Washington Eyes Crackdown On OPEC

11 hours ago, NWMan said:

A considerable number of people on this site appear to have modified their view of how America should behaved in the world based on "oil independence".  America's main production is from offshore fields which are in significant decline due to a lack of investment.  This production decline is masked by the rise of un-economic shale oil production which is working its way through basins at an alarming rate. 

The reality is that over the last 100 years America has produced and used its onshore economic oil reserves and is dependent on oil imports and will be until a viable alternative to petroleum is developed.  The middle east has an abnormally large amount of oil, reservoired in high quality reservoirs (geologically unique). 

Oil usage continues to rise.  All alternative energy sources which are highly subsidised are only reducing the rate of this increase.

Sorry but God appears to have a poor sense of humour but the Arabs do have all the oil.  This is clearly understood by American strategist who maintain a military presence in the middle east so that reserves can be accessed by America in all circumstances. 

All the oil business has to do when oil here becomes too pricy is to promote its natural gas for all heavy vehicles. They can even set up larger facilities for converting trucks from gasoline to diesel. Such conversions are commonplace in other areas of the world and far less expensive than they are here. Of course, there is also ethanol, methanol, soy diesel, biogas, electric vehicles, hybrids, new technology etc.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, NWMan said:

A considerable number of people on this site appear to have modified their view of how America should behaved in the world based on "oil independence".  America's main production is from offshore fields which are in significant decline due to a lack of investment.  This production decline is masked by the rise of un-economic shale oil production which is working its way through basins at an alarming rate. 

The reality is that over the last 100 years America has produced and used its onshore economic oil reserves and is dependent on oil imports and will be until a viable alternative to petroleum is developed.  The middle east has an abnormally large amount of oil, reservoired in high quality reservoirs (geologically unique).  

Oil usage continues to rise.  All alternative energy sources which are highly subsidised are only reducing the rate of this increase. 

Sorry but God appears to have a poor sense of humour but the Arabs do have all the oil.  This is clearly understood by American strategist who maintain a military presence in the middle east so that reserves can be accessed by America in all circumstances.  

The question is not, "How much oil?"; it's, "At what price?".  At $60/bbl, the US can produce as much as we need in the short run.  At $100/bbl - a price our economy can certainly sustain - we could produce far more than that. Offshore investment lagged, but at what price - and what was the breakeven when the decline begain?  IIRC, Oilprice had a whole article about technology & methods from onshore oil lowering break even prices for offshore oil.  Then there's the impending waste-to-oil, potential gas/coal-to-oil, potential increases in biofuels, potential oil sands, potential additional shale oil, etc.  These could all be implemented around $100/bbl - a price we know the US economy can sustain. 

The other element to this is that, while oil demand is forecasted to increase until 2030, that need not happen.  A recession - which is likely given the world's debt load, declining populations, and the populist trend - could wipe that out.  Equally importantly, electrification will destroy demand faster than is predicted.  We have a plethora of profitable applications; the limit is how quickly we can build batteries.  There will also be increased efficiency from internal combustion engines as old companies attempt to compete.  Finally, let's not forget basics like properly inflated tires, which most people seem to neglect.  Between all those factors, oil demand could quickly peak & fall - just as it did during the last two oil crises. 

This is all beside the point that oil demand for the US and our allies is already falling.  The increased demand is happening in Asia and Africa - places that can't easily endure high prices.  If hell breaks loose in the Middle East and prices spike, the US and our allies will be fine.  It's the people who complain so loudly about US intervention that will suffer.

Shale oil changes the situation because it's the last piece of our energy independence puzzle.  I say the Middle East isn't our problem any more; let China, India, and other oil importers deal with it.  Maybe they'll have the good sense to play hardball instead of using the liberal hippie nonsense we've bought into. 

  • Like 3
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, Emma Muhleman here, new to the community. I'm an equity investor at a global macro hedge fund, increasingly interested in the energy and resources space. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

16 hours ago, mthebold said:

The question is not, "How much oil?"; it's, "At what price?".  At $60/bbl, the US can produce as much as we need in the short run.  At $100/bbl - a price our economy can certainly sustain - we could produce far more than that. Offshore investment lagged, but at what price - and what was the breakeven when the decline begain?  IIRC, Oilprice had a whole article about technology & methods from onshore oil lowering break even prices for offshore oil.  Then there's the impending waste-to-oil, potential gas/coal-to-oil, potential increases in biofuels, potential oil sands, potential additional shale oil, etc.  These could all be implemented around $100/bbl - a price we know the US economy can sustain. 

