Slash Oil Output Or Else! Senate Bill Would Remove US Troops From Saudi Arabia In 30 Days

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I simply don't believe that would happen.

Obama secretly shipped pallets of cash to Iranian leaders.

Diane Feinstein sides with China and Iran and is basically anti - U.S.  That is why I distrust the senator in this attempt to give more cash to the Iranian dictators.

All true.  Better be careful, if we mention Ms. Finestein and Ms. Waters (Maxine) too much around here, we're likely to raise @Rodent from her apparent slumber. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

How much money did Obama already give them with no strings attached?

Wouldn’t that money be better spent at home now?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

How much money did Obama already give them with no strings attached?

Wouldn’t that money be better spent at home now?

$1.7 billion in cash.  You can google it, it's not a secret.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

12 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

$1.7 billion in cash.  You can google it, it's not a secret.

And now some idiot wants to give them MORE!!!

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

And now some idiot wants to give them MORE!!!

All Congress and Senators mentioned are from California. That in itself speaks of the liberal agenda and TDS going on.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

17 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

US doesn't get much oil from KSA anymore. So who are they really trying to hurt? Shale oil wasn't their intended target but just a ''bonus'' for said Russian "hit".

Sorry, I don't buy this for a moment. The Saudis became peeved and upset in 2014 when then-nascent shale production began picking off market share . . . so they pumped and dumped and in the process destroyed the price of oil for two years but cost their sovereign fund $550 billion. They are once again peeved and upset because the shale world has not only been increasing oil exports and thereby taking market share but also producing incredibly cheap LNG to the world. 

Can you imagine how much oil the shale basins would be producing were it not log-jammed by so much natural gas? The Saudis have watched LNG go absolutely parabolic. As LNG goes to the moon, they see American LTO production reaching 20 million barrels a day in a few years. And at a time when water-flooding of Ghawar is reaching gargantuan amounts. 

This hit was intended for American shale. If they had any mercy or understanding in their beings, or if they had any gratitude for having a great business partner for the last seventy-five years, they would have backed off when they saw their actions were causing major upheavals during a time of pain and suffering, when America was fighting to avoid a depression due to a dying season begun by China. But no, they realized that fate had played into their hands, that the virus could work in their favor. If, as is almost certain due their past actions, they shorted oil before they announced their plans, they made a killing from those shorts--more than they had believed possible in their wildest dreams. So they took further action by placing large long bets in European oil company giants. This is the Saudi game, variation #34 (a made-up #). 

Now, to look like reasonable people, they're willing to make a little gesture, and even that promise will soon be broken. This hit was absolutely directed at American oil, and shale in particular. If we let them get by with it, we will forever be held hostage to whatever they want to do. Without developing Venezuela (which proved to be too big a nut to crack), Putin's oil production is moderate, even with Yamal. The Saudis are truly frightened by the vast amount of shale rock, but, beyond that, just how much oil it could yield if natural gas were out of the way. 

[wrs + 893]

14 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Other than Motiva refinery (which they own 100%) it's not like the Saudis can dump a ton of oil here. California would likely take the rest, because their brain dead NIMBYISM has disallowed east west pipelines into their state, so they never could benefit from WTI pricing and continually paid Brent or $10 more per bbl than they should have. In sum, maybe a million bbls per day. Motiva does over 600k per day, no idea where they'll store the finished product. Probably one or two VLCC worth. 

If Motiva has room for storing it then they may be able to dump it there in order to bias a few EIA reports. As to California getting it, that's not possible because the tankers are too large to fit through the Panama Canal and the reports claim they are headed for the LOOP.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

11 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

the search function can be hit or miss

There's a search function?

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, wrs said:

If Motiva has room for storing it then they may be able to dump it there in order to bias a few EIA reports. As to California getting it, that's not possible because the tankers are too large to fit through the Panama Canal and the reports claim they are headed for the LOOP.

They don't go through the canal, they take the Long road

EIA pic here

Edited April 11, 2020 by Ward Smith

[KellyP + 1]

2 things the Senator got wrong. 1st, the US imports about 500k bbl/day it’s it like they’re dumping millions of barrels here. Williston Sour was something like $2bbl a week ago. That’s stupid low. 2nd, Aramco has a cost of production at $2.80/bbl per Washington post March 2020 which means they are NOT dumping under their production cost. It’s not their fault they can produce profitably at $3/bbl and we can’t. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

35 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

There's a search function?

