres currently leased are currently producing. (Slightly old numbers, don't crucify me if I'm a bit off.)  O&G companies are not being hamstrung by administrative policies, and federal land represents a small fraction of available drilling acreage, regardless.  This is finger-pointing at best.

[jimmyjazz 45893]

9 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

As to the other comment, I challenge you to find anything I’ve ever said about the GOP here.

I already quoted your comment about it being a shot at the Biden administration and the EU.  Are you drunk?  You don't have to explictly state "yay GOP" for your post to be political.

[jeevsie 3733]

Quote

 federal land represents a small fraction of available drilling acreage, regardless.

Agree it's a small percentage. Disagree it's insignificant - it's a signal to the industry.

Edited October 6, 2022 by jeevsie
Had to quote since it bumped to a new page