The other element to this is that, while oil demand is forecasted to increase until 2030, that need not happen.  A recession - which is likely given the world's debt load, declining populations, and the populist trend - could wipe that out.  Equally importantly, electrification will destroy demand faster than is predicted.  We have a plethora of profitable applications; the limit is how quickly we can build batteries.  There will also be increased efficiency from internal combustion engines as old companies attempt to compete.  Finally, let's not forget basics like properly inflated tires, which most people seem to neglect.  Between all those factors, oil demand could quickly peak & fall - just as it did during the last two oil crises. 

This is all beside the point that oil demand for the US and our allies is already falling.  The increased demand is happening in Asia and Africa - places that can't easily endure high prices.  If hell breaks loose in the Middle East and prices spike, the US and our allies will be fine.  It's the people who complain so loudly about US intervention that will suffer.

Shale oil changes the situation because it's the last piece of our energy independence puzzle.  I say the Middle East isn't our problem any more; let China, India, and other oil importers deal with it.  Maybe they'll have the good sense to play hardball instead of using the liberal hippie nonsense we've bought into. 

Care to share how much reserves of oil offshore versus shale, in the US. Looking at oil production data from IEA - CY08-12 production growth in US was quite muted even in the face of US$80-100 WTI (mostly, 2009 was the exception). Shale had also started picking up around this time. Have not seen very good evidence of US offshore production increasing materially even at high prices. Happy to stand corrected, nonetheless!

Edited by AcK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2019 at 8:17 PM, Illurion said:

Then our President Jimmy Carter pulled the rug out from under the Shah,  and the Monarchy was overthrown.

Carter didn't pull the rug out from the Shah, it was the people of Iran that did that and Carter did not use US force to prop up the Shah, which also scared the House of Saud, although since we didn't toss them after the '73 embargo, they shouldn't have worried. If the Iranians had known the consequences of their revolution, they probably wouldn't have. The Iranian army, to their credit, would not just shoot the general population. A civility now lacking in the Revolutionary Guard, and indeed most of the core guards in the region.

Carter allowed the dying Shah into the US, and refused to return him. That's what started the anti-US, which as you probably know is not reflected in the general population. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2019 at 7:55 AM, mthebold said:

What "cooperation" do we get from them, and do we still need it?  E.g. if they decide to play games, what's to prevent us from wrecking them now that we don't need their oil?  They're dependent on us for defense; we own them. 

No, the defence of middle east is not in USA hands. If anything, USA is a trouble maker,not security provider. The reason why Arabs had alliance with USA was the hatred against 'ATHEIST' USSR. USSR was deislamising areas after areas in central Asia and hence the Arabs decided to teach them a lesson by allying with USA.

 

Otherwise, the arabs existed perfectly well even without USA. In 1970, the strength of arabs relative to others was higher than what they have today. The USA Alliance only weakened Arabs and continuing it will only further weaken them. USA sells arms at extraordinarily high costs which is not really worth the price and provide minimum security. USA refuses to give technology to build the arms nor does it give them bigger arms like missile, nukes etc. So, the amount of oil they are selling in dollars and enriching USA economy is simply disproportionately more to what they get back

On 2/12/2019 at 8:06 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

The last time Trump tweeted demanding lower prices from OPEC, Saudi Arabia complied, then got burned.

I have long viewed Saudi Arabia as one of the worst absolute dictatorships in the world.

My ranking used to be North Korea the worst dictatorships, with Saudi Arabia and Iran and number 2 and number 3.

North Korea has improved.  Saudi Arabia and Iran, not so much.

I tend to think both of the current regimes of Saudi Arabia and Iran will be overturned domestically by their own hapless people, before Trump leaves office.

It was letter from India due to which oil price went lower, not Trump. Timings coincided but the actual reason was India. Khalil-al-Falih later even clarified this in interview with media that it was request of Modi (Indian PM), not Trump.

On 2/12/2019 at 8:15 AM, mthebold said:

I agree, but that doesn't address my point: SA can't survive without us.  They'll comply whether they like it or not, and they'll be grateful they're still alive. 