On the mobile version, look for the magnifying glass icon.  On the full website version, the search button is at the bottom of one of the submenus, I forget which one.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

30 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

On the mobile version, look for the magnifying glass icon.  On the full website version, the search button is at the bottom of one of the submenus, I forget which one.

Hover your mouse cursor over "Activity" and a drop down menu will appear with "Search" at the bottom.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Dan Warnick

[El Nikko + 2,145]

17 hours ago, surrept33 said:

Yeah, but Saudi Arabia has gone on a military spending binge in recent years to beef up their forces. They (and the UAE) used it in force to intervene in the Yemeni civil war, not that it did yemen any good. KSA buys a majority of their equipment from the US and I'm no expert, but I suspect the tech they buy will be as good if not better than what Iran has. The size of their armed forces isn't quite as big as Iran yet, but it's not tiny either (about 2/3 the number of personnel). The military spend is certainly a lot more.

Everything the Iranian regime seems to have focused on for a long time seems to be nuclear program, greater ballistic missile range capability, drones, and being able to successfully conduct various types of destabilizing asymmetric warfare (funding militias, irregular groups, etc) in other countries. To switch from this strategy to a conventional arms race against KSA would take resources that Iran doesn't have right now, imho.

 

KSA Arms imports:

Compared to other countries:

 

Where they get military equipment from:

The Saudi's are getting the crap kicked out of them in Yemen and all that expensive military equipment is useless if you hire Sudanese farmers to be your soldiers. You can find some of my posts in the Geopolitics section which have videos etc of what is really happening there. I don't even think the Saudis are flying their Apaches over Yemen anymore because of the surface to air missile threat. They got involved in Syria (funding AQ and possibly ISIS fighters) and in return the Iranians have done the same funding the Houthis.

[wrs + 893]

1 hour ago, KellyP said:

2 things the Senator got wrong. 1st, the US imports about 500k bbl/day it’s it like they’re dumping millions of barrels here. Williston Sour was something like $2bbl a week ago. That’s stupid low. 2nd, Aramco has a cost of production at $2.80/bbl per Washington post March 2020 which means they are NOT dumping under their production cost. It’s not their fault they can produce profitably at $3/bbl and we can’t. 

Well they can't produce profitably at $3/bbl.  That might be marginally true of a very small minority of their production but the vast majority is far more expensive to produce.  Only a stupid person would believe they produce oil at that cost, ergo, stupid low. Actually only a stupid person would beleive the wapo.

[James Regan + 1,776]

20 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Not sure you remember the Hostage issue in the late 70's, Iranians don't think like we do. Pulling all US troops would be a blood-bath and the Iranians have a lot of Russian tech backing them. Remove the "man" and Iran would crush the Saudis. Remember the Iran/Iraq war? They're some persistent lil buggers, I will give em that. Short of "nukes" threat, I believe we pull out and they will move on in, makes no difference to them if KSA has a large munition dump of USA armament. They've got the numbers of military the Saudis don't.

Also lets not forget the USS Golan Heights anchored inland Israel/Syria area, this would be shit fest for the whole region if Iran started doing bangy bangy on the kingdom, the US would get sucked into another pointless war or worse Israel would probably start pushing red buttons. Lots of Israeli money in the USA and very special interests.

Edited April 11, 2020 by James Regan

[wrs + 893]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

They don't go through the canal, they take the Long road

EIA pic here

I know there is a long way around but it's not a route they want to take.  That's two capes for the Saudi crude and even the article says that the Nigerian oil going to the US was a very temporary blip.  The US needs to build a new mid sized tanker fleet to help get the West Texas oil to the rest of the US.  If that doesn't happen then what purpose does the Jones act serve?

Edited April 11, 2020 by wrs

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

5 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Sorry, I don't buy this for a moment. The Saudis became peeved and upset in 2014 when then-nascent shale production began picking off market share . . . so they pumped and dumped and in the process destroyed the price of oil for two years but cost their sovereign fund $550 billion. They are once again peeved and upset because the shale world has not only been increasing oil exports and thereby taking market share but also producing incredibly cheap LNG to the world. 

Can you imagine how much oil the shale basins would be producing were it not log-jammed by so much natural gas? The Saudis have watched LNG go absolutely parabolic. As LNG goes to the moon, they see American LTO production reaching 20 million barrels a day in a few years. And at a time when water-flooding of Ghawar is reaching gargantuan amounts. 

