I do not agree. Oil supply grew faster than oil demand for several quarters in a row, hardly no real cause.
Regardless of "acceptance" of the administration, they are not going to change it.
Posted on 06/08/2015 5:13:10 AM PDT by thackney
Sobering.
So, does THIS explain the otherwise contradictory “acceptance” of lower oil prices by the otherwise-high-energy-price-crazed Obola White House?
Oil prices decreased by more than half - suddenly and without apparent “real cause” ...
Which harms Saudia Arbia and the oil kingdoms = Obola HATES that!
Which harmed Putin = Obola doesn’t like that.
Harmed Texas and the oil-fracking, oil-producing US states and the UK North Sea oil-producers = Obola LOVES that!
Harms the oil companies and their employees = Obola LOVES that!
Reduces ISIS’s illegal oil earming on the black market = Obola hates that.
Reduces gas prices for average US consumer = Economy loves that (and rebounds) = Obola LOVES and needs that!
Reduces oil and gas prices in the US = Obola and his enviro’s HATE that, but are they willing to put up with it to obtain the rest?
So, it now reduces Chinese oil costs as well = Obola LOVES that!
I do not agree. Oil supply grew faster than oil demand for several quarters in a row, hardly no real cause.
Regardless of "acceptance" of the administration, they are not going to change it.
Oh certainly.
But my poiint - perhaps poorly expressed above - is that the specific increase (in oil production you mentioned) is a deliberate decision by political groups and nations that Obola has very, very strong links to and support from, and who he personally and politically and mentally has very, very strong support of their policies and communism and pro-Muslim attitudes.
Thus, why would he “permit” the increase in oil production that harms some - but not all! - of his benefactors and supports?
My numbers were from 2011. The Chinese are already shifting.
That said, your 2014 numbers show ~80% of their imported oil, or ~50% of their total consumption, arriving by ship (most being from the Middle East). Oil from Africa and South America also has delivery issues, albeit not as restricted by other Asian powers.
No.
The increase in oil production came almost entirely from North America, driven by private investment by private and publicly traded companies.
“On track” and “projected to” have very different meanings. Production per day is already above the EIA’s projected average for 2015, and its growth rate has resumed. EPA saw a dip in production caused by a huge drop in oil prices, and somehow seem to have extrapolated that. Nonsense.
Care to wager $20, payable to FR on our honor, that oil production will be down by the end of summer?
I wouldn’t wager money, but I would certainly wage a great, big, fat “I told you so.”
Of course, the projection is already looking very wrong. Daily production is up nearly a quarter of a million of barrels per day from just late April when the projection was prepared. So to be fair, I’ll even use the 4-week rolling average (9,447 as measured at http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=wcrfpus2&f=4) and we’ll look at week 5 of August for comparison.
I wouldn’t wager money, but I would certainly wage a great, big, fat “I told you so.”
Of course, the projection is already looking very wrong. Daily production is up nearly a quarter of a million of barrels per day from just late April when the projection was prepared. So to be fair, I’ll even use the 4-week rolling average (9,447 as measured at http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=wcrfpus2&f=4) and we’ll look at week 5 of August for comparison.
WHOOPS! Let’s look at week 3 of September... I just realized that if we look at a rolling avg on week 5 of August, we’re only about 2/3 of the way through Summer.
From your link, April ended at 9,382 thousand barrels a day, the latest for the end of May is 9,447 thousand barrels a day.
That is up 65,000 BPD, not 250,000.
Hoo boy, you’re argumentative, aren’t you? I linked to the 4-week running average, since that seemed like a better measure for “late summer” production.
The weekly total is up to 9,586... which is an increase of 220,000 from April 17. That’s what I called “nearly a quarter of a million barrels per day.” Of course, if you want to measure based on 9,447 instead of 9,586, that’s fine by me.
You want to measure from a one week “spike”?
No... the high point of a continuing trend. At the very least, it’s a two-week spike. Anyway, it makes your bet safer, doesn’t it? If you are betting it will fall, I thought the least I could offer you was offer you a fall from a peak.
No, let us stay with the 4 week averages.
We were talking about trends. Measuring from single week values can be deceiving, just as the previous week had the single largest increase of the entire year, but followed 6 weeks of the 4/wk average declining every week.
New energy projection: 2016 outlook no higher, but 2015 production projection up to 9.43 mmbpd, up .72 mmbpd from 2014.
Is that your projection, or from another source? If sourced, do you have a link?
I don’t see 9.43, did you mean 9.4?
Thanks for the link.
I should normally stay with my “I hate making predictions” response.
This is a case where I would like to be wrong.
And this is why I never bet with real money: The Iran deal is changing the game, triggering a collapse in oil production in the US, back down to March levels.
I know what you mean. Way too many variables for both demand and supply.
I learned a long time ago that understanding the industry meant little in predicting the market.
Sometimes I forget though and still try gazing in my crystal ball. Upgrading the processor hasn’t help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.