The alternative is that we could let a massive war erupt in the Middle East.  Russia and the US - the only two countries capable of interfering - would greatly benefit from increased oil prices.  Meanwhile, these dictatorships would be facing oblivion.  What's not to love? 

All countries need oil, not just USA. So, countries like China, India will step in middle East. Who said that middle east is surviving because of USA? Was middle East in war prior to 1970s when USA was not there yet? Who will attack whom in middle east just because USA left?

Atbest, USA economy will collapse when middle east stops selling oil in dollars but reverts back to 1970s method of mutual trade. USA will be unable to handle its $500 billion current account deficit and hence collapse. Middle east will get what they need from other sources. Food from Africa (Tanzania, Mozambique), electronics and goods from China, Arabian sea patrol from India etc

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Atbest, USA economy will collapse when middle east stops selling oil in dollars from other sources. Food from Africa (Tanzania, Mozambique), electronics and goods from China, Arabian sea patrol from India etcbut reverts back to 1970s method of mutual trade. 

The 70s, really, back when the US was paying pennies on the dollar for oil. It wasn't until the 1973 embargo that KSA, and region, realized how little they were receiving. Today the Petrodollar's last great friends are the alternatives, Yuan, the Euro, don't even think about the Rupee. 

The big oil export countries, KSA, UAE, Kuwait, they are addicted to the west in so many ways, not just the oil sales. So much of the investment these countries have made are in the west, as opposed to in themselves. The rulers won't slice their own throats. The addiction can be broken, but African and India won't fund it.

I don't include Iraq or Iran because they can feed and cloth themselves. China is happy to step in to a large degree, but several thousand years of history suggest it's hard for the locals to come out ahead. I've worked economic development deals in the KSA. Chinese companies barely even pretend to develop the local industries. Most western corporations actually set up better development deals than the locals. Everyone does a better deal developing the local economy than the Chinese in industrial development. Much of the labor is from India and Pakistan, so they play well in the region. Right now MBS is running around, splashing the cash in Pakistan and India. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, John Foote said:

The 70s, really, back when the US was paying pennies on the dollar for oil. It wasn't until the 1973 embargo that KSA, and region, realized how little they were receiving. Today the Petrodollar's last great friends are the alternatives, Yuan, the Euro, don't even think about the Rupee.

Yes, Arabs simply did not bother to think about the importance of petroleum and thought it as just another Natural resource. They failed yo notice how WW2 evolved around petroleum. Germany attacked USSR for petroleum as its coal liquefaction required too much infrastructure and transportation which was not feasible considering its low iron reserves. Japan attacked USA due to petroleum sanctions.

But after the embargo, again the Arabs did not have to go for petrodollar. Even then the Arabs have more to USA than USA to Arabs. The main reason why USA-Arab alliance happened was because USA went and scared Arabs about USSR taking over and destroying Islam. USSR had destroyed Islam in Central Asia like Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan etc by demolishing mosque, doing patrol every friday evening to punish anyone doing namaz etc. This fear and USA assurance of helping to fight USSR along with a clear battle plan for Afghanistan war as a first step made Arabs agree with petrodollar. USA asked Arabs to overproduce petroleum in 1985, making USSR exports valueless and collapsing USSR eventually. At the same time USA reduced its oil production under the garb of environmental restriction and imported free oil (paid in arms supply to fight USSR in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia etc).

Aeabs have now understood that they were duped. So, they have asked USA to not import any oil from international market as USA is having too much current account deficit and violates the clause that USA can't simply print dollars and import petroleum. Petrodollar is unlikely to be changed into petro yuan, euro or rupee but simply converted into mutual trade as the Arabs don't want to be trapped again in another cycle.