This hit was intended for American shale. If they had any mercy or understanding in their beings, or if they had any gratitude for having a great business partner for the last seventy-five years, they would have backed off when they saw their actions were causing major upheavals during a time of pain and suffering, when America was fighting to avoid a depression due to a dying season begun by China. But no, they realized that fate had played into their hands, that the virus could work in their favor. If, as is almost certain due their past actions, they shorted oil before they announced their plans, they made a killing from those shorts--more than they had believed possible in their wildest dreams. So they took further action by placing large long bets in European oil company giants. This is the Saudi game, variation #34 (a made-up #). 

Now, to look like reasonable people, they're willing to make a little gesture, and even that promise will soon be broken. This hit was absolutely directed at American oil, and shale in particular. If we let them get by with it, we will forever be held hostage to whatever they want to do. Without developing Venezuela (which proved to be too big a nut to crack), Putin's oil production is moderate, even with Yamal. The Saudis are truly frightened by the vast amount of shale rock, but, beyond that, just how much oil it could yield if natural gas were out of the way. 

Not all petroleum coming outta the ground is equal. We ship it out. So in 2014 they out of fear tried to slow it down. Did for a short time. The Saudi's know cost of LTO (Shale) oils break-even. It's why they can flood and try to stop our production. We should be focusing on the NG associated with these wells and make better use.  The oil can stay where it is for the time being, but start engineering as @ronwagnpoints out is a damn cheap fuel. That and electric plants, heating is a major source....

[ronwagn + 6,290]

We need to find out what transpired in the Trump meeting with the oil majors. Maybe someone here has read something. I doubt if it could have been kept secret very long. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

11 hours ago, ronwagn said:

We need to find out what transpired in the Trump meeting with the oil majors. Maybe someone here has read something. I doubt if it could have been kept secret very long. 

I saw mention of it in another thread, Ron.  Keep reading my friend.  😎

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 4/10/2020 at 2:33 PM, Old-Ruffneck said:

While "free" market here and the US is pumping 13mbd, I can understand the Saudi frustration, but it should be aimed and the rest of the ME countries that are cheating and putting a couple million barrels daily on the market, not to mention other nations not in the OPEC pact are also trying to make "a buck" and ramping up. But to ought-right pull troops from KSA is dead ass wrong. Iran would take over and then we would be in a world of hurt. Some of these Senators I am not sure how they got elected. Tho I am no friend of Saudis and no trust them, I trust Iran way less. 

 

On 4/10/2020 at 6:29 PM, Old-Ruffneck said:

Not sure you remember the Hostage issue in the late 70's, Iranians don't think like we do. Pulling all US troops would be a blood-bath and the Iranians have a lot of Russian tech backing them. Remove the "man" and Iran would crush the Saudis. Remember the Iran/Iraq war? They're some persistent lil buggers, I will give em that. Short of "nukes" threat, I believe we pull out and they will move on in, makes no difference to them if KSA has a large munition dump of USA armament. They've got the numbers of military the Saudis don't.

Suppose Iran attempts to overrun Iraq and large swathes of Saudi Arabia.  So what?

In theory, they gain control of vast oil resources.  In practice, the world sanctions those oil resources, replacing them with non-OPEC production.  Iran ends up with no more oil revenue than it had before and they're saddled with the cost of policing useless foreign countries.  In the end, the US gets exactly what it wants: oil prices high enough to support a domestic oil industry, massive defense sales to Middle Eastern countries, and a Middle East too drained of resources to cause trouble. 

There's an optimal middle ground here, too: the US could allow Iran to invade foreign countries, but intervene just enough to cause a stalemate.  As Iran's neighbors are pouring their last dollars into defense spending, the US could allow Iran to advance slowly, taking oil production offline as they went.  By slow-rolling a Middle Eastern war, the US can ensure every last dollar is sucked out of the region, oil prices are kept reasonable, and the US oil industry gains market share.  The best part is that all of this can be accomplished by spending less on defending the Middle East. 

Saudi Arabia and neighbors could try to negotiate a better deal from Russia, but Russia doesn't control the sea lanes or the global financial system.  These nations are dependent on the US; they either do what we want, or they suffer unfortunate accidents. 

I don't see this ending well for the Middle East.