I know nothing about the oil industry and it's effects on world economics.
- Thread starter JConXtsy
- Start date
ahhh I remember those days when I worked a job and got those much needed gas checks every month.
And that's not a point that I've seen anyone argue with, including barking. I think you've created a fictional argument in your head.
High Oil Prices = High Gas Prices = High Profits = Happy Investors in Oil and Gas (synonymous with oil and gas executives)
And barking was simply saying he doesn't have much sympathy for people whose net worth is lessened so he can save bucks at the pump.
You're trying to twist his simple and accurate statement that there are huge winners when gas prices are high into some confounded argument about the middle class being the ultimate losers.
Let him be happy with low gas prices. I bet you they never come back to bite him in the butt.
$2.5 to $2.75 per U. S. gallon is indeed ideal. We should mention the unstable U. S. dollar's contribution to fluctuations. The U. S. Peso has lost a third of it's value since 2000. Gone are the days when 62 U. S. cents bought a Canadian buck.
Since oil is traded around the world in dollars part of the
downward pressure on oil has been the increasing value of the dollar. This has played
a factor in the decreasing value of many commodities
It might actually help make building OU sports facilities a
little cheaper?
Oil and Gas executives enjoy high stock prices, but they can get there without "boom" scenarios as well.
Executives fear new competition or loss of market share in "boom" markets as private equity throws money around to small caps and mid caps to start-up operations with less overhead in certain markets. Big Oil will eventually acquire them in many cases, but "boom" market acquisitions come at a high premium.
But, that's the 1%, so the 99% that live on salaries should be your arguments focus. If 99% wish for stability and sustained responsible growth in the industry, then that has to be understood and accepted by those that want to make it about the "haves" and "have nots".
Even Saudi Arabia has made it clear that market share is their greatest concern in all of this "boom", so they are going to let this "glut" burn off that market share, and that's coming from the most efficient oil producer NOC, national oil company, in the world.
This post was edited on 2/3 8:18 PM by JMISASANO
True.Originally posted by Soonerheart:
Since oil is traded around the world in dollars part of the
downward pressure on oil has been the increasing value of the dollar. This has played
a factor in the decreasing value of many commodities
It might actually help make building OU sports facilities a
little cheaper?
Sorry JM but honestly you lost all credibility when you argued, for days and days, that Norvell was a wide receiver coaching genius. I'm still laughing about that one
He was hired within 48 hours at a Top 5 program job placement college football coaching destination, making more than $300K, so would that make him a part of the "haves" group or just the "have horns" group?
Something tells me he doesn't worry about gasoline prices all together.
Medic007
Sooner starter
One more of these and you won't be posting here. As has been stated previously, the personal attacks won't be tolerated.
Who is suffering the most right now due to oil prices? Russia...and I believe this is where the aim was when Saudi (encouraged by the US) pledged to continue their production at December OPEC meeting. Oil ministers from countries with fragile economies such as Nigeria and Venezuela were outraged at the Saudi response. Whether we want to believe it or not....the unrest in Ukraine can be tied to oil prices. The ruble fell from 35 to $1 in July to 68 to $1 in January.
The correlation math is easy and you'll notice unrest speculation for oil traders isn't increasing future pricing:
Oil:
July 2014 = $103
January 2015 = $48
(FT: "Although non-Opec supply grew more than expected at about 1.98m barrels a day last year as a result of higher production in the US and Russia, for 2015 it is projected to grow by 1.28m b/d, a downward revision of 80,000 b/d from previous estimates.")
If you run the production numbers, this isn't about the Saudis or OPEC, it's clearly about market share that Russia, United States and Canada have grabbed in the last 5 years.
What the U.S. couldn't do in 30 years, they've been able to do in 5 years with horizontal drilling and fracking campaigns becoming more efficient and effective in the U.S. Of course, that was supported by $100 to $120 price points.
Now that the supply glut driven mostly by the U.S., Canada and Russia has raised it's ugly head, traditionalist just expect a now smaller OPEC group to cut their 30M bpd quota. Why? Non-OPEC nations now outproduce OPEC at 55M bpd.
I can see why the Saudis think it's ludicrous for them to burden oil futures as they know any cuts by OPEC will just be gap-filled with non-OPEC oil.
So, the Saudis just crossed their arms and stone faced both OPEC and non-OPEC countries by doing nothing because doing something wasn't going to change anything long-term.
Doing nothing will force non-OPEC producers to cut capital investment, exploration and drilling as ROI focuses on obvious risks more so than rewards at the current oil price points.
U.S. production:
2010 = 5.4M bpd
2014 = 8.1M bpd
2015 = 9.1M bpd
So, who is glutting the market? Some believe U.S. oil production may hit 10M bpd before production begins to taper off.
That's almost an 100% increase in production in 5 years.
Nobody ever saw this coming, and the Saudis know the only solution is to force a natural supply and demand curve to set a responsible price point of $75 to $90 for the long haul.
BP's President comment:
"BP PLC CEO Bob Dudley has an even more pessimistic outlook for oil prices. Earlier this week, Dudley said BP ultimately projects oil prices at $80 a barrel in the long term, but it could take several years to get there."
[/B]
Anybody that believes the Saudis are driving this bus, should really review the last five years of world oil production numbers and physical inventories versus demand. The eia has a clear historical view of the numbers and most everyone just ignored them to keep stocks going and blowing until they weren't.
The Saudis know a price point of $75 will discourage many future unconventional projects around the globe as well as many risky deepwater developments. This will protect their market share and political interests in their region.
Oh Canada! = Look at that spike in production.
This post was edited on 2/6 8:48 AM by JMISASANO
Tidbit:
U. S. gasoline at the pump is always priced in dollars. $1.899 (dollars, cents and mils). Sometimes stocks. I bought a stock for $6.644. Penny stocks in cents and sometimes mils.
The British pound finally went metric in1970. When 12 schillings equaled a pound and 19 1/2 pence equaled a schilling, I was in deep trouble. Or what ever it was. The U. S. buck led the way in 1792. U. S. stock indicators went another 230 years based on the Spanish dollar. Hence the idiotic eighths. An eighth was 12 cents and 5 mils or 12 1/2 cents.
I still thank 1792's congress for making life much easier for me.
U. S. gasoline at the pump is always priced in dollars. $1.899 (dollars, cents and mils). Sometimes stocks. I bought a stock for $6.644. Penny stocks in cents and sometimes mils.
The British pound finally went metric in1970. When 12 schillings equaled a pound and 19 1/2 pence equaled a schilling, I was in deep trouble. Or what ever it was. The U. S. buck led the way in 1792. U. S. stock indicators went another 230 years based on the Spanish dollar. Hence the idiotic eighths. An eighth was 12 cents and 5 mils or 12 1/2 cents.
I still thank 1792's congress for making life much easier for me.
