OPEC Sneezes, US Industry Gets the Flu and Canada Gets Pneumonia

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 hours ago, William Edwards said:

You seem to have the situation adequately surrounded in concept. The bottom line is that an effective strategy will have to be implemented for KSA to avoid having the value of the oil under the ground become worth no more than the sand covering that oil. What odds do you assign for that possibility?

Hard for me to say, I have no personal experience with these guys the way you do.  Sitting in an armchair and looking at a map, it sure starts to look like "Slim to None."   I just don't get the impression that they have the organizational abilities to do that. There are all these players with different stakes and they all have guns.   

When you look around the world, you see these types of tensions in places such as Ireland (took them hundreds of years to come to a rather tenuous peace), Scotland (still thinking long and hard about dumping England), those guys on the North Coast of Spain  (likely to leave a financially crippled Spain),  the folks in the Netherlands Antilles Islands (all voting to leave even though the Dutch Govt was propping them up with large transfer payments), even Canada with enormous antipathy between British Columbia and Alberta over some pipeline, for heaven's sake, just how ridiculous can it get?  The only reason that Quebec did not separate in the last vote was because of 50,000 Italian immigrants living in St.-Leonard, who all voted to Remain.  Other than that, Canada could have broken up.  Rather a sobering thought, all things considered. 

So even the folks that have no history of beheadings with long swords in the public square have interminable problems just staying together; based on that, I would put the chances of KSA close to zero.  OK, so label me a pessimist.  It is not a part of the world that has a history of good internal management, look at how long the "United Arab Republic" managed to survive.  What was that, a handful of years?  Not much of a success story, if you ask me. 

[Meredith Poor + 895]

The kind of situation that destroys kingdoms (or other sovereign entities) is basically the 'fight or flight' rule. Most people just want to get by. Therefore, if they can figure out a way to make a living peacefully, it's the path they take. If the corruption becomes so severe, or the economy falls into absolute ruin, and one's life is at risk no matter what they do, then they (or some significant percentage of 'they') will confront the 'authorities'. This is what happened in Tunisia in 2011. It's happening in Venezuela right now - if survival is in doubt what difference does it make if you starve or get shot by the police/military?

Iran is at greater risk of this than KSA. The situation of both is rather precarious. Generally governments that use any commodity income as an opportunity to suppress their populations end up being shoved out when the commodity is no longer in demand and the government no longer has the resources to defend itself, either against foreign aggressors or homegrown resistance.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,239]

11 hours ago, Manfred Kruger said:

The Saudi Royals are part of the government as is any royalty or tax structure in the OPEC countries. In the short term prices can drop or rise to unimaginable levels, but can not stay below the real marginal cost of production for any meaningful time period. Right now US shale is the largest global marginal producer and many shale producers are having difficulty generating positive cash flow at current prices. Under $40 for a sustained period half of US shale producers would fold. The market works and the cure for low prices is low prices. Baring geopolitical disasters I suspect that WTI will range between $40 and $80 for the foreseeable future. $20 is a pipe dream

If the KSA is needing 80+ a bbl, and the price sinks to 35 a bbl, will they pump massive quantities to offset the difference to keep the Kingdom happy?, or drain the trillions in cash reserves and hope in 6 months the issues get fixed? I don't know how low oil will go but @Tom Kirkman said couple days ago, the see-saw effect is about to start.

[wrs + 893]

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

But of course.  The point I make is what KSA has been attempting - to develop an actual parallel industry that converts that oil into a higher-value end product.  If the oil can be converted into styrenes, olefins, Polyethylene terephthalates, nylons, then you have high-value-added materials.  And then you can keep going downstream into fabrications.  Can the KSA develop a chemicals industry?  I don't think they have any realistic choice, it is either that, or their cash receipts will die. 