14 hours ago, John Foote said:

The big oil export countries, KSA, UAE, Kuwait, they are addicted to the west in so many ways, not just the oil sales. So much of the investment these countries have made are in the west, as opposed to in themselves. The rulers won't slice their own throats. The addiction can be broken, but African and India won't fund it

The countries are addicted to west due to past legacy but the addiction is not absolute and can be curtailed. Food and clothe can come from Africa and Asian countries. Electronics can be imported from China, military patrol can be Indian. Essentially, USA-EU exists in middle east only due to the legacy alliance and not due to any other reasons. The replacement is rather simple. But it is being done in a slow manner to avoid sudden collapse scenario. Also, currently USA has boosted its oil production to be close to self sufficiency and hence Arabs are not in a position to arm twist USA. Europe can be arm twisted but the USA patronage to EU prevents drastic Arab arm twisting. So, currently it is the USA oil self sufficiency which is resulting in this continuity. The moment USA oil reserves deplete, then Arabs will make a move with an eye on Europe

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2019 at 10:29 AM, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Essentially, USA-EU exists in middle east only due to the legacy alliance and not due to any other reasons. 

Large international companies don't really have an allegiance to countries. Total, Exxon, Mobil, etc., they are where there is money to be made, not a sense of duty to country though they have the lobby power to somewhat influence governments. Don't count on USA oil reserves being depleted in the next 100 years. Lift costs, yes, the Middle East is at a fundamental advantage. The Middle East disadvantage is trying to float their economy on oil exports.

The USA did OK as a net importer for almost 50 years though the policies certainly drove some, IMHO counter-productive foreign policy. This forum overrates the value of the raw materials, and undervalues the money associated what you do with the oil and gas once you get it. 

A lot of private capital has fled the KSA in recent years. MBS is making that harder, but the activities are not encouraging investments in kingdom by non-government entities. Money tends to have no allegiance except to itself. Governments do their best to influence and distort, sometimes to the good, sometime to good intentions, and other time various forms of corruption, but even absolute monarchies can't mandate what happens and often the end result is counter productive to intent.

And I happen to believe the world's best hope is raising the standards of Africa, and much of Asia and South America. The traditional harvesting of resources from these areas is wrong.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, John Foote said:

Large international companies don't really have an allegiance to countries. Total, Exxon, Mobil, etc., they are where there is money to be made, not a sense of duty to country though they have the lobby power to somewhat influence governments. Don't count on USA oil reserves being depleted in the next 100 years. Lift costs, yes, the Middle East is at a fundamental advantage. The Middle East disadvantage is trying to float their economy on oil exports.

The USA did OK as a net importer for almost 50 years though the policies certainly drove some, IMHO counter-productive foreign policy. This forum overrates the value of the raw materials, and undervalues the money associated what you do with the oil and gas once you get it. 

A lot of private capital has fled the KSA in recent years. MBS is making that harder, but the activities are not encouraging investments in kingdom by non-government entities. Money tends to have no allegiance except to itself. Governments do their best to influence and distort, sometimes to the good, sometime to good intentions, and other time various forms of corruption, but even absolute monarchies can't mandate what happens and often the end result is counter productive to intent.

And I happen to believe the world's best hope is raising the standards of Africa, and much of Asia and South America. The traditional harvesting of resources from these areas is wrong.

No, the laege international companies are large due to political support of their government. USA always backs its companies. Recently, GE was given contract for power plant in Iraq due to USA pressure (earlier it was supposed to be Geeman company). Also, the very reason why countries like France gets Uranium for electricity from Namibia is due to USA pressurising Namibia. The reason why EU companies dominate shipping market despite ship manufacturing being a simple WW2 level technology (military ships are modern but others are WW2 era) is due to political pressure.

If a country has to get foreign resource, it must get foreign money. This is acquired by political pressure to foreign countries to allow the country to do business in a preferential manner. Otherwise, countries like India, China or other poorer countries would have easily been the best bet for reducing shipping costs.

Yes, the end result is not appearing to be good as eventually exploitation of resources is unsustainable and hence now the west is facing the heat.

I am not OVERRATING raw material. It is simply a fact that entire universe exists because of existence of natural resource. They may be hydrogen, oxygen, silicon or other element. Bit the fundamental essence of everything is natural resource. Money is just labour. Every man has 24 hours a day and hence can put in labour. But labour without resources make no sense. So, money is below resources. This is the reason why a person working for 5 hours in USA gets over 5 times the payment of the person doing same job in India. USA has access to large amount of resources on per capita basis Andrew hence it can afford to pay a larger amount of resources per person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

No, the large international companies are large due to political support of their government.

Or is it the other way around, the mega companies influence the government and power. Think anyone can tell Tata to take a hike?

