OT: Why are oil prices so low?

21,822 Views | 167 Replies | Last: 9 yr ago by burritos
burritos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A)Spoon fed reason for the illiterati is because America is fracking and drilling more oil.
B)The NPR reason is that the Saudi's are intentionally driving down the price of oil to kill off America's higher cost of oil drilling.
C)The wall street journal reason is that the western powers(ie america) is telling the Saudis to pump more to drive down the price of oil to financially strangle the Russians.

I'm not an expert, just curious to know why.
bearsandgiants
How long do you want to ignore this user?
burritos;842447840 said:

A)Spoon fed reason for the illiterati is because America is fracking and drilling more oil.
B)The NPR reason is that the Saudi's are intentionally driving down the price of oil to kill off America's higher cost of oil drilling.
C)The wall street journal reason is that the western powers(ie america) is telling the Saudis to pump more to drive down the price of oil to financially strangle the Russians.

I'm not an expert, just curious to know why.


I still think they're high. But then, I grew up in the 80s.
Vandalus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The economist seems to think its a combination of A and B, with C being an added benefit (throw in Venezuela and Iran into that pool as well). Texas oil men have upped US production to 9 million barrels a day (one shy of saudi arabia) so we are importing less. The Saudi's can handle the lower rate of return and the flip side is that this hurts iran/russia who they don't like. If Saudi were to cut their own production in order to raise the price, it would benefit iran/russia, so they are cool with letting them suffer for a while.

I don't think Saudi is pumping more per se, they just haven't slowed down in the face of american production increases. what's interesting however is that oil production in the US (especially with the increase in fracking exploration) costs significantly more than what the saudi's pay per barrel, so while they can withstand lower costs, at some point the texas drillers are going to want to cut back because their whole price calculus for fracking depended on $110+ barrel oil.
juarezbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Vandalus;842447860 said:

The economist seems to think its a combination of A and B, with C being an added benefit (throw in Venezuela and Iran into that pool as well). Texas oil men have upped US production to 9 million barrels a day (one shy of saudi arabia) so we are importing less. The Saudi's can handle the lower rate of return and the flip side is that this hurts iran/russia who they don't like. If Saudi were to cut their own production in order to raise the price, it would benefit iran/russia, so they are cool with letting them suffer for a while.

I don't think Saudi is pumping more per se, they just haven't slowed down in the face of american production increases. what's interesting however is that oil production in the US (especially with the increase in fracking exploration) costs significantly more than what the saudi's pay per barrel, so while they can withstand lower costs, at some point the texas drillers are going to want to cut back because their whole price calculus for fracking depended on $110+ barrel oil.


I believe the sweet spot for oil is roughly $65/barrel. That's high enough to support domestic production costs and low enough to keep the Saudis pumping.
Cal_Fan2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All of the above plus speculators are now very bearish.....Oil has rebounded in the last few days but I'm betting that is short covering, dead cat bounce and it will head back down again
Vandalus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
juarezbear;842447865 said:

I believe the sweet spot for oil is roughly $65/barrel. That's high enough to support domestic production costs and low enough to keep the Saudis pumping.


Interesting. Is that with the new increase in fracking costs? I'm certainly not an expert on any of this, just regurgitating what I've seen from various sources.
BAyers3
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's a combination of everything. Increased supply plus most oil producing nations don't have the option of decreasing it to force a price rebound.
burritos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Vandalus;842447860 said:

The economist seems to think its a combination of A and B, with C being an added benefit (throw in Venezuela and Iran into that pool as well). Texas oil men have upped US production to 9 million barrels a day (one shy of saudi arabia) so we are importing less. The Saudi's can handle the lower rate of return and the flip side is that this hurts iran/russia who they don't like. If Saudi were to cut their own production in order to raise the price, it would benefit iran/russia, so they are cool with letting them suffer for a while.

I don't think Saudi is pumping more per se, they just haven't slowed down in the face of american production increases. what's interesting however is that oil production in the US (especially with the increase in fracking exploration) costs significantly more than what the saudi's pay per barrel, so while they can withstand lower costs, at some point the texas drillers are going to want to cut back because their whole price calculus for fracking depended on $110+ barrel oil.