Well look, if plastics is all that's left for oil then shale is a winner because it produces large quantities of the two prime feedstocks, naptha and ethane.  The ethane is stripped off the wet associated gas and the naptha is a larger component of the light oil than it is for heavier versions.  Hence, heavy sour crude would be a lousy feed stock for plastics but LTO is very good and the leftover can be gasoline which isn't going away anytime soon.  This doesn't look good for KSA unless they have a lot of LTO or wet gas capacity.  Heavy and medium crudes aren't great sources of plastic feedstocks.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

44 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

If the KSA is needing 80+ a bbl, and the price sinks to 35 a bbl, will they pump massive quantities to offset the difference to keep the Kingdom happy?, or drain the trillions in cash reserves and hope in 6 months the issues get fixed? I don't know how low oil will go but @Tom Kirkman said couple days ago, the see-saw effect is about to start.

No.  Just ... NO.
Stick to $70.00 Brent, please.

$70 Brent should keep global oil prices relatively stable.

OPEC getting greedy and pushing for $80+ Brent is very bad news, in my opinion, as it will upset the current, suitable, sustainable balance between most global oil producers and most global oil consumers.

Even $75 Brent is too high, in my opinion, as it will just push down oil prices again later.

Enough already with the $80+ oil price greed roller coaster.

● $70.00 Brent seems optimum to me. ●

Clearly, many others will disagree.  I've heard the many arguments for $80+, $90+, $100+, $140+ oil, but I simply do not agree that these higher oil prices are sustainable.

Short term greed wrecks havoc on global economies.

 

====================================

The Saudi adviser in the article below touches on a key point that I have harped about endlessly - a suitable balance between most global oil producers and most global oil consumers.

The data and reactions I have been observing with Brent averaging $71 in 2018 and apparently on track to average around $70 again this year tend to confirm my opinion that $70 Brent is probably an optimum, suitable balance for the next few years.

If oil [Brent] can stay centered around $70 for a couple more years, it seems to me that a suitable balance between most oil producers and most oil consumers will have a profoundly positive effect for most GDPs and most global economies.

The New Green Deal AOC crowd of panic alarmists continue to deny that the world runs on oil, that oil money lubricates economies, that oil is simply not going away any time soon, and that their Global Warming Carbon Tax is simply another attempt by governments to tax and spend enormously, and is yet another attempt by governments to exert power and control over their citizens. In other words, AOC IS FAKE NEWS.

 

Back to the real world ...

The sky is *not* falling.

The world is *not* ending in 12 years.

Oil & Gas are the economic engines that run the world.

And right now, in most countries, the economic engines are overall running pretty darn well thanks to $70 oil [Brent].

If AOC wants to do something that is actually constructive for the world, how about rallying people to stop the incessant warfare around the world.

Oil & Gas don't hurt people.

Absolute Dictatorships hurt people.

Wars hurt people.

Corrupt, power-hungry politicians hurt people.

Scaremongering in order to seize control of taxpayer money via tax & spend, that hurts people.

 

Anyway, back to the topic of a suitable balance between most oil producers and most oil consumers:

Oil market likely to be well balanced in 2019, says Saudi energy adviser

Ibrahim al-Muhanna, an adviser to the Saudi energy minister, said on Friday he expected the oil market to be "well balanced" this year.

"This year, we have seen the implementation of the OPEC Plus decision. It is possible to extend the cut until the end of the year depending on marketconditions," al-Muhanna told an oil summit in Paris.

 

 

 

[William Edwards + 708]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

No.  Just ... NO.
Stick to $70.00 Brent, please.

$70 Brent should keep global oil prices relatively stable.

OPEC getting greedy and pushing for $80+ Brent is very bad news, in my opinion, as it will upset the current, suitable, sustainable balance between most global oil producers and most global oil consumers.

Even $75 Brent is too high, in my opinion, as it will just push down oil prices again later.

Enough already with the $80+ oil price greed roller coaster.

● $70.00 Brent seems optimum to me. ●

Clearly, many others will disagree.  I've heard the many arguments for $80+, $90+, $100+, $140+ oil, but I simply do not agree that these higher oil prices are sustainable.

Short term greed wrecks havoc on global economies.

 

====================================

The Saudi adviser in the article below touches on a key point that I have harped about endlessly - a suitable balance between most global oil producers and most global oil consumers.

The data and reactions I have been observing with Brent averaging $71 in 2018 and apparently on track to average around $70 again this year tend to confirm my opinion that $70 Brent is probably an optimum, suitable balance for the next few years.

