newbonic Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 It was one of the City's main predictions that the oil price would crash through $100 per barrel in 2011. But no one thought it would be testing that level quite so quickly. Brent crude, the oil sold in London, rose above $98 for the first time since 2008 this morning and Kuwaiti authorities are now forecasting that the oil price will top $110 in the next few weeks. Telegraph link Geology/EROEI, and demand. Forget the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aa3 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 If I was an Arab sheik with billions of barrels of oil, I would only sell as much as I could use to buy good solid long term investments. So say a really strong investment worth 3 billion dollars emerged.. I would sell 34 million barrels of oil. Maybe a few million more on top of that for my extravaganet lifestyle. But I wouldn't just sell more to have more money in my account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Golden Child Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 If I was an Arab sheik with billions of barrels of oil, I would only sell as much as I could use to buy good solid long term investments. So say a really strong investment worth 3 billion dollars emerged.. I would sell 34 million barrels of oil. Maybe a few million more on top of that for my extravaganet lifestyle. But I wouldn't just sell more to have more money in my account. Watch in absolute wonder as the demand for oil plunges and it's price goes thru the roof. Oil will flow, but on what terms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 If I was an Arab sheik with billions of barrels of oil, I would only sell as much as I could use to buy good solid long term investments. So say a really strong investment worth 3 billion dollars emerged.. I would sell 34 million barrels of oil. Maybe a few million more on top of that for my extravaganet lifestyle. But I wouldn't just sell more to have more money in my account. OPEC have (or had) a problem, though - if they tried this, as they did in the early 1980s, they soon have a huge problem with quota cheating (these are not particularly democratic or transparent countries), and the countries they sell to rapidly get serious about alternatives and efficiency. They want a stable, moderate long term price, cheap enough to undercut alternatives but high enough to make sure they don't have to life a finger economy-wise. The cheating problem alone effectively crashed the oil price in 1985; Saudi Arabia was put in a position where it would have had to cut production to something like 20% of capacity to try and support prices. However, since roughly 2000, spare capacity has dropped to the point where prices can get bid up again. Add in a tidal wave of speculative cash and automatically traded derivatives.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevino Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 * An increased supply of money (QE etc) sloshing around the commodity markets looking for a return. * An increased demand in the East adding to overall global demand. * A decreased supply of oil relative to the above demand The over-supply of money will sort itself over time, either by government controlled clawback or by uncontrolled currency collapse. The lack of oil supply, however, will not be fixed and will only get worse. In the long run, the price of oil is going only one way North. Also, moratorium on deepwater drilling, stunts not only current supply-i.e. Wells that were due to come on stream about now, but those for next few years that would have resulted from exploration wells drilled now, resulting in potential discoveries, feeding future supply. All pegged back for a couple of years-good move Barrack!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Also, moratorium on deepwater drilling, stunts not only current supply-i.e. Wells that were due to come on stream about now, but those for next few years that would have resulted from exploration wells drilled now, resulting in potential discoveries, feeding future supply. All pegged back for a couple of years-good move Barrack!!!!! That's not particularly significant, since it only affects new US deepwater drilling; not the big fields off Brazil and Angola. If only the US had followed the safety standards used by Brazil they would be OK, anyway.. (It is not dissimilar to the case of BSE in the UK, when companies get governments to remove or downgrade perfectly sensible regulation to 'get rid of red tape', soon followed by a massively-expensive or industry-destroying disaster which directly results from deregulation. See also: Mortgages) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevino Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 That's not particularly significant, since it only affects new US deepwater drilling; not the big fields off Brazil and Angola. If only the US had followed the safety standards used by Brazil they would be OK, anyway.. (It is not dissimilar to the case of BSE in the UK, when companies get governments to remove or downgrade perfectly sensible regulation to 'get rid of red tape', soon followed by a massively-expensive or industry-destroying disaster which directly results from deregulation. See also: Mortgages) Sorry, you are wrong there, it DOES affect deepwater Drilling. If the US had followed safety Standards in UK it wouldn't have happened? Who knows? Been plenty near misses world wide..........., But I know of deepwater exploration/development projects in Libya, Brazil, UK and Angola (especially Angola as I will be working on it-I get daily reports on it) that have been delayed by at least 10-12 months post Macondo or rig issues arising from . I know a fair bit more than most of you-I worked on the investigation into Macondo. There are big implications for whole industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Sorry, you are wrong there, it DOES affect deepwater Drilling. If the US had followed safety Standards in UK it wouldn't have happened? Who knows? Been plenty near misses world wide..........., But I know of deepwater exploration/development projects in Libya, Brazil, UK and Angola (especially Angola as I will be working on it-I get daily reports on it) that have been delayed by at least 10-12 months post Macondo or rig issues arising from . I know a fair bit more than most of you-I worked on the investigation into Macondo. There are big implications for whole industry. Sorry, can I just check your logic here? Are you saying that, since things can still go wrong when there are safety standards, there's no point in having safety standards? If so, I wish probability worked like that in the casino... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Sorry, you are wrong there, it DOES affect deepwater Drilling. If the US had followed safety Standards in UK it wouldn't have happened? Who knows? Been plenty near misses world wide..........., But I know of deepwater exploration/development projects in Libya, Brazil, UK and Angola (especially Angola as I will be working on it-I get daily reports on it) that have been delayed by at least 10-12 months post Macondo or rig issues arising from . I know a fair bit more than most of you-I worked on the investigation into Macondo. There are big implications for whole industry. That's interesting, I did think it was essentially US-only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevino Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Sorry, can I just check your logic here? Are you saying that, since things can still go wrong when there are safety standards, there's no point in having safety standards? If so, I wish probability worked like that in the casino... No, not at all. US safety Standards are not as "good" compared to UK, Norway etc., read the government oil spill commission report into Macondo and you'll see that. But, read towards the end of Chapter 4 of the report and you'll see an almost carbon copy of Macondo happened on a Transocean rig in the UK on 23rd December 2009, working for a major Oil Company (not BP!!!). Better safety Standards are not the answer on their own, you are dealing with an industry where one or two people at the rigsite can make massive decisions-that will never change and it's the same if you are in UK, middle east, US and Brazil. Trust me, I've been on a rig in middle east dealing with a well control situation for 55 hrs straight. It's draining. The answer is better standards and better training but the risk will never be eliminated, the margins are ever finer as you go into higher temperatures, pressures and depth. The US moratorium and the heel dragging since it was lifted was a total overreaction. The way it was portrayed was that every deepwater rig was about to blow up, that's BS, yes there are risks, but we aren't cowboys, neither were the guys on the Horizon, far from it. They had just drilled deepest ever well (Tiber) a few months before. Macondo was an extremely high consequence and ultra low probability event where multiple things went wrong in an almost freakish way. No doubt it could have been avoided, but so could the near miss in UK, and that was with "higher"standards The Moratorium has hit US Primarily but the ripple effect has hit aforementioned projects, the subsalt play in Brazil has the same challenges that US GoM has in terms of water depth and pressures. The people working in Brazi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.