I've heard it costs the Saudis( and theoretically a peaceful Iraq ) something like $5/barrel to pull out of the ground.
slotright20
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Texas oil men fracking will tell you they need $78 a barrel - have always thought that had some fluff in it - I think it is around $68-$70 where they can guarantee profit. Mentioned while back noticeable decline in activity between October and December in West Texas - headed back out there in two weeks - will be interesting to see how things look - am wondering if the trailer and even tent cities for oil field workers are beginning to disappear. About six months ago the permanent population of Midland was 110,000 but the actual population was estimated to be 135, 000. This was an unprecedented boom and leap in production - agree combo of a) and b) but I also think no one ever dreamed how much the fracking would jack production.
SonOfCalVa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearsandgiants;842447849 said:

I still think they're high. But then, I grew up in the 80s.


Figuring in the time value of money, gas pump prices are among the lowest ever.
People are keeping money in their pockets or spending it on what they want, instead of gasoline.
We do NOT need to build a destructive Keystone Pipeline to ship dirty, dirty oil from Canada through the USA for export.

Prices here are $1.88/gallon. Loving it. Whatever happened to the right-wingnut yammering about $5 gas?
Bears2thDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearsandgiants;842447849 said:

I still think they're high. But then, I grew up in the 80s.

LOL!
I grew up in the 60's and 70's
Filled my Honda Mini 50 tank for a 2 dimes.
Fill the tank of my plymouth valiant for 10 bucks or less.
Holmoephobic
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bears2thDoc;842447919 said:

LOL!
I grew up in the 60's and 70's
Filled my Honda Mini 50 tank for a 2 dimes.
Fill the tank of my plymouth valiant for 10 bucks or less.


$10 in 1970 is worth $61 today. At $1.88 a gallon, you can fill a 20 gallon tank for $37. I'm sorry you grew up during a time when gas prices were so high
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Vandalus;842447860 said:

The economist seems to think its a combination of A and B, with C being an added benefit (throw in Venezuela and Iran into that pool as well). Texas oil men have upped US production to 9 million barrels a day (one shy of saudi arabia) so we are importing less. The Saudi's can handle the lower rate of return and the flip side is that this hurts iran/russia who they don't like. If Saudi were to cut their own production in order to raise the price, it would benefit iran/russia, so they are cool with letting them suffer for a while.

I don't think Saudi is pumping more per se, they just haven't slowed down in the face of american production increases. what's interesting however is that oil production in the US (especially with the increase in fracking exploration) costs significantly more than what the saudi's pay per barrel, so while they can withstand lower costs, at some point the texas drillers are going to want to cut back because their whole price calculus for fracking depended on $110+ barrel oil.


This. Fracking has added high cost oil to the market. The Saudis are unwilling to cut back THEIR production (and revenues) to prop up the price for everyone else AND permanently reduce their market share, so price has dropped and will stay low until the high cost oil stops coming onto the market. The fact that there are other political benefits to low cost oil for the Saudis just reinforces their resolve.
Cal_Fan2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bears2thDoc;842447919 said:

LOL!
I grew up in the 60's and 70's
Filled my Honda Mini 50 tank for a 2 dimes.
Fill the tank of my plymouth valiant for 10 bucks or less.


Don't forget the free glasses. I remember getting tons of free glassware pumping 36 cent gas at those new fangled "self serve" stations. I mean, WTF?, who is gonna check the oil and clean the windows?
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The new Saudi budget is predicated on average ~$75/barrel in 2015 while keeping production steady. Even they can't (or wisely choose not to) keep running deficits in the several tens of billions of dollars indefinitely. Prices are increasing soon, but thankfully for our middle class not to the levels of recent years. If not for increased and increasing oil investments, development, and cost-efficiency in the U.S., Canada, Brazil, Iraq, Russia, etc., which are only beginning now to come online, prices would probably still be and remain in the triple digits. P.S. Is the law of supply-and-demand held only by the "illiterati" these days?
68great
How long do you want to ignore this user?
burritos;842447840 said:

A)Spoon fed reason for the illiterati is because America is fracking and drilling more oil.
B)The NPR reason is that the Saudi's are intentionally driving down the price of oil to kill off America's higher cost of oil drilling.
C)The wall street journal reason is that the western powers(ie america) is telling the Saudis to pump more to drive down the price of oil to financially strangle the Russians.

I'm not an expert, just curious to know why.


There was an excellent article in last Sundays NYTimes.