If oil [Brent] can stay centered around $70 for a couple more years, it seems to me that a suitable balance between most oil producers and most oil consumers will have a profoundly positive effect for most GDPs and most global economies.

The New Green Deal AOC crowd of panic alarmists continue to deny that the world runs on oil, that oil money lubricates economies, that oil is simply not going away any time soon, and that their Global Warming Carbon Tax is simply another attempt by governments to tax and spend enormously, and is yet another attempt by governments to exert power and control over their citizens. In other words, AOC IS FAKE NEWS.

 

Back to the real world ...

The sky is *not* falling.

The world is *not* ending in 12 years.

Oil & Gas are the economic engines that run the world.

And right now, in most countries, the economic engines are overall running pretty darn well thanks to $70 oil [Brent].

If AOC wants to do something that is actually constructive for the world, how about rallying people to stop the incessant warfare around the world.

Oil & Gas don't hurt people.

Absolute Dictatorships hurt people.

Wars hurt people.

Corrupt, power-hungry politicians hurt people.

Scaremongering in order to seize control of taxpayer money via tax & spend, that hurts people.

 

Anyway, back to the topic of a suitable balance between most oil producers and most oil consumers:

Oil market likely to be well balanced in 2019, says Saudi energy adviser

Ibrahim al-Muhanna, an adviser to the Saudi energy minister, said on Friday he expected the oil market to be "well balanced" this year.

"This year, we have seen the implementation of the OPEC Plus decision. It is possible to extend the cut until the end of the year depending on marketconditions," al-Muhanna told an oil summit in Paris.

 

•  

 

 

Since we continue to disagree, Tom, on the fundamental underpinning of the long-term, steady price of oil, maybe it is time for you to do what I have done, previously, which is to explain how you justify the $70 level, other than wishful thinking. As I have said, the numbers that seem reasonable for reserve capacity and cost of production (supported as well recently by the Aramco loan prospectus) indicate that the roughly 100 MMB/D of supply can be met by ratcheting up capacity from the various worldwide sources, stepwise by cost, until you reach that 100 figure. The cost plus return line reaches about $50. Thus the expectation of $70 seems a stretch. Of course, in the trading world, the price can be ANYTHING at a given moment, but we are talking average-over-time numbers.

Please add your enlightenment to the $70 justification.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

 

1 hour ago, wrs said:

Heavy and medium crudes aren't great sources of plastic feedstocks.

All true.  but KSA does not have all that many choices, now do they?   

[William Edwards + 708]

Just now, Jan van Eck said:

 

All true.  but KSA does not have all that many choices, now do they?   

That, my friend, is their problem. Essentially the same as Canada, but less severe. They need to apply greater "smarts" to attempt to offset that deficiency. Unfortunately it is quite difficult to apply "smarts" when you cannot open your eyes to a new thought.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

U.S.-led oversupply puts crude oil bear market in its early days

Bloomberg Intelligence May 01, 2019

Geopolitics may cause the occasional spike, but we think there’s more price risk for crude oil near the upper end of its range and with U.S.-led oversupply still the predominant theme. We expect continued jawboning vs. higher prices from President Donald Trump — and the opposite when crude declines on OPEC and Russian action.

U.S. supply issue similar to five years ago
Rapidly increasing U.S. liquid-fuel production will keep pressure on West Texas Intermediate prices until 2021, based on our analysis of Energy Department estimates. With the 28-month rate of change in fuel production approaching 20% last year, there are similarities to 2014’s price collapse. What’s different this time is expected high-velocity production into 2020. In 2015, plunging prices helped to reduce U.S. output.

Crude oil prices appear to be increasingly vulnerable. In 2016, prices didn’t bottom until the rate of production dipped to 14%. It reached a nadir of about 10% in 2017. U.S. fuel production isn’t expected to decline that much on a 28-month basis until 2021, but that could change with a pricing downturn.

Energy mean reversion is reaching limits
Mean reversion — the primary factor in 2019 energy performance — has limited pricing upside, in our view. Unleaded gas and WTI crude oil, the year’s best performers through April, were the worst in 2018. WTI’s average is about $58 a barrel since the start of 2017. The $45 range at the end of 2018 was perhaps too low, while $64 on April 30 appears too extreme in an oversupplied market that’s dominated by rapidly increasing U.S. production.