I am personally familiar with the oddities of power/grid/production in the Middle East and the contracting award processes. GE and Siemens are in some ways all that is, and both are quite skilled at negotiating. One reason I am fan of solar and storage, is disruptive influences forcing these big institutions to compete a bit. These are rarely performance only proposals. A huge part of the award is how local industries will be developed. Some might say spreading the dole is more important, and you have to be creative. GE, at least in KSA, is genius in their key local hires. They know whasta. My speciality was the in country development portion of driving awards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL !!! Americans are flooding market with cheap oil even when their oil companies are going bankrupt because of huge losses, only to provide cheap oil to China and India , what a great sacrifice Americans are making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 2/11/2019 at 12:07 AM, Justin Hicks said:

Could very easily irritate Saudi Arabia.

And suing for oil manipulation?? What would we collect, and how?

We would stop their price fixing . . . .  and if they don't comply attach their $30 Billion Refinery in Louisiana.

Some say congress wouldn't do anything.  This is not your fathers Congress.  

Edited by JJCar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JJCar said:

We would stop their price fixing . . . .  and if they don't comply attach their $20 Billion Refinery in Louisiana.

Some say congress wouldn't do anything.  This is not your fathers Congress.  

This Congress won't do anything either, face it, they have no authority outside the US borders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, Justin Hicks said:

This Congress won't do anything either, face it, they have no authority outside the US borders

BUT  . . . . .  ARAMCO $30 Billion refinery is not outside this border.  Plus Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members sell their oil to this country.  

If Venezuela works out, if Canada builds the Keystone XL addition or if Mexico straighten outs Pemex the US won't need or want Saudi heavy crude.

Edited by JJCar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

51 minutes ago, JJCar said:

BUT  . . . . .  ARAMCO $30 Billion refinery is not outside this border.  Plus Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members sell their oil to this country.  

If Venezuela works out, if Canada builds the Keystone addition or if Mexico straighten outs Pemex the US won't need or want Saudi heavy crude.

Lotta "if's" there... Like they say....IF a frog had wings , it wouldn't bump it's ass every time it jumped.

Think of it this way...first NOPEC has been through Congress 16 times out of the last 20 year's and never signed into law. This time will be no different.

And let's look at what would happen if NOPEC passed and actually did something to break up OPEC. 

The cartel members would pump unrestrained much as US operators do now. The issue there is the US is pumping full tilt and everyone else has cut back.....Who do you think wins that one?  Secondly a lot of American companies do business in and with Saudi's Arabia. Lot of oil and gas industry, and a lot of tech and the Saudi's are paying a premium for them to be there. That goes.

Use Google and do a little research. NOPEC is a pipe dream.

 

Edited by Justin Hicks
Added sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 3/15/2019 at 11:15 PM, Justin Hicks said:

 

The cartel members would pump unrestrained much as US operators do now. The issue there is the US is pumping full tilt and everyone else has cut back.....Who do you think wins that one?   .  .  .  .  . .

 

So who do you think wins that one ???

This scenario was already played out.  They tried to shut down US shale late 2014  thru 2015. OPEC lost big time. The Saudi's lost 1/2 of there cash reserves . . .  Which is $450 Billion ! ! !

OUCH. !

They are very desperate.  They think they can angle some type of deal to bale them out by putting pressure on the US Administration via Wall Street and Big Oil. They profess to help US.  "BALANCE"  and "STABILIZE" oil markets. . . .  my butt . 

Do you think the US companies spending billions to build all those new Permian pipelines and export terminals are going to let them sit idle so Prince Mohammad Bin Salman can balance his budget  with $85 bbl oil. .  .  .  .  .  .   .

I really doubt it ☺️

Edited by JJCar
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, JJCar said:

So who do you think wins that one ???

This scenario was already played out.  They tried to shut down US shale late 2014  thru 2015. OPEC lost big time. The Saudi's lost 1/2 of there cash reserves . . .  Which is $450 Billion ! ! !

OUCH. !

They are very desperate.  They think they can angle some type of deal to bale them out by putting pressure on the US Administration via Wall Street and Big Oil. They profess to help US.  "BALANCE"  and "STABILIZE" oil markets. . . .  my butt . 

Do you think the US companies spending billions to build all those new Permian pipelines and export terminals are going to let them sit idle so Prince Mohammad Bin Salman can balance his budget  with $85 bbl oil. .  .  .  .  .  .   .