Reasons are:
1. the Global Recession has not yet fully ended. (First and Foremost)
2. Venezuela has to keep pumping to keep its economy going.
3. Russia also.
4. OPEC nations (especially the new Saudi regime) have lost the taste for fighting to keep prices high by cutting back because they believe that the market would be flooded by the other oil producers and they would lose their markets on a long term basis.
5. Technology improving Side drilling.
6. Improvements in extracting oil from Sand Tar
7. Fracking
8. Improvements in drilling in inaccessable locations under the Oceans.
9. Improvements in gas efficient vehicles and alternatives to oil based energy have reduced the demand.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big picture, oil is a non-renewable resource. Heck, even used/wasted water eventually comes back. If I were a youngish Saudi prince, I'd be looking for my exit strategy, before the non-royalty in the country, i.e. the types that made up most of the 9/11 hijackers, storms the gates of the palaces.

Hey, I have a question: Let's say, in 50 yrs or so, we've largely weened ourselves from petroleum. What about jet fuel? I'm assuming that's some sort of petroleum derivative, right? What are our options there?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oil prices are low because of lower demand, higher supply, and the Fed slowly getting to the point of reducing its huge expansion of liquidity which had been driving up asset and commodity prices (but not consumer prices).
93gobears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Obama cut short his India trip to pay respects to the late King Abdula. Along with a Delegation consisting of a long list of both Democrat and Republican congressman and current and former Washington officials. Even John McCain and Nancy Pelosi were acting like glad-handing fools, walking down the aisle, side by side, smiling like prom dates.

:rollinglaugh:

Link: The Daily Show: Charles and Dave's Excellent Adventure & Saudi Duty.at 2:55.
NVGolfingBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
68great;842448006 said:

There was an excellent article in last Sundays NYTimes.

Reasons are:
1. the Global Recession has not yet fully ended. (First and Foremost)
2. Venezuela has to keep pumping to keep its economy going.
3. Russia also.
4. OPEC nations (especially the new Saudi regime) have lost the taste for fighting to keep prices high by cutting back because they believe that the market would be flooded by the other oil producers and they would lose their markets on a long term basis.
5. Technology improving Side drilling.
6. Improvements in extracting oil from Sand Tar
7. Fracking
8. Improvements in drilling in inaccessable locations under the Oceans.
9. Improvements in gas efficient vehicles and alternatives to oil based energy have reduced the demand.


+1

Also, I understand that the Saudis want to keep pumping to preserve their market share, as you noted, but also to put real pressure on Iran and ISIS. Cheap oil hurts them bad and helps the Saudis blunt their efforts to create utter chaos in the area... more chaos than what's happening now, I guess.
LethalFang
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C_Cal;842448008 said:

Big picture, oil is a non-renewable resource. Heck, even used/wasted water eventually comes back. If I were a youngish Saudi prince, I'd be looking for my exit strategy, before the non-royalty in the country, i.e. the types that made up most of the 9/11 hijackers, storms the gates of the palaces.

Hey, I have a question: Let's say, in 50 yrs or so, we've largely weened ourselves from petroleum. What about jet fuel? I'm assuming that's some sort of petroleum derivative, right? What are our options there?


Don't worry about Saudi princes. They all have massive amount of cash in Swiss banks, American properties, etc. It's the little people who will be ****'ed when their single source of income is dried up.
It is also possible to produce oil renewably, but at a very high cost comparing to drilling, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solazyme
beelzebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C_Cal;842448008 said:

Big picture, oil is a non-renewable resource. Heck, even used/wasted water eventually comes back. If I were a youngish Saudi prince, I'd be looking for my exit strategy, before the non-royalty in the country, i.e. the types that made up most of the 9/11 hijackers, storms the gates of the palaces.

Hey, I have a question: Let's say, in 50 yrs or so, we've largely weened ourselves from petroleum. What about jet fuel? I'm assuming that's some sort of petroleum derivative, right? What are our options there?


Synthetic jet fuel. If not this stuff, something else. LINK: US navy synthesizes jet fuel solely out of seawater; costs $3-6 gallon

BTW, all the big oil companies are already investing heavily in alt fuels and renewable energy. They know oil is a limited deal now.
SonOfCalVa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beelzebear;842448095 said:

Synthetic jet fuel. If not this stuff, something else. LINK: US navy synthesizes jet fuel solely out of seawater; costs $3-6 gallon

BTW, all the big oil companies are already investing heavily in alt fuels and renewable energy. They know oil is a limited deal now.


Maybe they're learning from tobacco companies which have and are diversifying as demand for their products plummet.
Wish manufacturing companies would relocate from off-shore into places like West Virginia and the other Appalachian states which have large populations with no job prospects except risking their lives digging coal. They're not dumb people but need alternative ways to buy food, clothing and shelter. If they could work in safer environments, the mine pits would go begging for employees.
MaximusArelliusDaBearius
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I can't believe you guys went to Cal?