Natural gas, 2019’s worst performer after topping all others last year, is positioned for recovery. Its hangover from the 4Q gamma squeeze appears to have reached an extreme, with prices declining to a three-year low in April. Persistent backwardation in one-year futures signals demand excess vs. supply and should continue to guide prices higher.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Employment in the oil and gas industry crashed a few years ago during the most recent downturn, but current employment numbers have returned to pre-downturn levels, according to a recent report by Deloitte.

The report, titled “Decoding the O&G Downturn,” said the industry’s current employment numbers are at 4.5 million – just one percent below 2013 numbers (before the downturn).

This was due to the 300,000 industry layoffs in oilfield services, pure-play E&Ps and private IOCs being offset by hiring of 255,000 employees by NOCs and pure-play midstream and downstream companies, according to Deloitte.

Essentially, there has been an acceleration of redistribution of oil and gas jobs between segments/regions – specifically analytics-based jobs – and the volume growth and innovation in the industry has supported employment by creating new work profiles.

The report also finds that the hardest hit oilfield services segment managed to maintain research and development (R&D) spending of $3.4 billion (USD). The downstream sector had its highest R&D spend in 2017.

On the flip side, most large IOCs and NOCs reduced the amount they spend on R&D despite technology’s role in lowering breakevens during the downturn.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Employment in the oil and gas industry crashed a few years ago during the most recent downturn, but current employment numbers have returned to pre-downturn levels, according to a recent report by Deloitte.

The report, titled “Decoding the O&G Downturn,” said the industry’s current employment numbers are at 4.5 million – just one percent below 2013 numbers (before the downturn).

This was due to the 300,000 industry layoffs in oilfield services, pure-play E&Ps and private IOCs being offset by hiring of 255,000 employees by NOCs and pure-play midstream and downstream companies, according to Deloitte.

Essentially, there has been an acceleration of redistribution of oil and gas jobs between segments/regions – specifically analytics-based jobs – and the volume growth and innovation in the industry has supported employment by creating new work profiles.

The report also finds that the hardest hit oilfield services segment managed to maintain research and development (R&D) spending of $3.4 billion (USD). The downstream sector had its highest R&D spend in 2017.

On the flip side, most large IOCs and NOCs reduced the amount they spend on R&D despite technology’s role in lowering breakevens during the downturn.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

This is interesting, they may increase production but for domestic use, by how much? and how much is there need for domestic use? they could switch over all their oil fired plants to gas fired and save the liquid resources for export.

Perhaps they will produce more oil and keep on storing it in their strategic reserves so when the time comes , if and when needed they can release cargoes to the buyers wanting to replace Iranian barrels. They will command a premium over the standard price terms.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudi-Plans-Leak-Riyadh-May-Raise-Oil-Production-But-Not-Exports.html

[D Coyne + 305]

21 hours ago, William Edwards said:

We see things quite differently. In the current situation, all producers, including Aramco, sell at a futures-based price.

And you can be sure that Iran will be willing to sell oil at ANY price they can get. And the world producers will follow. Just wait and see.

William,

Perhaps in the short term $20/b is possible (though note that the Iranians did not drive prices that low during last round of sanctions), but US tight oil investment would grind to a halt at that price and take 2 to 3 Mb/d off the World Market, ultra deepwater projects would also not go forward at that price, essentially demand would be greater than the supply of oil at that price, if it continued for any length of time, we could potentially see $40/b for a 12 month period, but even that price is not high enough for the more expensive tight oil and extra heavy oil to be profitable.  Tom Kirkman's $70/b (Brent price) in 2019$ is probably a reasonable price that keeps the World oil market balanced.

[William Edwards + 708]

2 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

William,

Perhaps in the short term $20/b is possible (though note that the Iranians did not drive prices that low during last round of sanctions), but US tight oil investment would grind to a halt at that price and take 2 to 3 Mb/d off the World Market, ultra deepwater projects would also not go forward at that price, essentially demand would be greater than the supply of oil at that price, if it continued for any length of time, we could potentially see $40/b for a 12 month period, but even that price is not high enough for the more expensive tight oil and extra heavy oil to be profitable.  Tom Kirkman's $70/b (Brent price) in 2019$ is probably a reasonable price that keeps the World oil market balanced.

