Oil prices going Up? NO!

[AKD 0]

It will be in 60$ range unless there is a hikup somewhere

[Osama + 248]

3 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

I'm sorry, Osama, and I don't mean to take out my angst on you specifically, but:

You seriously quote CNBC news stories?  That's how you gauge what's happening with oil consumption, or supply?  Do you believe that Saudi officials, of any rank or position, are telling the truth about, let's see, anything?  Russia?

Drop in stockpiles?  What is the significance of this?  I know it's on the news, but......  Virtually every source that keeps tabs on U.S. output puts U.S. export oil at 3 MB/D.  And increasing by the week!  What oil man in control of "inventories" or "oil in storage" wouldn't pump it out and replace it with new oil as the prices on the market increase?  That would seem prudent to me.  The last time I checked there was nothing on the news about U.S./North American consumers lining up at the pump HOPING for another truck full of gas.

The U.S. strategic reserve holds over 700 MILLION BARRELS of oil, which was acquired at an average price of just over $29 per barrel.  The U.S./Trump could pump 50 million barrels out at half world market prices and not feel any pain whatsoever.  And then fill it back up again, from U.S. oil reserves, without any help from our friends around the world.  That, together with the output of North America of somewhere between 10-15 MB/D (maybe a whole lot more) ought to have some effect on the world's prices, don't you think?

William and Jan put forth very good arguments about this, but let me put it another, simpler way:  there is NO SHORTAGE OF OIL!  Iran can take its oil off the market, either in protest or have it cut off via U.S. pressure and the only people who will be hurt by that are the leaders, and unfortunately the people, of Iran.  NOBODY ELSE!  Nada, Nil, Nobody!  Starting today Saudi Arabia, Russia and the U.S. could supply the world at 1/2 the price and there would be no shortage of oil, unless they wanted there to be a shortage of oil.  They don't want there to be a shortage, for many of the reasons that you and others have stated.  Any time we hear that there might be shortages of oil, it is the traders talking, nobody else.  But CNBC and most of the other outlets make their money off of sensationalism, and they rally around the cry that oil shortages are imminent!  Iran's not happy!  Venezuela has a crises!  A transformer went out in Canada!  Katy bar the door and get the kids to the storm cellar!  Canada lost a transformer, oh my! 

(edited to take out political view)

Sorry.  Rant over.  Please carry on.  ☺️

Dear Mr. Warnick, No problem at all. I respect and acknowledge everyone's view. "Thoughts are free" said Shakespeare....So!

 

I myself believe that there is no shortage of oil. You must know better than me that every time in history whenever there were fears of a supply shortage somewhere around the world a source would surface and all of a sudden --- oil galore!!

I shared the news only as a news. Everyone else had the same statistics...that was my focus....statistics only. Interpretation. Well....that is what we are here for: Analysis!

[Jovito Catungal + 6]

Oil prices going up? Big yes. I refuse to say obviously  because I can still give rooms to possibilities. KSA the de facto leader of the cartel can have spare capacity, probably up to 12 mbpd. I am not saying this it is certain but it is possible plus Russia which heard from grapevine, may join the the cartel. The price will rise for the following on-going scenario..the diminishing supply from Venezuela, the trouble in Libya as well, the outages in Nigeria..and the more likely the Iran issue with Pres Trump. However, it will  not rise  out of control because..nobody likes  it. But for sure it will rise. No need to panic..

[William Edwards + 708]

6 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

I'm sorry, Osama, and I don't mean to take out my angst on you specifically, but:

You seriously quote CNBC news stories?  That's how you gauge what's happening with oil consumption, or supply?  Do you believe that Saudi officials, of any rank or position, are telling the truth about, let's see, anything?  Russia?

Drop in stockpiles?  What is the significance of this?  I know it's on the news, but......  Virtually every source that keeps tabs on U.S. output puts U.S. export oil at 3 MB/D.  And increasing by the week!  What oil man in control of "inventories" or "oil in storage" wouldn't pump it out and replace it with new oil as the prices on the market increase?  That would seem prudent to me.  The last time I checked there was nothing on the news about U.S./North American consumers lining up at the pump HOPING for another truck full of gas.

The U.S. strategic reserve holds over 700 MILLION BARRELS of oil, which was acquired at an average price of just over $29 per barrel.  The U.S./Trump could pump 50 million barrels out at half world market prices and not feel any pain whatsoever.  And then fill it back up again, from U.S. oil reserves, without any help from our friends around the world.  That, together with the output of North America of somewhere between 10-15 MB/D (maybe a whole lot more) ought to have some effect on the world's prices, don't you think?

