US Energy Supply and Costs - 2022

MohawkWeekend · Wed Nov 03, 2021 6:03 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
One month ago I posted these prices with today's US price listed to the right. By late next week, a major cold front is due to roll down from Canada. New England and NY are going to wish they allowed that gas pipeline.
In USD -
WTI CRUDE • 75.45 (81.01)
BRENT CRUDE 79.56 (82.18)
NATURAL GAS 5.427 (5.641)
HEATING OIL 2.306 (2.43)

The pipeline would have zero impact on today's prices because it would only deliver crude oil. US refineries that weren't shut down during COVID cannot ramp up back to capacity because of severe understaffing. How long do you think it takes to replace 107,000 job losses?

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/busine ... 633468.php

The pipeline that was stopped was a gas line from the production in WVA, OH and Western Pa. Andrew Cuomo made it a center piece of his environmental policy. So guess what ? The gas went to Ontario instead. And New England gets to use more fuel oil and import liquified natural gas from Russia. Which sells for $15 per MMbtu.
"New England Doesn’t Need, or Want, New Gas Pipelines
Don't let Big Gas scare you. New England doesn't need new gas infrastructure.
JAN 31, 2020 BETHANY KWOKA. clf.org

Aaron747 · Wed Nov 03, 2021 9:51 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
One month ago I posted these prices with today's US price listed to the right. By late next week, a major cold front is due to roll down from Canada. New England and NY are going to wish they allowed that gas pipeline.
In USD -
WTI CRUDE • 75.45 (81.01)
BRENT CRUDE 79.56 (82.18)
NATURAL GAS 5.427 (5.641)
HEATING OIL 2.306 (2.43)

The pipeline would have zero impact on today's prices because it would only deliver crude oil. US refineries that weren't shut down during COVID cannot ramp up back to capacity because of severe understaffing. How long do you think it takes to replace 107,000 job losses?

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/busine ... 633468.php

The pipeline that was stopped was a gas line from the production in WVA, OH and Western Pa. Andrew Cuomo made it a center piece of his environmental policy. So guess what ? The gas went to Ontario instead. And New England gets to use more fuel oil and import liquified natural gas from Russia. Which sells for $15 per MMbtu.
"New England Doesn’t Need, or Want, New Gas Pipelines
Don't let Big Gas scare you. New England doesn't need new gas infrastructure.
JAN 31, 2020 BETHANY KWOKA. clf.org

Sorry, my mistake. It seemed like you were referring to a larger pipeline that got stopped this year.

MohawkWeekend · Wed Nov 03, 2021 9:56 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

The pipeline would have zero impact on today's prices because it would only deliver crude oil. US refineries that weren't shut down during COVID cannot ramp up back to capacity because of severe understaffing. How long do you think it takes to replace 107,000 job losses?

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/busine ... 633468.php

The pipeline that was stopped was a gas line from the production in WVA, OH and Western Pa. Andrew Cuomo made it a center piece of his environmental policy. So guess what ? The gas went to Ontario instead. And New England gets to use more fuel oil and import liquified natural gas from Russia. Which sells for $15 per MMbtu.
"New England Doesn’t Need, or Want, New Gas Pipelines
Don't let Big Gas scare you. New England doesn't need new gas infrastructure.
JAN 31, 2020 BETHANY KWOKA. clf.org

Sorry, my mistake. It seemed like you were referring to a larger pipeline that got stopped this year.[/quote

No problem - always enjoy our discussions.

MohawkWeekend · Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:15 pm

White House confirms it is reviewing impact of a Line 5 replacement - Detroit News today

I had mentioned earlier the importance of this pipeline to supply crude oil to Canadian refineries in Ontario and US refineries in Detroit and Toledo.
It also provides propane for heating homes in rural Michigan.
Closure would ripple through the entire North American energy market.

dc10lover · Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:08 pm

As home heating becomes more expensive, I believe more people will heat with wood if people do own wood stoves.

MohawkWeekend · Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:40 pm

Senate Democrats urge Biden to consider tapping emergency oil reserves or even ban oil exports to fight high gas prices - USA Today

Hey the Canadians can export the crude that would have been used in Detroit or Toledo if they shut down Line 5. Never understood why they thought allowing exports was a good idea except for oil traders. It would save a bundle of CO2 Emissions by not shipping our oil 5000 miles away and then importing oil from 5000 miles away.