We differ on our arithmetic.

[wrs + 893]

16 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

This is interesting, they may increase production but for domestic use, by how much? and how much is there need for domestic use? they could switch over all their oil fired plants to gas fired and save the liquid resources for export.

Perhaps they will produce more oil and keep on storing it in their strategic reserves so when the time comes , if and when needed they can release cargoes to the buyers wanting to replace Iranian barrels. They will command a premium over the standard price terms.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudi-Plans-Leak-Riyadh-May-Raise-Oil-Production-But-Not-Exports.html

My observation/recollection is that they usually need around 750-1000mmbbl/day for additional electric generation for May through August.  They usually pull from storage and increase production some.  I wouldn't expect them to exceed their quota but to export less or pull from storage if they need more than 500kbbl/day additional.

Edited May 3, 2019 by wrs

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

4 minutes ago, wrs said:

My observation/recollection is that they usually need around 750-1000mmbbl/day for additional electric generation for May through August.  They usually pull from storage and increase production some.  I wouldn't expect them to exceed their quota but to export less or pull from storage if they need more than 500kbbl/day additional.

I dont think they will export less than their current volume to feed their domestic demand during the summer months to meet the cooling demands as they will be losing FOREX crude revenue.

In today's geopolitical environment, by increasing production for their domestic consumption , they can show the world that they have the spare capacity readily available to ramp up production as and when needed by that amount they increase production for their domestic use. That will be their geopolitical message and may earn them some points in that aspect. They may also increase production above and beyond the need for their domestic summer demand and keep moving those barrels into storage they have for future use if things get tight with Iran sanctions.

[D Coyne + 305]

21 minutes ago, William Edwards said:

We differ on our arithmetic.

William,

Can you clarify your expectation for oil price?  In otherwords you often claim $20/b is likely.  Is that a 12 month average price?  If not can you suggest the 12 month or 52 week average minimum price you would expect between now and 2020?  My guess would be $50/b for a minimum and $100/b for a maximum (both in 2019 US$), with a mean expected price over that period of about $80/b (5 year average price from 2019 to 2024).  The price I refer to in the preceding is the Brent Oil Price.  What say you?  Can you explain your $20/b oil price?

[D Coyne + 305]

12 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

I dont think they will export less than their current volume to feed their domestic demand during the summer months to meet the cooling demands as they will be losing FOREX crude revenue.

In today's geopolitical environment, by increasing production for their domestic consumption , they can show the world that they have the spare capacity readily available to ramp up production as and when needed by that amount they increase production for their domestic use. That will be their geopolitical message and may earn them some points in that aspect. They may also increase production above and beyond the need for their domestic summer demand and keep moving those barrels into storage they have for future use if things get tight with Iran sanctions.

If the Saudis go above their quota, they risk having the agreed cuts fall apart, this may happen in any case in June and then potentially if no new agreement is reached we might see overproduction from OPEC and a fall in oil prices to $60/b or less.  Difficult to predict how it will pay out, but it would seem OPEC would be shooting itself in the foot, if it cannot reach an agreement. Time will tell, as always.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

2 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

If the Saudis go above their quota, they risk having the agreed cuts fall apart, this may happen in any case in June and then potentially if no new agreement is reached we might see overproduction from OPEC and a fall in oil prices to $60/b or less.  Difficult to predict how it will pay out, but it would seem OPEC would be shooting itself in the foot, if it cannot reach an agreement. Time will tell, as always.

What I said was they may use the cover of their domestic increased demand (which is legit) to produce more, but not export , and just hold those additional barrels in their storage reserves for later export need to satisfy the demand in oil volume increase from their customers to cover any outages due to the sanctions of Iranian barrels. By increasing production now, they are showing the world they have capacity available and calm things down, they are not violating their export quota and they could very well be storing more barrels to make things easier down the road. They could produce additional barrels for a month or two store those for easy shipments later. They wont shoot themselves in the foot this.