RUSSIA
Wags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Saudis only care about one thing and one thing only . . .

MARKET SHARE!
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sanctions will slow down Russia in the short term (recession), but they have significant resources yet to be tapped offshore in the Arctic and in shale oil&gas, and a ready export market in the growing energy demands of China. They won't be the world leaders they once were but in the long term will continue to be players in the global market.
Wags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The ruble has been collapsing.
Hit 71 rubles to the Dollar last Friday.
Russia is a gas station that has been posing as a country.
Putin has done nothing to diversify the Economy.
He's in big trouble.
beelzebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MaximusArelliusDaBearius;842448147 said:

I can't believe you guys went to Cal?

RUSSIA


All the Russian Studies majors I knew at Cal were CIA wannabes.

Oh you're talking about oil. As I understand it Russia inked a huge deal with China. Steady customer, formerly aligned politically and close by/less costly delivery.
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You can thank all those Prius owners.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
burritos;842447840 said:

A)Spoon fed reason for the illiterati is because America is fracking and drilling more oil.
B)The NPR reason is that the Saudi's are intentionally driving down the price of oil to kill off America's higher cost of oil drilling.
C)The wall street journal reason is that the western powers(ie america) is telling the Saudis to pump more to drive down the price of oil to financially strangle the Russians.

I'm not an expert, just curious to know why.


The Left, Right and Center reasoning (call it NPR #2) is that the Saudi's who usually cut back production to keep prices more stable didn't this time around to screw their arch-enemy Iran's struggling economy, as Iran seeks to gain more influence in the middle east countries with internal strife (i.e., Iran supports opposing groups than the Sauidi's). Fracking has increased US supply significantly, but not enough that the Saudi's could not have altered supply to keep prices higher.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
juarezbear;842447865 said:

I believe the sweet spot for oil is roughly $65/barrel. That's high enough to support domestic production costs and low enough to keep the Saudis pumping.


The WSJ would seem to agree with Jaurez:

Oil prices would need to fall at least another $20 a barrel to choke off the U.S. energy boom, industry experts say, though some smaller American producers would face serious problems from a more modest decline.

Small and midsize companiesnot global giantsare behind the surge in U.S. oil output, which hit 8.97 million barrels a day earlier this month, according to federal statistics. Some of these drillers have taken on a lot of debt, which was easier to justify when oil was going for as much as $107 a barrel just four months ago.

U.S. crude closed Wednesday at $82.20 a barrel, and far less in some parts of the country where few pipelines are available to move it to refineries. Lower oil prices mean drillers will have less cash to cover their borrowings, especially if crude prices tumble more.

So far, American companies haven't reacted to the recent oil-price drop: The number of drilling rigs searching for onshore oil in the U.S. has risen slightly since oil prices peaked June 20.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries seems to be betting that will change soon. Abdalla Salem el-Badri, OPEC's secretary general, predicted Wednesday that if current prices hold, half of the U.S. oil that is fracked from shale formations will be uneconomic, leading companies to stop producing it.


That view is at odds with most U.S. forecasters, who say output can remain steady at current prices because companies have cut their costs by finding ways to produce oil more efficiently. For example, the amount of oil coming from each new well in South Texas has nearly doubled since 2012, federal data show.

Marianne Kah, chief economist of ConocoPhillips , said oil prices would need to fall to $50 a barrel "if you wanted to completely halt production" in U.S. shale basins. She said 80% of the American shale sectorin which ConocoPhillips is a major operatoris profitable at prices between $40 and $80 a barrel for benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude.

Jason Bordoff, director of Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy, said he believed prices would have to fall much further to put significant pressure on the U.S. energy boom. "I am not sure if $80 is enough," he said. "You might need $60 or $65 to really see a stress test."
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd;842448238 said:

The WSJ would seem to agree with Jaurez:

Oil prices would need to fall at least another $20 a barrel to choke off the U.S. energy boom, industry experts say, though some smaller American producers would face serious problems from a more modest decline.

Small and midsize companies—not global giants—are behind the surge in U.S. oil output, which hit 8.97 million barrels a day earlier this month, according to federal statistics. Some of these drillers have taken on a lot of debt, which was easier to justify when oil was going for as much as $107 a barrel just four months ago.

U.S. crude closed Wednesday at $82.20 a barrel, and far less in some parts of the country where few pipelines are available to move it to refineries. Lower oil prices mean drillers will have less cash to cover their borrowings, especially if crude prices tumble more.