People in my neighborhood (northern Ohio) are already using their woodburners and it smells horrible. Yikes.

GalaxyFlyer · Fri Nov 12, 2021 7:41 pm

New England folk have been heating with wood for generations. We heat the “living/kitchen” end with wood; propane is the base load heat. Propane also powers the gennie during an outage.

MohawkWeekend · Sat Nov 13, 2021 2:47 pm

Problem here is few people do heat with wood (although we have lots of hardwood) so cities don't have regulations on your fireplace efficiency. Some folks still have those slow burners which smoke up the neighborhood bad. Esp on days with no wind.

Aaron747 · Sat Nov 13, 2021 2:58 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Problem here is few people do heat with wood (although we have lots of hardwood) so cities don't have regulations on your fireplace efficiency. Some folks still have those slow burners which smoke up the neighborhood bad. Esp on days with no wind.

Even heating with wood is not to be taken lightly - proper ventilation is a must and if the whole town is doing it you don't want to breathe outside for too long. High particulate smoke can aggravate all forms of heart and lung disease.

GalaxyFlyer · Sat Nov 13, 2021 3:58 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Problem here is few people do heat with wood (although we have lots of hardwood) so cities don't have regulations on your fireplace efficiency. Some folks still have those slow burners which smoke up the neighborhood bad. Esp on days with no wind.

Two acre zoning and lots of frontal passages help.

c933103 · Sun Nov 14, 2021 9:09 am

As recognized by the opening post, this is not just US, but also in Europe, and there are also reports out of China. India also appears to have some issues
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/energy- ... ow-2602634
I propose renaming the thread to reflect the global nature of the shortage, instead of US-specific.

It is also worth wondering, whether such high energy price is going to push new adaption of renewables, or simply make people revert back to burning more coals.
Short term speaking, as OPEC+ refuse to improve output to ease the global energy supply shortage, the US as a major non-OPEC oil producer, should increase its franking output to ease such global supply shortage, and help alleviate global energy price and supply

On the other hand, the energy shortage have affected supply of byproducts of fossil fuels like coal, causing shortage of chemical fertilizers in India and disruption of logistic chain in South Korea. Shortage of fertilizer is going to mean shortage of food. Which is, again, another problem that will have global influence.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-coa ... 1636635601

MohawkWeekend · Mon Nov 15, 2021 5:03 pm

[quote="c933103"]As recognized by the opening post, this is not just US, but also in Europe, and there are also reports out of China. India also appears to have some issues
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/energy- ... ow-2602634
I propose renaming the thread to reflect the global nature of the shortage, instead of US-specific.

Good point - it is a world wide issue that needs addressing. Just finished reading the thread on "Stranded Fossil Fuel Assets". What a train wreck - some folks believe that the answers are pretty clear - phase out fossil fuels sooner rather than later. But you could care less about global warming RIGHT NOW if your lights are out, the factory has no. power and the apartment is freezing.

As long as the world's population continues to grow, we are going to need more of everything until technology comes thru with an answer.

We are getting our first snow flurries in the eastern parts of the US.

Aaron747 · Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:23 pm

Crude oil prices have reversed and are trending sharply down. $7 correction since last week:

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/f ... electronic

frmrCapCadet · Mon Nov 22, 2021 3:30 pm

https://oilprice.com/ This is the site I rely on for petroleum and gas. If anyone can recommend a better one I would like that. I miss The Oil Drum which featured articles with a lot of insight. Oilprice is more of a collector of other peoples articles and reports. Humorously on a typical day there will be both articles on why oil is going up in price, as well as others on it going down in price.

MohawkWeekend · Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:36 pm

Price is probably reflecting COVID shutdowns in Europe and Asia. Won't be using much jet fuel in Austria.

US should take this opportunity to put export tax on LNG from the Gulf cost. That gas should be used here or in North America as regular natural gas.
It is a huge waste of energy to send it abroad.

"They claimed that, while natural gas power plants emit approximately half the carbon dioxide of an equivalent coal power plant, the natural gas combustion required to produce and transport LNG to the plants adds 20 to 40 percent more carbon dioxide than burning natural gas alone." Wikipedia and Dept of Energy

frmrCapCadet · Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:54 pm

Mohawk - If we are supplying LNG, we also need to be seen as a reliable supplier. Russia would like to step in.