William and Jan put forth very good arguments about this, but let me put it another, simpler way:  there is NO SHORTAGE OF OIL!  Iran can take its oil off the market, either in protest or have it cut off via U.S. pressure and the only people who will be hurt by that are the leaders, and unfortunately the people, of Iran.  NOBODY ELSE!  Nada, Nil, Nobody!  Starting today Saudi Arabia, Russia and the U.S. could supply the world at 1/2 the price and there would be no shortage of oil, unless they wanted there to be a shortage of oil.  They don't want there to be a shortage, for many of the reasons that you and others have stated.  Any time we hear that there might be shortages of oil, it is the traders talking, nobody else.  But CNBC and most of the other outlets make their money off of sensationalism, and they rally around the cry that oil shortages are imminent!  Iran's not happy!  Venezuela has a crises!  A transformer went out in Canada!  Katy bar the door and get the kids to the storm cellar!  Canada lost a transformer, oh my! 

(edited to take out political view)

Sorry.  Rant over.  Please carry on.  ☺️

You said it well, Dan.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

On 6/28/2018 at 1:40 AM, Osama said:

Different factors rallies Crude (WTI) to new highs: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/oil-supply-disruptions-in-focus-as-us-tries-to-cut-iran-from-markets.html

 

Oil prices rose to their highest level since November 2014 on Wednesday after a bigger-than-expected drop in U.S. crude stockpiles added to a rally fueled by a major Canadian supply outage, concerns about Libya's exports and stepped-up efforts by the Trump administration to disrupt Iran's petroleum exports.

 

U.S. commercial crude inventories dropped by 9.9 million barrels in the week through June 22, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported on Wednesday. Analysts expected a drop of about 2.6 million barrels, according to a Reuters poll, while earlier industry data showed a 9.2 million barrel decline.

I'm sorry, Osama, and I don't mean to take out my angst on you specifically, but:

You seriously quote CNBC news stories?  That's how you gauge what's happening with oil consumption, or supply?  Do you believe that Saudi officials, of any rank or position, are telling the truth about, let's see, anything?  Russia?

Drop in stockpiles?  What is the significance of this?  I know it's on the news, but......  Virtually every source that keeps tabs on U.S. output puts U.S. export oil at 3 MB/D.  And increasing by the week!  What oil man in control of "inventories" or "oil in storage" wouldn't pump it out and replace it with new oil as the prices on the market increase?  That would seem prudent to me.  The last time I checked there was nothing on the news about U.S./North American consumers lining up at the pump HOPING for another truck full of gas.

The U.S. strategic reserve holds over 700 MILLION BARRELS of oil, which was acquired at an average price of just over $29 per barrel.  The U.S./Trump could pump 50 million barrels out at half world market prices and not feel any pain whatsoever.  And then fill it back up again, from U.S. oil reserves, without any help from our friends around the world.  That, together with the output of North America of somewhere between 10-15 MB/D (maybe a whole lot more) ought to have some effect on the world's prices, don't you think?

William and Jan put forth very good arguments about this, but let me put it another, simpler way:  there is NO SHORTAGE OF OIL!  Iran can take its oil off the market, either in protest or have it cut off via U.S. pressure and the only people who will be hurt by that are the leaders, and unfortunately the people, of Iran.  NOBODY ELSE!  Nada, Nil, Nobody!  Starting today Saudi Arabia, Russia and the U.S. could supply the world at 1/2 the price and there would be no shortage of oil, unless they wanted there to be a shortage of oil.  They don't want there to be a shortage, for many of the reasons that you and others have stated.  Any time we hear that there might be shortages of oil, it is the traders talking, nobody else.  But CNBC and most of the other outlets make their money off of sensationalism, and they rally around the cry that oil shortages are imminent!  Iran's not happy!  Venezuela has a crises!  A transformer went out in Canada!  Katy bar the door and get the kids to the storm cellar!  Canada lost a transformer, oh my! 

If Iran does not like lower prices, they should diversify their economy with something that adds value to the human race, not all that other hogwash.

Sorry.  Rant over.  Please carry on.  ☺️

54 minutes ago, William Edwards said:

You said it well, Dan.

