Oilopoly

[Prospero]

Ako može bez glupih ad hominem insinuacija, hvala.

[Eraserhead]

ovo ce verovatno srusiti premise na kojima tvoj svet pociva... neko to mora da ti kaze, pa je najbolje da to budem ja. dakle, ovako: ako je nesto stetno, crveno, cvrsto ili duguljasto, ono ce takvo da ostane ma kolko ti diskutovao o njemu. nece se menjati sa tokom razgovora, kako ti zamisljas.

 

 

Aham, znaci ono sto ti zacrtas sebi u glavi je istina i oko toga nema polemike. Sto bi ja voleo da sam toliko siguran u svoje poznavanje sveta. U svakom slucaju trebalo je tako odmah da kazes pa da se ne mucimo ni ja ni ti.

[Indy]

Negde u Cikagu

 

[Eraserhead]

U.S.: Oil production in 2015 to be highest since 1972

 

 

U.S. crude oil production, rising steadily since 2008, is likely next year to hit its highest level since 1972 while Iraq’s output, despite unrest there, is expected to hold steady, according to a forecast Tuesday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

 

Spurred by the use of hydraulic fracturing or fracking in shale rock deposits, U.S. oil production has jumped from 5.0 million barrels per day in 2008 to 7.4 million last year and is expected to average 8.5 million this year and 9.3 million next year, according to the EIA, the analytical arm of the Department of Energy.

 

“Texas and North Dakota now account for almost half of total U.S. oil production,” said EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski, noting Texas’ monthly oil output recently topped 3 million barrels per day for the first time since 1977 and North Dakota’s oil production hit a record 1 million.

 

This boom, along with a rise in natural gas liquids production, has dramatically lowered petroleum imports. The share of U.S. liquid fuels consumption met by net imports, down from 60% in 2005 to 33% in 2013, is expected to fall to 22% in 2015, which would be the lowest since 1970.

 

The United States and Canada are expected to account for most of the world’s projected growth in production of oil and other liquid fuel through 2015 while China and less developed countries will drive most of the growth in consumption, according to the EIA’s July forecast.

 

“The conflict in Iraq is expected to limit previously forecasted growth in oil exports from that country,” says the EIA,  adding it will reduce the surplus oil production capacity of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and boost average Brent crude oil prices through 2015 more than previously expected.

 

The EIA is lowering its forecast for Iraq’s oil production growth by about 0.3 million barrels per day in both 2014 and 2015, expecting it will not exceed 3.3 million  – its average level during the first half of this year. To offset this dip, it expects Saudi Arabia to maintain higher production through 2014.

 

Last month, Islamic Sunni militants seized control of Iraq’s northern city of Mosul. Yet most of Iraq’s oil production, which recently hit a 30-year high, has occurred in the south, and its exports are coming from terminals near the southern city of Basra.

 

Raad Alkadiri, a senior research director at IHS Energy, a consulting firm, said he expects oil and gas infrastructure in Iraq’s north “will be vulnerable to repeated attack,” but he doubts southern production and exports will be “directly affected.”

 

The EIA forecast also expects U.S. gasoline prices to fall in the next few months, dropping to $3.61 a gallon in September, while home electricity prices will rise 3% this year – the biggest increase since 2008. It expects U.S. coal production, which has generally been in decline, to rise 2.7% this year. It says the power sector is looking to coal to meet its electricity demand, because natural gas prices jumped nearly 30% from last year.

[Zaz_pi]

Fossil industry is the subprime danger of this cycle

The cumulative blitz on energy exploration and production over the past six years has been $5.4 trillion, yet little has come of it

 

The epicentre of irrational behaviour across global markets has moved to the fossil fuel complex of oil, gas and coal. This is where investors have been throwing the most good money after bad.

They are likely to be left holding a clutch of worthless projects as renewable technology sweeps in below radar, and the Washington-Beijing axis embraces a greener agenda.

Data from Bank of America show that oil and gas investment in the US has soared to $200bn a year. It has reached 20pc of total US private fixed investment, the same share as home building. This has never happened before in US history, even during the Second World War when oil production was a strategic imperative.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) says global investment in fossil fuel supply doubled in real terms to $900bn from 2000 to 2008 as the boom gathered pace. It has since stabilised at a very high plateau, near $950bn last year.