MohawkWeekend · Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:58 pm

I agree on that point which is why I wouldn't ban the export at this time.
But an export tax (say $5 per MMbtu)would likely be mostly absorbed by the trading company not the final customer. It would have to stay competitive with say Australia and Qatar which export way more than we do.

But does it really makes sense for us to keep burning coal for 20 percent of our electricity and and then use all that energy to chill natural gas and then ship it as LNG 5000 miles away.

Literally every coal fired power plant in the US could converted to run on natural gas in probably under 2 years. It's not rocket science. Can you imagine the CO2 reduction this relatively easy change would accomplish?

Use the export tax money to fund high efficiency HVAC units for schools and public buildings in the US freeing up more gas for everybody. I speak from experience - replaced a 120,000BTU 1975 built 65 % efficient gas furnace with a 90,000 btu 96.5% efficient in 2004 and cut consumption in half.

MohawkWeekend · Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:30 pm

Markey comes out against oil exports but not nat gas (wonder why?) https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-environ ... 39637.html. Kinda forgets to mention that Obama approved the law allowing exports and blamed just Big Oil. Standard politics I guess.
Excerpt -

" Some leading climate hawks, however, said they were not concerned by the move because they see it as a short-term fix to meet a specific problem. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who has focused on combating climate change, said Biden was “taking effective action to protect Americans from oil price gouging” even as the administration continues to boost renewable energy that it hopes will eventually mean less dependence on fossil fuels.

“This is what reserves are for — defending our economy against disruption,″ Markey tweeted. “Profiteering can’t go unanswered, especially as Big Oil makes billions and fuels the climate crisis through exports.″

casinterest · Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:53 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Markey comes out against oil exports but not nat gas (wonder why?) https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-environ ... 39637.html. Kinda forgets to mention that Obama approved the law allowing exports and blamed just Big Oil. Standard politics I guess.
Excerpt -

" Some leading climate hawks, however, said they were not concerned by the move because they see it as a short-term fix to meet a specific problem. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who has focused on combating climate change, said Biden was “taking effective action to protect Americans from oil price gouging” even as the administration continues to boost renewable energy that it hopes will eventually mean less dependence on fossil fuels.

“This is what reserves are for — defending our economy against disruption,″ Markey tweeted. “Profiteering can’t go unanswered, especially as Big Oil makes billions and fuels the climate crisis through exports.″

??? Markey said that he is fine with opening the oil reserves to get prices balanced This isn't about oil and natural gas exports.

frmrCapCadet · Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:37 pm

We need an orderly exit from carbon fuels. Bloomberg has a discussion of how some banks are overly exposed to fossil fuels, and it will hurt them, if they do not reduce that exposure over the next several years. Petroleum and coal will be a necessary source of energy, and while it needs replacing, there will be times of energy shortage when some increased usage is sensible.

MohawkWeekend · Wed Nov 24, 2021 4:19 pm

casinterest wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Markey comes out against oil exports but not nat gas (wonder why?) https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-environ ... 39637.html. Kinda forgets to mention that Obama approved the law allowing exports and blamed just Big Oil. Standard politics I guess.
Excerpt -

" Some leading climate hawks, however, said they were not concerned by the move because they see it as a short-term fix to meet a specific problem. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who has focused on combating climate change, said Biden was “taking effective action to protect Americans from oil price gouging” even as the administration continues to boost renewable energy that it hopes will eventually mean less dependence on fossil fuels.

“This is what reserves are for — defending our economy against disruption,″ Markey tweeted. “Profiteering can’t go unanswered, especially as Big Oil makes billions and fuels the climate crisis through exports.″

??? Markey said that he is fine with opening the oil reserves to get prices balanced This isn't about oil and natural gas exports.