Thanks, William.  I wanted to add one other thing:  Does anybody, anybody, believe the United States or any other free nation would allow shortages in Iranian supply, or from any other "regime" to affect our way of life, let alone our defence preparedness?  If Mr. Trump can successfully apply tariffs at Canada and Mexico and cite national defence as his basis, I think he could just as easily, in fact more easily, tap the strategic reserve to offset any "shortfall" from Iran or others and cite national defense with the support of the American people.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

 

Thanks, William.  I wanted to add one other thing:  Does anybody, anybody, believe the United States or any other free nation would allow shortages in Iranian supply, or from any other "regime" to affect our way of life, let alone our defence preparedness?  If Mr. Trump can successfully apply tariffs at Canada and Mexico and cite national defence as his basis, I think he could just as easily, in fact more easily, tap the strategic reserve to offset any "shortfall" from Iran or others and cite national defense with the support of the American people.

You have to wonder if some of that 700 million is going to get auctioned off this late Fall to ensure enough heating oil, and the funds used to offset some of the year's deficit....  

Remember, in the past the government of Venezuela [Chavez] used to send up a tankerload of heating oil to New England specifically to embarrass the US Administration; the product was distributed free to the poor.  You could get this allotment of 100 gal. of free heating oil if you were out of oil and out of cash.  All that has died now that Venezuela is in crisis. The idea was that Venezuela could shout that it, alone, stood to take care of the poor, which Washington ignored.  And of course all that was true enough. Washington gets to do the Walk of Shame, and Chavez gets to declare himself the champion of the People.  SO:  now that Venezuelan free heating oil is off the table, where are the replacement supplies going to come from?

[William Edwards + 708]

23 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

You have to wonder if some of that 700 million is going to get auctioned off this late Fall to ensure enough heating oil, and the funds used to offset some of the year's deficit....  

Remember, in the past the government of Venezuela [Chavez] used to send up a tankerload of heating oil to New England specifically to embarrass the US Administration; the product was distributed free to the poor.  You could get this allotment of 100 gal. of free heating oil if you were out of oil and out of cash.  All that has died now that Venezuela is in crisis. The idea was that Venezuela could shout that it, alone, stood to take care of the poor, which Washington ignored.  And of course all that was true enough. Washington gets to do the Walk of Shame, and Chavez gets to declare himself the champion of the People.  SO:  now that Venezuelan free heating oil is off the table, where are the replacement supplies going to come from?

One tanker load, Jan? That 50,000 bbls, or 0.05 million barrels, is just a round-off of the SPR 700 million barrels.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Just now, William Edwards said:

One tanker load, Jan? That 50,000 bbls, or 0.05 million barrels, is just a round-off of the SPR 700 million barrels.

I dunno how much Chavez would send over the course of a winter.  But in any event it was refined product.  I also do not know where they unloaded, there is a heating oil pipeline that runs North out of the harbour in New Haven, and probably other unloading places in Portland, Maine and Providence, RI, possibly Portsmouth, NH, so how that all played out, I have no idea.  The idea was to try to embarrass Washington, and they were moderately successful in that ploy. I do know it intensely irritated the various White Houses (which was the whole idea!). 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

53 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

You have to wonder if some of that 700 million is going to get auctioned off this late Fall to ensure enough heating oil, and the funds used to offset some of the year's deficit....  

Remember, in the past the government of Venezuela [Chavez] used to send up a tankerload of heating oil to New England specifically to embarrass the US Administration; the product was distributed free to the poor.  You could get this allotment of 100 gal. of free heating oil if you were out of oil and out of cash.  All that has died now that Venezuela is in crisis. The idea was that Venezuela could shout that it, alone, stood to take care of the poor, which Washington ignored.  And of course all that was true enough. Washington gets to do the Walk of Shame, and Chavez gets to declare himself the champion of the People.  SO:  now that Venezuelan free heating oil is off the table, where are the replacement supplies going to come from?

Anything is possible with our current president.

As far as shame is concerned: I really don't think our government has any shame left.  I don't know, but I imagine congress figured "Hey, let Chavez give oil to the poor.  We'll just blame the other party", as if that solves anything, ever.  Today, they would probably take charity from a communist country and call it a strategic defense initiative to inadvertently drain the opponent's supplies, or some other equally ludicrous horse manure.  Oh, we'd have investigations from one end of the halls of congress to the other, but they would probably let the ships dock and then blame it on Donald or, if the congressperson was on his side, then Hillary.  (Even though Hillary is now about as significant as a million dollar donation to reduce the national debt.  It's a lot of money, but it doesn't make a dent.  Shh, don't tell her that.  She still thinks she won the election.)  Even Trey Gowdy is apparently giving up on any sort of hope for prosecutions for anything, and he's going back home to practice law again.  Lawman to Lawmaker to Lawman.  Go figure.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Anything is possible with our current president.