...

The cumulative blitz on exploration and production over the past six years has been $5.4 trillion, yet little has come of it. Output from conventional fields peaked in 2005. Not a single large project has come on stream at a break-even cost below $80 a barrel for almost three years.

"What is shocking is that upstream costs in the oil industry have risen threefold since 2000 but output is up just 14pc," said Mark Lewis, from Kepler Cheuvreux. The damage has been masked so far as big oil companies draw down on their cheap legacy reserves.

"They are having too look for oil in the deepwater fields off Africa and Brazil, or in the Arctic, where it is much more difficult. The marginal cost for many shale plays is now $85 to $90 a barrel."

A report by Carbon Tracker says companies are committing $1.1 trillion over the next decade to projects that require prices above $95 to break even. The Canadian tar sands mostly break even at $80-$100. Some of the Arctic and deepwater projects need $120. Several need $150. Petrobras, Statoil, Total, BP, BG, Exxon, Shell, Chevron and Repsol are together gambling $340bn in these hostile seas.

Martijn Rats, from Morgan Stanley, says the biggest European oil groups (BP, Shell, Total, Statoil and Eni) spent $161bn on operations and dividends last year, but generated $121bn in cash flow. They faces a $40bn deficit even though Brent crude prices were buoyant near $100, due to disruptions in Libya, Iraq and parts of Africa. "Oil development is so expensive that many projects do not make sense," he said.

...

Yet the sheer scale of "stranded assets" and potential write-offs in the fossil industry raises eyebrows. IHS Global Insight said the average return on oil and gas exploration in North America has fallen to 8.6pc, lower than in 2001 when oil was trading at $27 a barrel.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Zaz_pi

[Indy]

Steam Injection Fracking Caused Major Alberta Bitumen Leak

 

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, a powerful lobby group, has argued for years that fracking technology is safe and proven.

 

Despite studies showing that methane accumulations in groundwater tend to increase in heavily-drilled and fracked oil and gas fields, the industry group's website also claims that "the technology is carefully used and managed to minimize any environmental impact, particularly on groundwater."

 

In contrast, the technical review, written by four engineers with more than 120 years of experience in the industry, argues that industry activity can connect to natural fractures, impact groundwater, fracture beyond target zones, and induce uncontrollable reactions underground.

 

The review also contradicts industry claims that "the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing are very small due to government regulations and advanced technology."

 

 

 

[Ravanelli]

The Rockefellers, who made their vast fortune on oil, and other philanthropies and high-wealth individuals on Monday will announce pledges to divest a total of $50 billion from fossil fuel investments.

[Roger Sanchez]

Maaan... why can't popular socialism catch a break?

 

As a fellow OPEC member, Venezuela has been the most vocal about the need to cut oil production and has called for an emergency meeting of the 12-member oil cartel. That is because Venezuela is in a much weaker position than many of the other member countries, and the recent drop in prices has raised alarm in Caracas.

Using state-owned oil company PDVSA as a piggy bank has allowed the Venezuelan government to increase social spending over the last decade, a key political objective of the late President Hugo Chavez and his successor, Nicolas Maduro. However, using oil revenues for a wide array of spending priorities has also starved PDVSA of money needed for investment in order to boost oil production, let alone keeping output level. Since 2000, Venezuela has seen its oil output drop from 3.5 million barrels per day (bpd) down to 2.5 million bpd.

Venezuela Oil Production

The bad news for President Maduro is that there was major unrest earlier this year even when oil prices were above $100 per barrel. That is because oil makes up 97 percent of Venezuela’s foreign earnings, and the country needs oil prices of around $120 per barrel for its bloated budget to break even.

Venezuela is in an economic crisis. Annual inflation is estimated to be in excess of 60 percent. The country’s economy actually shrank at a rate of 5 percent in the first six months of 2014. Shortages of food, medicine, shampoo, diapers, and other basics are so common that the government rolled out a plan this past summer to fingerprint people at grocery stores.