Sure it is - read the last sentence. And I agree with him. Exports of US natural gas and oil only serve oil traders. It's actually cheaper to use a foreign flag ship to bring oil to the US from Nigeria then to use a US Flag tanker to transport the oil from Texas to the refineries in Philadelphia and NJ. Even though the oil is the same price. The traders capture that difference as their profit. Worked in the oil industry for 20 years - traders chase every penny of profits and will sell their mother to get it.
.
Exports are bad for the environment. CO2 emissions from a tanker making a 8000 mile roundtrip are way worse than the round trip from Texas. Releasing 50 million barrels of oil is exactly 2 and 1/2 days of US consumption. Will hardly make a long term difference in the price. Markey wants to stop exports.

casinterest · Wed Nov 24, 2021 4:30 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
casinterest wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Markey comes out against oil exports but not nat gas (wonder why?) https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-environ ... 39637.html. Kinda forgets to mention that Obama approved the law allowing exports and blamed just Big Oil. Standard politics I guess.
Excerpt -

" Some leading climate hawks, however, said they were not concerned by the move because they see it as a short-term fix to meet a specific problem. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who has focused on combating climate change, said Biden was “taking effective action to protect Americans from oil price gouging” even as the administration continues to boost renewable energy that it hopes will eventually mean less dependence on fossil fuels.

“This is what reserves are for — defending our economy against disruption,″ Markey tweeted. “Profiteering can’t go unanswered, especially as Big Oil makes billions and fuels the climate crisis through exports.″

??? Markey said that he is fine with opening the oil reserves to get prices balanced This isn't about oil and natural gas exports.

Sure it is - read the last sentence. And I agree with him. Exports of US natural gas and oil only serve oil traders. It's actually cheaper to use a foreign flag ship to bring oil to the US from Nigeria then to use a US Flag tanker to transport the oil from Texas to the refineries in Philadelphia and NJ. Even though the oil is the same price. The traders capture that difference as their profit. Worked in the oil industry for 20 years - traders chase every penny of profits and will sell their mother to get it.
.
Exports are bad for the environment. CO2 emissions from a tanker making a 8000 mile roundtrip are way worse than the round trip from Texas. Releasing 50 million barrels of oil is exactly 2 and 1/2 days of US consumption. Will hardly make a long term difference in the price. Markey wants to stop exports.

I don't mind not exporting, but at the same time, if oil is really doing well, and we have excess to spare, I am not against exporting it to other countries.

Oil transports from Texas to NY are expensive because the Colonial Pipeline already transports from the refineries in Texsas/Louisiana up to NY, so transporting the oil there is going to be dependent on overcapacity of the pipeline.

MohawkWeekend · Wed Nov 24, 2021 6:29 pm

The US only produces about 55% of the oil we need. So any exports are replaced by more imports.

"In 2020, Canada was the source of 52% of U.S. total gross petroleum imports and 61% of gross crude oil imports.
The top five sources of U.S. total petroleum (including crude oil) imports by share of total petroleum imports in 2020 were.
Canada52%
Mexico11%
Russia7%
Saudi Arabia7%
Colombia4%

The Colonial Pipeline is a product pipeline that ships finished fuels such as jet, diesel and gasoline. There is no crude line from Texas to the North East or a Gas Line. It needs to go by ship.

casinterest · Wed Nov 24, 2021 6:52 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
The US only produces about 55% of the oil we need. So any exports are replaced by more imports.

"In 2020, Canada was the source of 52% of U.S. total gross petroleum imports and 61% of gross crude oil imports.
The top five sources of U.S. total petroleum (including crude oil) imports by share of total petroleum imports in 2020 were.
Canada52%
Mexico11%
Russia7%
Saudi Arabia7%
Colombia4%

The Colonial Pipeline is a product pipeline that ships finished fuels such as jet, diesel and gasoline. There is no crude line from Texas to the North East or a Gas Line. It needs to go by ship.

They shouldn't have to ship the crude, as the refined product is generally what is needed for most usages. Sure the occasional ship goes that has oil for petrochemicals production, but as can be seen, our imports are mostly from Canada, via pipeline.

MohawkWeekend · Wed Nov 24, 2021 6:54 pm

Now Elizabeth Warren has joined her fellow MA Senator railing against natural gas exports (LNG) You go sister! https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ ... ?ana=yahoo

Excerpt - "The country's largest natural gas producer, Pittsburgh-based EQT Corp., is pushing back against U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren's taking aim against the industry for what she said was an increase in exports at the expense of rising gas prices."

It does point out that New England should be more tied into America's natural gas pipeline network. Not sure why they hate pipelines but love the fuel.

In another news item, Maine continues to fight the construction of powerlines from Canada to bring hydro generated green electricity from surplus in Quebec to New England. Everyone needs to realize that some sacrifices need to be made (power line and pipelines) if we want to make this transition to "cleaner" and affordable fuel.

casinterest · Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:09 pm

Covid Variant: Omicron has just delivered a blow to US Oil prices.

At 12:20 p.m. EDT, oil prices were trending down sharply on the day on a resurgence of coronavirus fears about a new variant. WTI traded at $69.15—down 11.79% on the day and down more than $7 per barrel on the week. The Brent benchmark traded at $73.81 down 10.23% on the day and more than $5 per barrel on the week.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Crash.html\

Oil rigs continue to return to service.

Drilling activity in the United States continues to pick up, according to Baker Hughes, with a 6-rig rise to the number of active drilling rigs this week, according to Baker Hughes.

The total rig count is now at 569—a figure that is 249 up from this time last year. Active rigs are still hundreds less than the 790 active rigs that were drilling in the pre-covid world.

The U.S. oil rig count rose this week to 467—a 6-rig increase, and a 226 rig increase since this time last year.

MohawkWeekend · Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:39 am

That was quick - markets fear uncertainty. We could see a repeat of 2019 (rigs idled and wells capped) which will validate oil majors and OPEC's decision to not bring additional production on line as the Administration wanted. Who knew evil big oil company CEOs*, a Crown Prince and a KGB officer were so clairvoyant? ( * most of the rigs operating onshore US are from small and mid size independents - majors have mostly bailed out of expanding US drilling onshore)

Maybe time to sell XOM and Carnaval Cruise line and buy NETFLIX and Chlorox.

MohawkWeekend · Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:02 pm

Yahoo has an article today on "Big Oil" being afraid of a oil and gas export ban.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/03/business ... index.html

As I mentioned before, exporting LNG while we are still burning coal is ridiculous. API's support for continuing to export crude oil while we still import from overseas is also weak. Unfortunately, political events are making any changes now very problematic. Pissing off OPEC coupled with Russia and China threatening war kind of locks us into these ill thought out exports.

Aesma · Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:38 am

Aside from the environmental concern, if I was sitting on oil/gas reserves, I would want to sell as much as possible, ASAP. Better money in the pocket now, than keeping stuff that will be unsellable in a few years.

Also the US is supposed to be the #1 supporter of free trade. I know it's a fallacy, but adding export bans to existing tariffs on other stuff wouldn't look great to the US' partners.

MohawkWeekend · Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:15 pm

But it only serves the oil companies and the outfits who built the LNG facilities. US carbon emissions would be a lot less if we burned that gas here instead of shipping it 5000 miles away. Plus the energy lost to freeze it. Export the coal we burn now instead

Keeping US oil instead of importing from Saudi Arabia and Russia would free up that KSA and Russian oil to go elsewhere.

Oil will be needed for the next 20 years if not more. Coal - no.

MohawkWeekend · Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:47 pm

Are we not crazy for doing this?
Venture Global to sell LNG to China National Offshore Oil Corp.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/v ... 021-12-21/

Excerpt - "China is critical to global climate efforts, and LNG supplied by Venture Global will serve as an important addition to their low carbon energy mix for decades," said Mike Sabel, chief executive of Venture Global.

All the while we continue to burn coal and get chastised for not moving quick enough to reduce CO2. Remember at least 20% of the BTU's shipped are required to liquify the gas. That doesn't count the thousands of barrels consumed on the voyage of 6000 miles. Stupid.

GalaxyFlyer · Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:01 pm

The LNG will reduce coal used in producing electricity—mostly doesn’t matter where it’s burned. The LNG here will replace so much coal, China uses coal for 57% of their production, the US 22%.

MohawkWeekend · Thu Dec 23, 2021 12:39 am

Reason 1 - it's inefficient due to the 20 % loss from freezing it vs burning it as it comes out of the ground.
Reason 2 - I did a back of the envelop calculation - coal power plants are (still) responsible for 17% of the US greenhouse emissions. Natural gas emits roughly half the CO2 as coal. If we burned that gas in our coal power plants we would reduce our total US greenhouse emissions by 8.5%. That is an amazing number for a very low cost. And converting boilers from coal to gas is not a really big deal. With any kind of effort , you could make that change in months.
Reason 3 - By selling our gas to the Chinese , they get to say "we've reduce our emissions but the rich Americans have not " They also get to tell our Aussie friends - screw you for telling the world we started COVID. We'll get our energy from the Americans and our friends the Iranians.