As far as shame is concerned: I really don't think our government has any shame left.  I don't know, but I imagine congress figured "Hey, let Chavez give oil to the poor.  We'll just blame the other party", as if that solves anything, ever.  Today, they would probably take charity from a communist country and call it a strategic defense initiative to inadvertently drain the opponent's supplies, or some other equally ludicrous horse manure.  Oh, we'd have investigations from one end of the halls of congress to the other, but they would probably let the ships dock and then blame it on Donald or, if the congressperson was on his side, then Hillary.  (Even though Hillary is now about as significant as a million dollar donation to reduce the national debt.  It's a lot of money, but it doesn't make a dent.  Shh, don't tell her that.  She still thinks she won the election.)  Even Trey Gowdy is apparently giving up on any sort of hope for prosecutions for anything, and he's going back home to practice law again.  Lawman to Lawmaker to Lawman.  Go figure.

Dan, I think you have pretty much nailed it.  

Washington is a disgrace, and a nest of self-stroking immature pretenders.  I would be mortified, absolutely mortified, to have an approval rating of 14.7%  

Does not seem to faze those guys one bit.  

A big part of the problem is that serious management material does not even think about running for office.  I blame the new media  (i.e. the CNN types) for that, as the breathless accounts of some sex thing two decades earlier gets plastered all over the screen. Hey, show me the man who has not slept with some rather dubious woman at some point in his life and I show you a man who is dead.  You want that plastered all over the TV for your wife's friends and kids's chums in the high school to go salivate over?  This country is just so immature.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

11 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Dan, I think you have pretty much nailed it.  

Washington is a disgrace, and a nest of self-stroking immature pretenders.  I would be mortified, absolutely mortified, to have an approval rating of 14.7%  

Does not seem to faze those guys one bit.  

A big part of the problem is that serious management material does not even think about running for office.  I blame the new media  (i.e. the CNN types) for that, as the breathless accounts of some sex thing two decades earlier gets plastered all over the screen. Hey, show me the man who has not slept with some rather dubious woman at some point in his life and I show you a man who is dead.  You want that plastered all over the TV for your wife's friends and kids's chums in the high school to go salivate over?  This country is just so immature.

Do you remember the "nerds" in your high school class that were running for class president?  You know the ones, the ones we all ignored because the position didn't matter?  Well, they all went to Washington with ALL of the skills they possessed back in high school.  We should have been paying attention back then.  Oh, and the butt kissers that hung around the high school "presidential" candidates went to congress.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Dan Warnick

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, Dan Warnick said:

Do you remember the "nerds" in your high school class that were running for class president?  You know the ones, the ones we all ignored because the position didn't matter?  Well, they all went to Washington with ALL of the skills they possessed back in high school.  We should have been paying attention back then.

George W. Bush was elected President of Delta Kappa Epsilon (fraternity) at Yale; he certainly knew his beer.  I admit that I did not picture him ending up as U.S. President.  I guess I should have seen that coming!  It is obvious he developed his skills right there inside the fraternity house.  Good training ground, in retrospect. 

[Manfred Kruger + 40]

Technically WTI is overbought and we could see a short-term correction soon. The WTI chart points to ~ $78 to $80 per barrel. Without going into great detail there is a confluence of a 61.8% Fibonacci retracement, a long-term downtrend line and a cup & handle that point to those levels. Initial support is around $62.50 and long-term uptrend support is around 55. If however $ 80 is taken out on the upside there is not much resistance until we reach the previous highs around $ 107.

Fundamentally the global economy is growing and global annual demand should continue to increase between 1 and 2 million barrels per day for the foreseeable future unless trade issues lead to a global recession.

[Ian Austin + 131]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Dan, I think you have pretty much nailed it.  

Washington is a disgrace, and a nest of self-stroking immature pretenders.  I would be mortified, absolutely mortified, to have an approval rating of 14.7%  

Does not seem to faze those guys one bit.  