 

 

Government officials have tried to downplay the significance of Venezuela's decision to import crude from Algeria and Russia. The company in a statement warned Venezuelans not to believe criticism by the opposition, repeating a constant government theme that setbacks are the result of an "economic war" being waged against the country, a campaign it says is aimed at toppling the regime.

Ali dobro, bar su Rujke i dalje u pozitivi..

[Eraserhead]

A tek sto je zanimljiva prodaja Citga evo pre par nedelja unajmili Lazard da ih predstavlja. Sve zato sto ce uskoro arbitraza na kojoj ocekuju da piknu pa da im ne bi bila zaplenjena imovina. Samo sto ce onda imati problema da nadju rafinrrije. Cavez je bio budaletina ali je uvek znao dokle da zateze. Ovaj sada je jednostavno promasaj.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Eraserhead

[bigvlada]

Stakes are high as US plays the oil card against Iran and Russia

Washington is trying to drive down prices by flooding the market with crude but risks collateral damage to its own shale industry


An oilfield on the Monterey shale formation near McKittrick, California. Photograph: David McNew/Getty Images

Imagine that at the start of 2014 you were an investor who liked to dabble in the commodity markets. You could sniff something going seriously wrong in Ukraine and you were alarmed by early reports of groups of militants marauding across northern and western Iraq.

With hopes that the global economy would continue to strengthen, the smart money would have been on oil prices continuing to climb. That’s what geopolitical tension plus robust demand usually means.

On this occasion, though, the smart money was wrong. After standing at well over $110 a barrel in the summer, the cost of crude has collapsed. Prices are down by a quarter in the past three months. More oil has been pumped at a time when the global recovery has faltered, with traders caught unawares by the slowdown in China and renewed stagnation in the eurozone.

That, though, is not the whole story. The fourfold increase in oil prices triggered by the embargo on exports organised by Saudi Arabia in response to the Yom Kippur war in 1973 showed how crude could be used as a diplomatic and economic weapon. History is repeating itself.

Think about how the Obama administration sees the state of the world. It wants Tehran to come to heel over its nuclear programme. It wants Vladimir Putin to back off in eastern Ukraine. But after recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House has no desire to put American boots on the ground. Instead, with the help of its Saudi ally, Washington is trying to drive down the oil price by flooding an already weak market with crude. As the Russians and the Iranians are heavily dependent on oil exports, the assumption is that they will become easier to deal with.

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, allegedly struck a deal with King Abdullah in September under which the Saudis would sell crude at below the prevailing market price. That would help explain why the price has been falling at a time when, given the turmoil in Iraq and Syria caused by Islamic State, it would normally have been rising.

The Saudis did something similar in the mid-1980s. Then, the geopolitical motivation for a move that sent the oil price to below $10 a barrel was to destabilise Saddam Hussein’s regime. This time, according to Middle East specialists, the Saudis want to put pressure on Iran and to force Moscow to weaken its support for the Assad regime in Syria.

Turning on the oil spigots comes at a cost. The Saudis, like all other producers, have become accustomed to oil above $100 a barrel. The Arab spring in Libya and Egypt raised fears that the political unrest would spread. Oil revenues financed higher public spending, so Saudi Arabia needs the price to be above $90 a barrel to balance the books.

But a bit of pain is acceptable. The Saudis are gambling that they can live with a lower oil price for longer than the Russians and the Iranians can, and that therefore the operation will be relatively short-lived.

There is no question that this new manifestation of cold war muscle is hurting Russia. Oil and gas account for 70% of Russia’s exports and the budget doesn’t add up unless the oil price is above $100 a barrel. Moscow has foreign exchange reserves, but these are not unlimited. The rouble fell by 10% last week. That adds to the debt servicing costs of Russian firms, and the central bank is under pressure to push up interest rates, which should help stabilise the currency, but only at the expense of a deeper recession.

But thus far, Russia’s foreign policy does not appear to have been affected. Support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria remains strong and there were reports at the end of last week of Russian troops entering eastern Ukraine. It remains to be seen how Iran will react. In the meantime, the Middle East looks as unstable as it has ever done.

Provided it is sustained, a falling oil price will boost global growth. Andrew Kenningham at Capital Economics estimates that if the cost of Brent crude settles at $85 a barrel, the upshot will be a transfer of income from producers of oil to consumers of oil amounting to 0.9% of global GDP. As consumers tend to spend a higher proportion of their income than producers, demand will increase. The big winners will be the big oil consumers: China, India and Europe.

