Tankers attacked ! One sinks ! and OIL GOES UP $1.06 ? ? ? Yawn . . . .

[Falcon + 222]

Oil was down $1.85 yesterday.  Attack didn't even get the $1.85 back.  Came up way short.

The reason . . .  Permian Basin, Texas, U.S.A.

EIA shows U.S production at 12.4 mm bbls/d , but can't account for 800K bbls/d inventory. Some believe the 800k unaccounted oil  bbl is due to under reporting and production is up to 13 mm bbls/d now. Pioneer Resources CEO stated US could be up to 15 mm bbls/d today if we (U.S.) had the pipelines. Pipelines coming starting Q3 thru Q2 2020.

Todays price increase was mostly short positions or hedges convering.  While the  tanker attackers did not suceed in major price increases they probably scared the shorts , setting a floor around $50. I don't see many new long positions as a result of attack. 

TOO MUCH OIL SUPPLY.

Trump wants no nuke missiles in Iran but he will not attack Iran. Trump wants US out of Mideast.  He will destroy their economy and hope for more civil unrest. But he won't be goaded by others into a war.

Pompeo states Iran is to blame.  He has no evidence.  He based blame on a "State Entity" due to the sophisticated attack. There are other State Entities with sophisticated militaries and Special Forces on the neighborhood . . . like UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.  

Saudis or UAE wouldn't dare start anything with Iran without U.S..  Have you ever been to Dubai ? Beautiful place.  It would only take few missiles to knock down those beautiful office skyscrapers and hotels in no time flat.

Why would US get in a war to protect oil shipments to China and India.  U.S.  spends $100 Billion a year in the Mideast protecting world oil.  Why ?

Think of the roads, bridges and schools $100 Billion could build.

Get out.

We don't need their oil  .  .  .  ( or their headaches)

 

 

.

Edited June 14, 2019 by Falcon

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

No tanker has sunk. Both damaged tankers are still afloat.

 

[Falcon + 222]

41 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

No tanker has sunk. Both damaged tankers are still afloat.

 

Both Reuters and Tass news agencies reported that the Altair sank.  Tell that to Reuters. Don't see a reaction. .  . . . . yet.

You would know better than I.  Even if one not sunk . . . 

Still . . . . . $1.06

Edited June 13, 2019 by Falcon

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

The Front Altair was on fire for some hours as shown on these videos :

Footage from a ship :  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHQ7JE7pO20

Aerial footage : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7VzwFJ3MxE

But the fire seems now extinguished as we can see on this pic :

 

The ship is still transmitting the position as we can see on the this shiptracking website :

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:4275315/mmsi:538007007/imo:9745902/vessel:FRONT_ALTAIR

[James Regan + 1,776]

Hold your breath, cannon ball coming. This has regional and religion written all over it. US would be best taking a back seat, the Sunni v Shia OPEC wrangle is not news.

This will make a great read one day...

[Manfred Kruger + 40]

Before 2014 such an attack would have led to a substantial oil price increase. Now the market is quite complacent because it smells weakening demand due to lower economic growth resulting from trade wars. However escalating trouble in the middle east could eventually lead to huge price spikes. Shorts beware!

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

The Front Altair was on fire for some hours as shown on these videos :

Footage from a ship :  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHQ7JE7pO20

Aerial footage : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7VzwFJ3MxE

But the fire seems now extinguished as we can see on this pic :

 

The ship is still transmitting the position as we can see on the this shiptracking website :

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:4275315/mmsi:538007007/imo:9745902/vessel:FRONT_ALTAIR

I wonder who's Manning the ship since Iran and the news services all claim the sailors were "rescued"? 

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I wonder who's Manning the ship since Iran and the news services all claim the sailors were "rescued"? 

Checking which ships are close to the Front Altair  on Marinetraffic, I've noticed that a tug, the "E Two" is on the same location as the damaged tanker. So this may be the answer to your queston.

T

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

11 hours ago, Manfred Kruger said:

Before 2014 such an attack would have led to a substantial oil price increase. Now the market is quite complacent because it smells weakening demand due to lower economic growth resulting from trade wars. However escalating trouble in the middle east could eventually lead to huge price spikes. Shorts beware!