A big part of the problem is that serious management material does not even think about running for office.  I blame the new media  (i.e. the CNN types) for that, as the breathless accounts of some sex thing two decades earlier gets plastered all over the screen. Hey, show me the man who has not slept with some rather dubious woman at some point in his life and I show you a man who is dead.  You want that plastered all over the TV for your wife's friends and kids's chums in the high school to go salivate over?  This country is just so immature.

I’m not sure any true management material ever makes it to Management. Look no further than the worlds dumpster fire of a corporate community for evidence

Edited June 29, 2018 by Ian Austin

[William Edwards + 708]

8 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I dunno how much Chavez would send over the course of a winter.  But in any event it was refined product.  I also do not know where they unloaded, there is a heating oil pipeline that runs North out of the harbour in New Haven, and probably other unloading places in Portland, Maine and Providence, RI, possibly Portsmouth, NH, so how that all played out, I have no idea.  The idea was to try to embarrass Washington, and they were moderately successful in that ploy. I do know it intensely irritated the various White Houses (which was the whole idea!). 

It did, indeed. The actual quantity was of no significance.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, William Edwards said:

It did, indeed. The actual quantity was of no significance.

But remember that Chavez did in fact take care of quite a few very poor folks, who had no heat.  TYhe oil was distributed through some charitable groups that were recruited for the task, and it was a serious effort on the part of Chavez to step up to the plate, so you have to give him credit for that.  And he seriously irritated official Washington  (and right about now, I wouldn't mind doing that also!). 

[Osama + 248]

Trump is at it again---Trump claims Saudi Arabia has agreed to boost oil production amid turmoil: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/30/trump-saudi-arabia-oil-production-iran-venezuela

Donald Trump said on Saturday he had received assurances from King Salman of Saudi Arabia that the kingdom would increase oil production “maybe up to 2,000,000 barrels”, in response to turmoil in Iran and Venezuela.

Saudi Arabia acknowledged the call took place, but mentioned no production targets.

Trump wrote on Twitter that he had asked the king in a phone call to increase oil production “to make up the difference … Prices to [sic] high! He has agreed!” A little over an hour later, the state-run Saudi Press Agency acknowledged the call, but offered few details.

“During the call, the two leaders stressed the need to make efforts to maintain the stability of oil markets and the growth of the global economy,” the statement said.

It added that there also was an understanding that oil-producing countries would need “to compensate for any potential shortage of supplies”. It did not elaborate.

[AE911truth.org + 17]

8 hours ago, Osama said:

It added that there also was an understanding that oil-producing countries would need “to compensate for any potential shortage of supplies”. It did not elaborate.

I think the "compensate for any potential shortage of supplies" is a diplomatic way of saying that OPEC production cut agreements will be ignored in order to do this.

[Qanoil + 116]

1 hour ago, AE911truth.org said:

I think the "compensate for any potential shortage of supplies" is a diplomatic way of saying that OPEC production cut agreements will be ignored in order to do this.

It may just be Trump responding to Iran.

Tehran: Taking Iran’s Oil Out Of The Market Is ‘Impossible’

The removal of Iranian oil exports from the global market by November, as the U.S. has asked from its allies, is impossible, an oil official in Iran told the semi-official news agency Tasnim on Wednesday.

“Iran exports a total of 2.5 million barrels per day of crude and condensate and eliminating it easily and in a period of a few months is impossible,” the Iranian official was quoted as saying.

Earlier this week, the U.S. asked its allies to cut oil imports from Iran to “zero” by early November when the U.S. sanctions on Tehran return, causing oil prices to rise on expectations that more Iranian barrels could be taken off the market than expected as the U.S. Administration looks determined to choke off as much Iranian oil exports as possible.

“The U.S. is continuing its decision to completely isolate Iran,” Gene McGillian, vice president of market research at Tradition Energy, told CNBC.

“They’re ringing the bell even louder.”

Edited July 1, 2018 by Qanoil

[pareshsomani18 0]

Dear Sir

 

What is your view on Crude outlook for this week.

 

Regards

[Osama + 248]

6 minutes ago, pareshsomani18 said:

Dear Sir

 

What is your view on Crude outlook for this week.

 

Regards

We have had a very interesting weekend. First Trump said that KSA has promised to ramp up production by 200,000bpd and now, this is latest, that White House has backed off the tweet! 

Oil prices might dip during this week. That is my humble opinion.

[Osama + 248]

Is this his personal social media account he thinks he is handling? 