Simultaneously, inflation will fall. The drop in the oil price so far is enough to ensure that headline inflation is around half a percentage point lower in advanced countries next year. That would be enough to take inflation below 1% in the UK and below zero in the eurozone. Lower inflation should help to boost consumer and business spending because budgets will stretch further. For the US, the picture is more mixed. Washington’s willingness to play the oil card stems from the belief that domestic supplies of energy from fracking make it possible for the US to become the world’s biggest oil producer. In a speech last year, Tom Donilon, then Barack Obama’s national security adviser, said the US was now less vulnerable to global oil shocks. The cushion provided by shale oil and gas “affords us a stronger hand in pursuing and implementing our national security goals”.

Recent US production of crude has certainly been impressive, with a jump of almost 50% from 5.7m barrels a day in 2011 to 8.4m barrels a day in the second quarter of 2014. This increase in supply has meant that any reduction in supplies from Iran or Russia due to sanctions can be absorbed without disrupting the global economy.

But the sharp drop in the oil price will make some shale fields unviable. That is especially true of planned new developments, where a high price is needed to cover start-up costs. But it is also true of some of the more mature fields, where the rapid depletion of reserves has forced companies to go deeper – at greater expense – in search of supplies.

At the weekend, George Osborne announced that he supported the idea of putting revenues from shale production in the north of England into a sovereign wealth fund for the north. The idea would be to prevent the proceeds being squandered on day-to-day spending, which – sadly – is what happened to the revenues from the North Sea.

Friends of the Earth said the chancellor’s intervention was a cynical ploy designed to win over strong opposition to fracking. It was certainly ill-timed. One side-effect of the US-Saudi attempt to drive down the oil price will be to prick the shale bubble.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/nov/09/us-iran-russia-oil-prices-shale

[bigvlada]

Forum umanjuje slike, otvorite ih u novom tabu radi lakšeg čitanja. 

Edited November 26, 2014 by bigvlada

[Zaz_pi]

Da, to je situ koji bukvalno kuva bitumen i puno zagadjuje. Pre se bukvalno kao ugalj vadio i trensportovoa na obradu u tecno stanje za rafinerije. Izuzetno zagadjivanje.

 

 

Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) is currently the most commonly used in situ recovery method. This method requires the drilling of two horizontal wells through the oil sands deposit. Heated steam is injected into the upper well, where the build-up of pressure and heat melts the bitumen and causes it to flow downward to the second horizontal well, from which it is pumped to the surface. Water is injected into the deposit to maintain stability after the bitumen is removed.

 

Edited November 26, 2014 by Zaz_pi

[Ravanelli]

nego zaze koliku cenu brenta očekuješ posle sastanka opeka?

 

ja ulažem 500 dinara da će se naći 85-90$

Edited November 26, 2014 by Ravanelli

[Zaz_pi]

Tesko je stvarno reci. Ne znam da li foliraju za sutra pa onda objave secu od .5mb/d dnevno, sto ce biti sok jer niko nije ocekivao, a trebali su npr. 1-1.5mb/d. Ali po najavama ne vidim da ce rezati. Po meni je ovaj pad vise vestacki, izvan fundamneta. Realno bi bilo da padne 15-20% sa $110 tj. da se krece na nekih $90-100 za barel. Sada smo cisto tehnicki gledano, sa stanovista kretanja cene, vrlo blizu nekih vrzlo vaznih nivoa i tesko da moze jos mnogo dole, mozda u nekom brzom soku, ali onda vracanje.

[Ravanelli]

vidim da irancima i dalje nisu skinuli sankcije, ali su im dali još 7 meseci.

bilo bi im lakše da održavaju ovaj pritisak na rusiju (pravdaju cenu) sa slobodnim plasmanom iranske nafte na tržištu. tako da će biti interesantno i kako će se razvijati odnos rusa i iranaca, da li će im ovi ponuditi nešto (ako je to uopšte realno).

 

 

interesantna igra u svakom slučaju. baš me interesuje kako će do kraja svi da izžongliraju.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Ravanelli