We do some strange things.

MohawkWeekend · Sat Jan 01, 2022 1:09 pm

"We leave you with a tweet we posted a week ago today that went viral. At the time of this writing, it has been seen by nearly 250,000 people and has over 1,900 likes. With less nuclear, insufficient natural gas pipelines, and no LNG available to save the day, New England is one cold snap away from a substantial disaster. If you live there, prepare your thermal comfort zone accordingly."
By Zerohedge.com
Excellent summation of New England's failure to plan for energy security.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/engl ... 00107.html

MohawkWeekend · Wed Jan 05, 2022 8:43 pm

New England Power Prices Soar on Higher Gas Costs, Deep Freeze
Real-time prices have climbed fourfold since Monday morning
Natural gas prices in the region jumped 88% on Monday
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eep-freeze

And I was giving them all that free advice.

SEAorPWM · Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:25 am

Traders have already started salivating over the prospect of the Kazakh protests impacting production:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ten-market

MohawkWeekend · Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:24 am

Looks like we might see if zerohedge.com's prediction about New England's energy supply is correct by Monday night.

MohawkWeekend · Thu Feb 03, 2022 10:21 pm

Just an update on US Energy prices
Oct. Nov. Feb
WTI CRUDE • 75.45 81.01 90.27
BRENT CRUDE 79.56 82.18 90.93
NATURAL GAS 5.427 5.641 4.88
HEATING OIL 2.306 2.43. 2.84

And for our UK friends - "Britain scrambles $12 billion to soften 54% household energy price blow".
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britai ... 022-02-03/

SEAorPWM · Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:59 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Just an update on US Energy prices
Oct. Nov. Feb
WTI CRUDE • 75.45 81.01 90.27
BRENT CRUDE 79.56 82.18 90.93
NATURAL GAS 5.427 5.641 4.88
HEATING OIL 2.306 2.43. 2.84

And for our UK friends - "Britain scrambles $12 billion to soften 54% household energy price blow".
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britai ... 022-02-03/

This is insane. The fact some nations have to even consider having their taxpayers bail out a cartel and Wall Street speculators shows how we've learned nothing from the 70's or 2008.

PPVRA · Fri Feb 04, 2022 4:05 am

We know it takes more than OPEC to control prices. And the tired old speculators argument is just that, tired and old.

We need a lot more oil and gas exploration. What regulates prices is, after all, the interactions of demand AND supply. The world is clearly begging for more oil. People will suffer without and poverty will increase.

seb146 · Fri Feb 04, 2022 5:27 am

Shell, Exxon, Chevron all post profits in 2021. Executives get raises and bonuses.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/03/shell-e ... -2021.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/business ... index.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-chev ... 1643721078

But, yeah.... inflation....

MohawkWeekend · Fri Feb 04, 2022 7:41 am

seb146 wrote:
Shell, Exxon, Chevron all post profits in 2021. Executives get raises and bonuses.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/03/shell-e ... -2021.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/business ... index.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-chev ... 1643721078

But, yeah.... inflation....

All the oil majors have dramatically cut personnel and spending. It's not surprising that their profits are up. Oil is high because OPEC isn't producing enough oil and until recently the US. And the world is still burning all the barrels out there.

How do we explain UK electricity prices? - US oil companies have little to do with that.

Okie · Fri Feb 04, 2022 1:55 pm

PPVRA wrote:
We know it takes more than OPEC to control prices. And the tired old speculators argument is just that, tired and old.

We need a lot more oil and gas exploration. What regulates prices is, after all, the interactions of demand AND supply. The world is clearly begging for more oil. People will suffer without and poverty will increase.

Exploration is not going to happen in the US until there is a change in government regulations. There will be some completion of some plays in in the Permian Basin that are on lease but no major drilling boom that I can see.

seb146 wrote:
Shell, Exxon, Chevron all post profits in 2021. Executives get raises and bonuses.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/03/shell-e ... -2021.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/business ... index.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-chev ... 1643721078

But, yeah.... inflation....

Well the US has stymied any future exploration. So any amounts of financial resources that were previously reinvested to exploration and drilling to supply additional production are just returned to the investor.

Economics 101, quite simple

WTI $92.03 last time I looked.

Okie

casinterest · Fri Feb 04, 2022 3:57 pm

Don't worry, there is plenty of oil coming,. and should oil hit 100, I expect even more impetus for well drillers to open the spigots.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 022-01-12/

OPEC themselves probably want to keep the sweet spot between 100-80 and possibly lower, as they do not want to encourage vast openings of wells.

https://www.ft.com/content/9da4cd41-fcc ... ff8bc1d499

Under-investment during the pandemic has led to problems when some producers have tried to restore supply. Nigeria, Angola and Malaysia had all faced “technical and operational issues”, the IEA said last month.

The missed targets have led some traders to question whether Opec+ — in particularly Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iraq and Kuwait — would have sufficient spare capacity to meet global demand in the event of a sudden disruption to a leading source of supply.

Goldman Sachs, which has forecast oil prices to exceed $100 a barrel in the third quarter, expects Opec+ spare capacity to reach “historically low levels” of about 1.2m b/d by the middle of the year.

Everyone is building back infrastructure lost during the pandemic,

We will see short term issues through the Summer, but by fall, I expect OPEC and shale to be firing on all cylinders.

seb146 · Fri Feb 04, 2022 6:33 pm

Okie wrote:
PPVRA wrote:
We know it takes more than OPEC to control prices. And the tired old speculators argument is just that, tired and old.

We need a lot more oil and gas exploration. What regulates prices is, after all, the interactions of demand AND supply. The world is clearly begging for more oil. People will suffer without and poverty will increase.

Exploration is not going to happen in the US until there is a change in government regulations. There will be some completion of some plays in in the Permian Basin that are on lease but no major drilling boom that I can see.

seb146 wrote:
Shell, Exxon, Chevron all post profits in 2021. Executives get raises and bonuses.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/03/shell-e ... -2021.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/business ... index.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-chev ... 1643721078

But, yeah.... inflation....

Well the US has stymied any future exploration. So any amounts of financial resources that were previously reinvested to exploration and drilling to supply additional production are just returned to the investor.

Economics 101, quite simple

WTI $92.03 last time I looked.

Okie

Could it be that there is no cost effective way to harvest oil anymore? Or that oil is a finite resource and energy companies are exploring other energy sources?

MohawkWeekend · Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:55 am

Funny they keep finding oil in the strangest place - Namibia and Guyana are two new "elephant" fields .

Only the European oil companies are being forced to stop exploring. Might be why the Europeans are having such issues now.

SEAorPWM · Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:58 am

PPVRA wrote:
We know it takes more than OPEC to control prices. And the tired old speculators argument is just that, tired and old.

We need a lot more oil and gas exploration. What regulates prices is, after all, the interactions of demand AND supply. The world is clearly begging for more oil. People will suffer without and poverty will increase.

The cartel and Wall Street are certainly the major ones exacerbating this situation. Maybe the only difference now is that the big investors are actually being listened to by the US majors and shale drillers (i.e. returns over capacity).

As someone whose nation (US) is basically in bed with the Saudi government and has an addiction to sending our military resources to the Middle East, I think I'm entitled to criticize this situation. I'm effectively subsidizing the security of these wealthy Gulf oil states; I would rather have all of this money go to an Apollo-scale transformation of the domestic electrical grid to a renewable + fossil fuel backup based system. However, that is a problem with the US government.

MohawkWeekend · Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:27 am

Interesting that someone else (China) wants to take over the US role in the Middle East. Like the Brits 70 years ago, its the US's time to leave.

As the U.S. Pulls Back From the Mideast, China Leans In
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/01/worl ... -east.html

c933103 · Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:25 pm

https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOGN ... 0C2000000/
Biden is reportedly asking China, Japan, South Korea, and India to cooperate and redirect LNG to Europe.
What make American government think China, Japan, Korea will have enough excess to agree with such.proposal, when China is Russia's ally, and Japan and South Korea also import quite a bit of gas from Russia, in addition to all the four named Asian countries have been facing natural gas shortage over the past few months already?

MohawkWeekend · Sat Feb 05, 2022 3:18 pm

Actually if some of these countries (China, Japan, Korea) got out of energy intensive industries - steel and aluminum for example they would be in a way better position. Steel should be made in countries with alot of energy and the raw materials - Australia, Canada and the US come to mind

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net