I really doubt it ☺️

You're forgetting one important thing.. By 2023, the output from the Permian is expected to be 5.1 mmbbls per day. This much input into the global demand( which is down), will suppress the price even further. I agree, the infrastructure should have been done years ago, then we wouldn't be playing catch up. However as it stands there's going to be a lot of oil sitting in pipelines once the projects are complete.

The only exception to this is the Cheniere Midship NGL  pipeline in Oklahoma set to come online in the spring of 2020. What makes this one profitable is the agreement between Continental and SK Energy, and SK Energy and Cheniere. Back in 2014 Continental signed a 20 year agreement to supply "x" amount of NGL in exchange for SK Energy's 50% stake in prime NGL acerage in the scoop stack. SK signed a 20 year agreement with Cheniere to supply "x" amount of NGL with 20% to come directly from the Scoop/ STACK, with the majority to be brokered to S.Korea and distributed worldwide.

Permian pipelines have no such agreements in place, and for that reason, those pipelines will be " in place" storage for months at a time.

You can produce all you want, however unless you can market the product , the wheels eventually stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2019 at 11:07 PM, Justin Hicks said:

Could very easily irritate Saudi Arabia.

And suing for oil manipulation?? What would we collect, and how?

We could collect the Saudi refinery in the US or shut it down as a deturient to collision. It puts out close to 700,00 bod and due for a 6.4 billion upgrade in 2020.

And guess what. The US doesn’t need that oil for consumption. Foreign oil companies like owning refineries here because of the cheap feedstock/natgas, the workforce, stable country  and state of the art tech and ports. But at the end of the day they are here with our blessing. The US has the leverage on multiple fronts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

12 minutes ago, Boat said:

We could collect the Saudi refinery in the US or shut it down as a deturient to collision. It puts out close to 700,00 bod and due for a 6.4 billion upgrade in 2020.

And guess what. The US doesn’t need that oil for consumption. Foreign oil companies like owning refineries here because of the cheap feedstock/natgas, the workforce, stable country  and state of the art tech and ports. But at the end of the day they are here with our blessing. The US has the leverage on multiple fronts.

If we don't need it, why did we import it to the tune of 947,000 bbls a day last week?

 

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W_EPC0_IM0_NUS-NSA_MBBLD&f=W

 

Edited by Justin Hicks
Added source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boat said:

It puts out close to 700,00 bod and due for a 6.4 billion upgrade in 2020

Nah, they scrapped that idea after Hurricane Harvey. They are looking for one to buy or an area to build however...

http://www.kallanishenergy.com/2018/06/06/motiva-scrapping-expansion-of-port-arthur-refinery/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2019 at 8:40 PM, JJCar said:

BUT  . . . . .  ARAMCO $30 Billion refinery is not outside this border.  Plus Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members sell their oil to this country.  

If Venezuela works out, if Canada builds the Keystone XL addition or if Mexico straighten outs Pemex the US won't need or want Saudi heavy crude.

What are you going to do? Steal their refinery?  Nationalize a foreign company? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

18 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

What are you going to do? Steal their refinery?  Nationalize a foreign company? 

Get a clue. There are 100 ways to leverage the situation.

I doubt they'd take a refinery   BUT the US Govt just did that with Venezuela's  Maduro's CITGO Refinery (they gave it to Guairdo) 

lol 

Edited by JJCar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, JJCar said:

Get a clue. There are 100 ways to leverage the situation.

I doubt they'd take a refinery   BUT the US Govt just did that with Venezuela's  Maduro's CITGO Refinery (they gave it to Guairdo) 

lol 

If they actually seized it remains to be seen.

A federal judge opened that door because ConocoPhillips has a 2 billion dollar claim against PVDSA ,the owner of that particular refinery.

Motiva has no such claims against it and is not a candidate for seizure.

Edited by Justin Hicks
Clerical error 😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how bad you want it to happen, NOPEC is dead in the water. 

Our own oil companies don't want it because the know what is possible if NOPEC goes through.

Saudi Arabia is the only producer in the world that is a true swing producer, meaning they can cut or add hundreds of thousands of barrels to the global supply in a matter of weeks.

The US doesn't have that capability and we know it. That's why we use OPEC to level the playing field on a global scale.

 

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1468051/business-economy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites