Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Two words for high refined products price—crack spread.
https://streetwiseprofessor.com/congres ... e-edition/
The modern world runs on four commodities—ammonia, concrete, plastics and steel. All require vast amounts of petroleum for feedstock and energy. Ain’t going away soon, we need more refinery capacity and we needed the investments a decade ago.
lightsaber wrote:Which just leads to your point. This is a self fulfilling prophecy. Hopefully we build enough nuclear plants for charging the EVs to avoid the carbon emissions. I am of the opinion solar and wind do not provide the power when people will charge EVs.
SEAorPWM wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:Two words for high refined products price—crack spread.
https://streetwiseprofessor.com/congres ... e-edition/
The modern world runs on four commodities—ammonia, concrete, plastics and steel. All require vast amounts of petroleum for feedstock and energy. Ain’t going away soon, we need more refinery capacity and we needed the investments a decade ago.
This is exactly what the "keep it in ground" crowd misses - petroleum products are used as a raw material in many industrial processes, including materials used in new EV's, high speed trains, modern efficient aircraft like the A350 or 787, etc... It is not being wasted in some dude's lifted F-350 he uses to drive to the grocery store usually.
As I've been harping on a lot, much of the problem is Wall Street shareholders demanding "capital discipline" (read: Ukraine War profiteering), but these ignorant NIMBYist attitudes are the other big issue.
I would think a brand new facility is way more compliant with EPA regs than one from '77 also. Shooting ourselves in the foot much?
Aesma wrote:Yes my company is building several nuclear plants in France, UK, Finland, China, and the cost overruns and delays are huge. The main issue is that we had stopped building them for 20 years, and a lot of expertise was lost. That's why president Macron announced the construction of 6+8 reactors, so that the industry can plan investment, recruitment etc. for several decades.SEAorPWM wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:Two words for high refined products price—crack spread.
https://streetwiseprofessor.com/congres ... e-edition/
The modern world runs on four commodities—ammonia, concrete, plastics and steel. All require vast amounts of petroleum for feedstock and energy. Ain’t going away soon, we need more refinery capacity and we needed the investments a decade ago.
This is exactly what the "keep it in ground" crowd misses - petroleum products are used as a raw material in many industrial processes, including materials used in new EV's, high speed trains, modern efficient aircraft like the A350 or 787, etc... It is not being wasted in some dude's lifted F-350 he uses to drive to the grocery store usually.
As I've been harping on a lot, much of the problem is Wall Street shareholders demanding "capital discipline" (read: Ukraine War profiteering), but these ignorant NIMBYist attitudes are the other big issue.
I would think a brand new facility is way more compliant with EPA regs than one from '77 also. Shooting ourselves in the foot much?
Of course fuel is wasted in the F-350. That's why a carbon tax is needed, with an increasing level known in advance for the next 30 years. So that only oil that is absolutely needed is used.
MohawkWeekend wrote:I read somewhere that if all the steel lights in the states were converted to LED, two mega coal plants could be shut down. How hard would that be?
For $30 billion dollars how many high-efficiency furnaces or AC could be bought? 6 million.
Demand on a four-week rolling basis just tumbled to the lowest level for this time of year since 2013, not counting 2020 when consumption was shattered due to the pandemic. Compared with 2021 levels, demand is down nearly 5%, data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) show.
MohawkWeekend wrote:Something is not adding up with the EIA's latest report "Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the week ending May 20, 2022. https://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/wpsrsummary.pdf
In that report "gasoline production last week averaged 9.4 million barrels per day" and "total motor gasoline inventories decreased by 0.5 million barrels last week and are about 8% below the five year average for this time of year inventories"
Now that would explain why prices are still going up. The chart above shows demand at maybe 8.9 mmbd. So where is the missing 500,000 bbls per day of gasoline production? Exports? Or is the above chart incorrect?
Aesma wrote:Of course fuel is wasted in the F-350. That's why a carbon tax is needed, with an increasing level known in advance for the next 30 years. So that only oil that is absolutely needed is used.
MohawkWeekend wrote:Something is not adding up with the EIA's latest report "Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the week ending May 20, 2022. https://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/wpsrsummary.pdf
In that report "gasoline production last week averaged 9.4 million barrels per day" and "total motor gasoline inventories decreased by 0.5 million barrels last week and are about 8% below the five year average for this time of year inventories"
Now that would explain why prices are still going up. The chart above shows demand at maybe 8.9 mmbd. So where is the missing 500,000 bbls per day of gasoline production? Exports? Or is the above chart incorrect?
WildcatYXU wrote:does anybody know an AWD midsize hybrid sedan available in Canada?
Aesma wrote:BMW 530e xDrive
Aesma wrote:I found a page calling it exactly that (so with AWD) on BMW Canada website.
ACDC8 wrote:Aesma wrote:BMW 530e xDrive
Was trying to get the specs on that one through BMW.CA, was having trouble getting the pages to load though so I wasn't sure if you could get the xDrive as a hybrid here or not.
MohawkWeekend wrote:Something is not adding up with the EIA's latest report "Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the week ending May 20, 2022. https://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/wpsrsummary.pdf
In that report "gasoline production last week averaged 9.4 million barrels per day" and "total motor gasoline inventories decreased by 0.5 million barrels last week and are about 8% below the five year average for this time of year inventories"
Now that would explain why prices are still going up. The chart above shows demand at maybe 8.9 mmbd. So where is the missing 500,000 bbls per day of gasoline production? Exports? Or is the above chart incorrect?
casinterest wrote:MohawkWeekend wrote:Something is not adding up with the EIA's latest report "Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the week ending May 20, 2022. https://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/wpsrsummary.pdf
In that report "gasoline production last week averaged 9.4 million barrels per day" and "total motor gasoline inventories decreased by 0.5 million barrels last week and are about 8% below the five year average for this time of year inventories"
Now that would explain why prices are still going up. The chart above shows demand at maybe 8.9 mmbd. So where is the missing 500,000 bbls per day of gasoline production? Exports? Or is the above chart incorrect?
They are still producing for predicted summer usage. This is memorial day weekend after all. And if you look at the graph there is a consumption gap that occurs at the start of summer. .
WildcatYXU wrote:ACDC8 wrote:Aesma wrote:BMW 530e xDrive
Was trying to get the specs on that one through BMW.CA, was having trouble getting the pages to load though so I wasn't sure if you could get the xDrive as a hybrid here or not.
So far I was only thinking about the 330e. I considered the 530e being beyond our reach. However, it seems like the 530e base model could be doable. The problem is that it is impossible to find out how is the vehicle equipped. Perhaps it is time to visit a dealer.
BTW, there is a beautiful mistake in the configuration page. It is showing a manual transmission as an option.
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Good luck finding any electric or hybrid vehicle in stock. Just traded in my very efficient but poorly running 7 year old Ford Focus (2L) for a 3 year old Honda Fit with a 1.5 liter engine. The Fit has one of the highest efficiency ratings of any ICE vehicle. There were only 4 new cars at the Honda dealership and they were keeping them so people could see what could be ordered.
MohawkWeekend wrote:I read somewhere that if all the steel lights in the states were converted to LED, two mega coal plants could be shutdown.[...]
Kilopond wrote:MohawkWeekend wrote:I read somewhere that if all the steel lights in the states were converted to LED, two mega coal plants could be shutdown.[...]
As far as public illumination is concerned, this is just a wide-spread superstition. Those commonly used high pressure soda vapor lamps have nothing in common with ordinary bulbs and they are more efficient than LEDs. Although, the yellowish light they are emitting is quite ugly.
c933103 wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-shale-drillers-are-pumping-out-dividends-instead-of-more-oil-and-gas-11653274423
This article from Wall Street Journal explain why shale oil drillers aren't increasing capacity.
TLDR: Managements of these companies were rewarded to drill as much oil capacity as possible and thus they were expanding at all cost even when they are losing money, but in the past two years this is no longer sustainable, so management are now being asked to actually produce profit for their companies, hence the focus is now improving efficiency/reducing cost of operation, instead of expanding their scale/volume.
SEAorPWM wrote:c933103 wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-shale-drillers-are-pumping-out-dividends-instead-of-more-oil-and-gas-11653274423
This article from Wall Street Journal explain why shale oil drillers aren't increasing capacity.
TLDR: Managements of these companies were rewarded to drill as much oil capacity as possible and thus they were expanding at all cost even when they are losing money, but in the past two years this is no longer sustainable, so management are now being asked to actually produce profit for their companies, hence the focus is now improving efficiency/reducing cost of operation, instead of expanding their scale/volume.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -100-crude
It's a pay wall but you can get around it. It says that the break even for US Shale is 60-70 USD/barrel, so the margins are most certainly there.
This is why I'm not crying for the the consumer - if we want to live in an economy driven by shareholder capitalism, we have no reason to complain. Either call out this investor kleptocracy or be quiet.
MohawkWeekend wrote:There are some in the US Congress who would call for that but it isn't going to happen. Nationalization would be a disaster. Now breaking up the conglomerates that were created during the Clinton Administration has some merit (Exxon Mobil, BP Amoco Texaco Chevron, Conoco Phillips)
It's not the BP's and Exxon's doing the bulk of drilling or refining in the US, it's a bunch of medium sized independents. And they have proven time and time again to do the job well. US oil and gas production is already increasing, refineries are running all out
Leading Independent Drillers
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (APC)
Marathon Oil
Repsol
EOG Resources
Hess
Pioneer Natural Resources
Apache
Hilcorp
Devon Energy
Source: Rigzone.com
Top 10 Refiners US (wikipedia)
Rank Corporation Barrels/Day No. of US Refineries States
1 Marathon Petroleum 3,024,715 16 AK, CA, IL, KY, LA, MI, MN, ND, NM, OH, TX, UT, WA
2 Valero Energy. 2,181,300 13. CA, LA, OK, TN, TX
3 Phillips 66 1,919,300 10 CA, IL, LA, MT, NJ, OK, TX, WA
4 Exxon Mobil 1,732,124 5 IL, LA, MT, TX
5 Chevron 1,037,660 5 CA, MS, TX, UT
6 PBF Energy. 1,021,400 6 CA, DE, LA, NJ, OH
7 Shell 810,645 4.5. AL, LA, TX, WA
8 BP 756,000. 3.5 IN, OH, WA
9 PDV 754,765 3 IL, LA, TX
10 Koch 640,000 2 MN, TX
11 Saudi Aramco. 607,000 1 TX
c933103 wrote:SEAorPWM wrote:c933103 wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-shale-drillers-are-pumping-out-dividends-instead-of-more-oil-and-gas-11653274423
This article from Wall Street Journal explain why shale oil drillers aren't increasing capacity.
TLDR: Managements of these companies were rewarded to drill as much oil capacity as possible and thus they were expanding at all cost even when they are losing money, but in the past two years this is no longer sustainable, so management are now being asked to actually produce profit for their companies, hence the focus is now improving efficiency/reducing cost of operation, instead of expanding their scale/volume.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -100-crude
It's a pay wall but you can get around it. It says that the break even for US Shale is 60-70 USD/barrel, so the margins are most certainly there.
This is why I'm not crying for the the consumer - if we want to live in an economy driven by shareholder capitalism, we have no reason to complain. Either call out this investor kleptocracy or be quiet.
If it is desired to drill at return that cannot satisfy demand for profit from those who fund such operation, isn't the only viable alternative being nationalization?
SEAorPWM wrote:Question is, do we want to risk the economic recovery and threaten global security for these enlarged returns? Investors usually don't think about the good of the overall economy or world peace.
MohawkWeekend wrote:.... As you mentioned, it isn't those conglomerates doing the drilling, why do you think breaking them up would affect the volume of drilling?
The Super majors that should be broken up used to be major explorers and refiners in the States. When they got bigger, their cost structures went thru the roof. More corporate jets, bigger and fancier headquarters, and bloated C-suites. To cover those higher expenses they had to look outside the US for what are called "elephant" fields.
Exxon for example has basically stopped looking for oil in Alaska and instead made a huge off shore find in Guyana. BP has sold all of it's Alaskan oil fields and most of its US refineries and gas stations. Their costs are just too high to develop US production even with massive layoffs and asset sales. For example, both BP and Exxon failed miserably in developing shale gas and oil reserves the US. The smaller more nimble companies were successful in the US.
IMO just like Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, making big companies even bigger sometimes makes them lose their edge.
MohawkWeekend wrote:The Super majors that should be broken up used to be major explorers and refiners in the States. When they got bigger, their cost structures went thru the roof. More corporate jets, bigger and fancier headquarters, and bloated C-suites. To cover those higher expenses they had to look outside the US for what are called "elephant" fields.
Exxon for example has basically stopped looking for oil in Alaska and instead made a huge off shore find in Guyana. BP has sold all of it's Alaskan oil fields and most of its US refineries and gas stations. Their costs are just too high to develop US production even with massive layoffs and asset sales. For example, both BP and Exxon failed miserably in developing shale gas and oil reserves the US. The smaller more nimble companies were successful in the US.
IMO just like Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, making big companies even bigger sometimes makes them lose their edge.
MohawkWeekend wrote:Now they (Big Oil) are under more pressure to return more cash to investors instead of building new and improved. (Hey - that's just like Boeing) Big American oil companies used to be innovators of drilling and refining technology. Now can you think of anything they developed recently? Remember the green washing ads Exxon Mobil used to run about algae based fuels. Right. Just around the corner.
I have no problem with small guys buying other small outfits or ones in bankruptcy. But once they get to be a certain size, innovation seems to stop.
Aesma wrote:Time to buy a new 4 digits display !
But it’s all overblown, says Citi’s Ed Morse.
"I'd say it's more in the $70 range than it is in the $120 range," Morse told Bloomberg. "If you look at the fair value for oil, look at the flowing curve. It's exaggerated."
On Wednesday, oil prices continued to rise with the reopening of China’s key financial hub, Shanghai, after two months of lockdowns that had chipped away at fuel demand.
At the same time, more in line with Citi’s $70 oil valuation based on demand, the OPEC+ Joint Technical Committee (JTC) in a Wednesday meeting reduced its global oil demand forecast for 2022 by 200,000 bpd, now expecting oil demand growth to be 3.4 million bpd. This is the second month in a row OPEC has downwardly revised its oil demand growth projections.
MohawkWeekend wrote:I agree with Aesma - how can you take a couple million barrels of oil and oil products out of the market and expect oil to be a $70 dollars. Products are even worse with the vacation season starting in the Northern Hemisphere.
Sometime those economists are too smart and can't see the forest for the trees.