Can it cause huge price spikes though?  Even in the event of a massive war, the Middle East's oil production won't disappear overnight.  The world would have no trouble replacing it. 

Even if that oil production did disappear overnight, the world could replace it.  A combination of strategic reserves, demand destruction, and increased production elsewhere would make short work of that problem. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 6/13/2019 at 2:48 PM, Falcon said:

Oil was down $1.85 yesterday.  Attack didn't even get the $1.85 back.  Came up way short.

The reason . . .  Permian Basin, Texas, U.S.A.

EIA shows U.S production at 12.4 mm bbls/d , but can't account for 800K bbls/d inventory. Some believe the 800k unaccounted oil  bbl is due to under reporting and production is up to 13 mm bbls/d now. Pioneer Resources CEO stated US could be up to 15 mm bbls/d today if we (U.S.) had the pipelines. Pipelines coming starting Q3 thru Q2 2020.

Todays price increase was mostly short positions or hedges convering.  While the  tanker attackers did not suceed in major price increases they probably scared the shorts , setting a floor around $50. I don't see many new long positions as a result of attack. 

TOO MUCH OIL SUPPLY.

Trump wants no nuke missiles in Iran but he will not attack Iran. Trump wants US out of Mideast.  He will destroy their economy and hope for more civil unrest. But he won't be goaded by others into a war.

Pompeo states Iran is to blame.  He has no evidence.  He based blame on a "State Entity" due to the sophisticated attack. There are other State Entities with sophisticated militaries and Special Forces on the neighborhood . . . like UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.  

Saudis or UAE wouldn't dare start anything with Iran without U.S..  Have you ever been to Dubai ? Beautiful place.  It would only take few missiles to knock down those beautiful office skyscrapers and hotels in no time flat.

Why would US get in a war to protect oil shipments to China and India.  U.S.  spends $100 Billion a year in the Mideast protecting world oil.  Why ?

Think of the roads, bridges and schools $100 Billion could build.

Get out.

We don't need their oil  .  .  .  ( or their headaches)

 

 

.

Good thinking to a point but how many billions do our oil corporations have tied up in the Middle East? I don't know, but I would guess it is sizable. Maybe not worth our military money though. Let Europe foot the bill. 

Edited June 15, 2019 by ronwagn

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Can it cause huge price spikes though?  Even in the event of a massive war, the Middle East's oil production won't disappear overnight.  The world would have no trouble replacing it. 

Even if that oil production did disappear overnight, the world could replace it.  A combination of strategic reserves, demand destruction, and increased production elsewhere would make short work of that problem. 

Natural gas trucking could end the threat of oil shortage forever. 

[Falcon + 222]

23 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Good thinking to a point but how many billions do our oil corporations have tied up in the Middle East? I don't know, but I would guess it is sizable. Maybe not worth out military money though. Let Europe foot the bill. 

So you're saying the US , if needed, should get in a war for a US corporation (especially oil companies that pay little or no US Corp Income Tax) 

Exxon made decision to build JV refinery with Saudis, of which US derives no benefits, no jobs, no taxes, no product.

Notice Trump and Pompeo re tanker sabotage say that they are "Protecting U.S. interest".  

What U.S. interest are there ? ? ? 

Edited June 14, 2019 by Falcon

[ronwagn + 6,290]

That is what I am trying to figure out. I do believe that U.S. interests are at stake but probably not enough to spend our blood and money to defend it. Money and wars have always gone together. The amount of money is just a measure of the booty. Military is usually used at the behest of the wealthy interests. It used to be Kings and Queens, now it is dictators, and corporations. 

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 6/14/2019 at 4:03 PM, Falcon said:

Exxon made decision to build JV refinery with Saudis, of which US derives no benefits, no jobs, no taxes, no product.

Who put up the money for it, and are you referring to Sadara? 

The JV refineries in KSA typically hemorrhage cash. The OOK partner typically makes its money in the build, maybe a management contract for a while. Then KSA subsidizes the operations with cheap feedstock. Another issue the IPO will expose. KSA has the work force challenges typical of the 3rd world, unique management challenges of the KSA, and operating expenses to rival any place on the planet. 

However these don't make it a losing proposition for out of Kingdom service and material providers. A lot of money to be made helping them. But as much as possible, the funding from in the Kingdom.