U.S. Backs Off Trump Tweet on Saudis Helping Lower Oil Price-https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-06-30/trump-asks-saudi-arabia-to-boost-oil-output-to-offset-high-price

 

"But in a statement Saturday evening, the White House said King Salman bin Abdulaziz affirmed that Saudi Arabia has 2 million barrels a day of spare production capacity “which it will prudently use if and when necessary to ensure market balance and stability, and in coordination with its producer partners, to respond to any eventuality.”

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

8 hours ago, AE911truth.org said:

I think the "compensate for any potential shortage of supplies" is a diplomatic way of saying that OPEC production cut agreements will be ignored in order to do this.

It means that the OPEC quota is more important than individual country quota. The quota of countries will be altered to ensure that total production is within the set limits.

Essentially, Saudi Arabia will ensure that Iranian oil will not be missed. I believe Saudi Arabia has kept aside around 2 billion barrels of oil to contain Iran. This will be used to supply 2 million barrels a day of oil for 3 years or 1 million barrels a day for 6 years to ensure Iran doesn't get a chance to enter the world market. This, Iranian influence in its neighborhood like Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan etc is cut down completely. Trump would not have dared to put sanctions on Iran if it was not backed by Saudi Arabia

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

On 6/29/2018 at 10:03 PM, Dan Warnick said:

I'm sorry, Osama, and I don't mean to take out my angst on you specifically, but:

You seriously quote CNBC news stories?  That's how you gauge what's happening with oil consumption, or supply?  Do you believe that Saudi officials, of any rank or position, are telling the truth about, let's see, anything?  Russia?

Drop in stockpiles?  What is the significance of this?  I know it's on the news, but......  Virtually every source that keeps tabs on U.S. output puts U.S. export oil at 3 MB/D.  And increasing by the week!  What oil man in control of "inventories" or "oil in storage" wouldn't pump it out and replace it with new oil as the prices on the market increase?  That would seem prudent to me.  The last time I checked there was nothing on the news about U.S./North American consumers lining up at the pump HOPING for another truck full of gas.

The U.S. strategic reserve holds over 700 MILLION BARRELS of oil, which was acquired at an average price of just over $29 per barrel.  The U.S./Trump could pump 50 million barrels out at half world market prices and not feel any pain whatsoever.  And then fill it back up again, from U.S. oil reserves, without any help from our friends around the world.  That, together with the output of North America of somewhere between 10-15 MB/D (maybe a whole lot more) ought to have some effect on the world's prices, don't you think?

William and Jan put forth very good arguments about this, but let me put it another, simpler way:  there is NO SHORTAGE OF OIL!  Iran can take its oil off the market, either in protest or have it cut off via U.S. pressure and the only people who will be hurt by that are the leaders, and unfortunately the people, of Iran.  NOBODY ELSE!  Nada, Nil, Nobody!  Starting today Saudi Arabia, Russia and the U.S. could supply the world at 1/2 the price and there would be no shortage of oil, unless they wanted there to be a shortage of oil.  They don't want there to be a shortage, for many of the reasons that you and others have stated.  Any time we hear that there might be shortages of oil, it is the traders talking, nobody else.  But CNBC and most of the other outlets make their money off of sensationalism, and they rally around the cry that oil shortages are imminent!  Iran's not happy!  Venezuela has a crises!  A transformer went out in Canada!  Katy bar the door and get the kids to the storm cellar!  Canada lost a transformer, oh my! 

If Iran does not like lower prices, they should diversify their economy with something that adds value to the human race, not all that other hogwash.

Sorry.  Rant over.  Please carry on.  ☺️

Thanks, William.  I wanted to add one other thing:  Does anybody, anybody, believe the United States or any other free nation would allow shortages in Iranian supply, or from any other "regime" to affect our way of life, let alone our defence preparedness?  If Mr. Trump can successfully apply tariffs at Canada and Mexico and cite national defence as his basis, I think he could just as easily, in fact more easily, tap the strategic reserve to offset any "shortfall" from Iran or others and cite national defense with the support of the American people.

700 million barrels is just 10% of annual consumption of USA. So, I would not call it a big reserves in USA terms. Also, the USA liquid fuel production is about 12 million barrels a day. Canadian fuel is 4 million barrels a day. Mexico, Colombia produce 2.5million barrels a day. USA gets ool from Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Nigeria, Angola etc to satisfy its current energy needs. The oil reserves of Mexico, Colombia and even USA is rapidly declining and hence this won't last long. Tapping the strategic reserves is not a luxury USA has with its limited oil production