[William Edwards + 708]

21 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

William,

Can you clarify your expectation for oil price?  In otherwords you often claim $20/b is likely.  Is that a 12 month average price?  If not can you suggest the 12 month or 52 week average minimum price you would expect between now and 2020?  My guess would be $50/b for a minimum and $100/b for a maximum (both in 2019 US$), with a mean expected price over that period of about $80/b (5 year average price from 2019 to 2024).  The price I refer to in the preceding is the Brent Oil Price.  What say you?  Can you explain your $20/b oil price?

My $20 price is a relatively short term number, although circumstances can prolong the length. I can see futures prices dropping well into the 30's this year. I expect something more like a $40 level, average, over the next several years, unless the dreaded depression cuts the legs out of demand. Then the number will be lower. I can see no justification for the trading community to be able to continually add long positions to sustain today's "bubble" numbers. Longs will eventually be liquidated. All prices are in constant 2018 dollars.

[Falcon + 222]

Be careful when Saudi's talk about "cuts".  They conviently switch between PRODUCTION cut and EXPORT cuts. Starting in December they cut production, but continued to export working their inventory down but increasing oil inventories on world markets. Recently, they started to cut exports, after draining some of their own inventory.  Today they leaked that, "they will be increasing Production over the next few of months, but not exports."

In reality they are doing much less to control world inventory then they pretend to do. 

The sad part is industry "experts" and analyst buy this story.

While  world oil benchmarks trade on US rig counts or weekly US inventory changes (without considering exports, changes in gasoline or distillates etc). They don't question or seem to care what is going on with the other 88% of world inventory or production increases. 

It all will change as US exports ramp. The EIA said US crude exports are projected to be 8 or 9 million bbls/day by 2025.

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Falcon

[wrs + 893]

I think there is the potential later in the year to have a drop back to $44 based on gaps in the USO chart.  While USO is an ETF, it trades in the front month contract for NYMEX crude and does tend to fill gaps it leaves.  I believe that all the previous lower gaps were filled in the fall drop.  Those gaps arose from the move up from July 2017.  WTIC almost completely reversed the gains from July 2017 to Sep 2018 in this move but the move has nearly been reversed at this point.  There are gaps above in USO to be filled around $15.75 which also portend higher prices.  Furthermore, there are gaps even above that from the drop that began in 2014.  

Here is the near term chart for USO.  There is no certainty about gaps filling or when they fill but they do suggest potential moves up or down.  Right now the market has room to go up or down.  Spec longs are back but that doesn't mean they are wrong or not willing to hang in there.  The action right now is technical in nature due to the impending golden cross of the 50 and 200dmas.  If oil is still bearish then we should see a rejection at the 200dma, if not a golden cross would be bullish and bring in to play a move above $70.

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by wrs

[William Edwards + 708]

3 minutes ago, wrs said:

I think there is the potential later in the year to have a drop back to $44 based on gaps in the USO chart.  While USO is an ETF, it trades in the front month contract for NYMEX crude and does tend to fill gaps it leaves.  I believe that all the previous lower gaps were filled in the fall drop.  Those gaps arose from the move up from July 2017.  WTIC almost completely reversed the gains from July 2017 to Sep 2018 in this move but the move has nearly been reversed at this point.  There are gaps above in USO to be filled around $15.75 which also portend higher prices.  Furthermore, there are gaps even above that from the drop that began in 2014.  

Here is the near term chart for USO.  There is no certainty about gaps filling or when they fill but they do suggest potential moves up or down.  Right now the market has room to go up or down.  Spec longs are back but that doesn't mean they are wrong or not willing to hang in there.  The action right now is technical in nature due to the impending golden cross of the 50 and 200dmas.  If oil is still bearish then we should see a rejection at the 200dma, if not a golden cross would be bullish and bring in to play a move above $70.

 

In other words, it remains a guessing game for random numbers. I agree.

[wrs + 893]

18 minutes ago, William Edwards said:

In other words, it remains a guessing game for random numbers. I agree.

It is always a guessing game if you don't have a crystal ball.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 5/2/2019 at 1:11 PM, William Edwards said:

We see things quite differently. In the current situation, all producers, including Aramco, sell at a futures-based price.

And you can be sure that Iran will be willing to sell oil at ANY price they can get. And the world producers will follow. Just wait and see.

Is it possible Trump intended to destroy OPEC, or is that just a side effect?