So far, American companies haven’t reacted to the recent oil-price drop: The number of drilling rigs searching for onshore oil in the U.S. has risen slightly since oil prices peaked June 20.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries seems to be betting that will change soon. Abdalla Salem el-Badri, OPEC’s secretary general, predicted Wednesday that if current prices hold, half of the U.S. oil that is fracked from shale formations will be uneconomic, leading companies to stop producing it.


That view is at odds with most U.S. forecasters, who say output can remain steady at current prices because companies have cut their costs by finding ways to produce oil more efficiently. For example, the amount of oil coming from each new well in South Texas has nearly doubled since 2012, federal data show.

Marianne Kah, chief economist of ConocoPhillips , said oil prices would need to fall to $50 a barrel “if you wanted to completely halt production” in U.S. shale basins. She said 80% of the American shale sector—in which ConocoPhillips is a major operator—is profitable at prices between $40 and $80 a barrel for benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude.

Jason Bordoff, director of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, said he believed prices would have to fall much further to put significant pressure on the U.S. energy boom. “I am not sure if $80 is enough,” he said. “You might need $60 or $65 to really see a stress test.”


Let's say that Oil hits $60/barrel. Sure the oil companies will suffer; but that will translate to a boom for consumers who would then have lots and lots of spending cash for other things. This has been stressed in a number of recent news articles. Many pundits focus so much on the big companies that they forget the fact that increased consumer spending can create its own spike in the economy. Consumers spread the wealth around much more than oil companies.
CAL6371
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There have been a lot of wild answers to this issue. The NY Times analysis looks very good to this old Aramco Brat. When I was a boy in Saudi Arabia in the 1950s, they were pulling oil out of the ground at about $1 per barrel. They had so much natural gas then that they were pumping it back into the ground! When I visited in 2000 for a reunion, I still never saw the rocking horses you see in the US. They have huge welfare costs, so they have to have oil at decent prices to avoid running a deficit, but their costs are still cheaper than almost anyone else.
As for the 9/11 hijacker comments, they were almost all from the Asir Province in the South next to Yemen. If you have ever been to the Asir region (Abha etc), as I have, you would know that there is virtually no difference between that area and Yemen. That area is not like the rest of Saudi Arabia. It is incredibly poor and rather mountainous -a backwater area. When I was there in May of 2000, we were actually subjected to a hailstorm. In the decade I lived in Saudi Arabia (in the Eastern Province - on the Persian Gulf), it never snowed or hailed. Osama bin Ladin's father came from Yemen and Osama recruited in the area of his family's origin. As I recall over 80% of the hijackers were from the Asir region.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CAL6371;842448257 said:

There have been a lot of wild answers to this issue. The NY Times analysis looks very good to this old Aramco Brat. When I was a boy in Saudi Arabia in the 1950s, they were pulling oil out of the ground at about $1 per barrel. They had so much natural gas then that they were pumping it back into the ground! When I visited in 2000 for a reunion, I still never saw the rocking horses you see in the US. They have huge welfare costs, so they have to have oil at decent prices to avoid running a deficit, but their costs are still cheaper than almost anyone else.
As for the 9/11 hijacker comments, they were almost all from the Asir Province in the South next to Yemen. If you have ever been to the Asir region (Abha etc), as I have, you would know that there is virtually no difference between that area and Yemen. That area is not like the rest of Saudi Arabia. It is incredibly poor and rather mountainous -a backwater area. When I was there in May of 2000, we were actually subjected to a hailstorm. In the decade I lived in Saudi Arabia (in the Eastern Province - on the Persian Gulf), it never snowed or hailed. Osama bin Ladin's father came from Yemen and Osama recruited in the area of his family's origin. As I recall over 80% of the hijackers were from the Asir region.


Thanks for the Saudi background. Nothing like firsthand knowledge. My point was, down the road, when their petroleum resources begin to dry up, won't they begin to become one giant Asir region? Isn't the main difference between Saudia Arabia and Yemen the petroleum? (Ouch, I just realized that could be a really ignorant comment, so do enlighten me, as needed.)
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe;842448255 said:

Let's say that Oil hits $60/barrel. Sure the oil companies will suffer; but that will translate to a boom for consumers who would then have lots and lots of spending cash for other things. This has been stressed in a number of recent news articles. Many pundits focus so much on the big companies that they forget the fact that increased consumer spending can create its own spike in the economy. Consumers spread the wealth around much more than oil companies.


Didn't mean to infer that the US, as a large oil consumer, wouldn't benefit - it does. Just that Juarez's comments of the cost of oil production was consistent with what the experts appear to be saying.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.