Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Political Forum
The Political Forum Discuss anything related to politics in this forum. World politics, US Politics, State and Local.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 645
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 385
Harley Diablo 373
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 266
George Spelvin 254
sharkman29 253
Top Posters
DallasRain70481
biomed161061
Yssup Rider60189
gman4453041
LexusLover51038
WTF48267
offshoredrilling47775
pyramider46370
bambino40446
CryptKicker37107
Mokoa36487
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
The_Waco_Kid35624
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-07-2018, 09:24 AM   #31
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF View Post
Do you think that having the United States dictate whether Iran can sell their oil is a free market?

And it is not a boon if the price is to low!

Damn...
It's called leverage, and it's another advantage of being a net oil exporter. Oil is Russia and Iran's primary source of revenue. Keeping prices low hurts them more than the U.S.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 09:28 AM   #32
WTF
Lifetime Premium Access
 
WTF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1, 2010
Location: houston
Posts: 48,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post


BTW, Trump was president when that happened.
Well maybe history will not blame him....

https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-th...ot-export-oil/
WTF is offline   Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 01:42 PM   #33
Tiny
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Join Date: Mar 4, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,710
Encounters: 2
Default

The weekly data showing net exports of 200,000 barrels per day was a fluke. I suspect it was caused by changes in inventories. USA crude oil inventories were the highest they've been in 2018 a couple of weeks ago. You're likely going to see net imports go back to about 2 million barrels per day soon.

In the medium term, in a year or two, the USA may indeed become a net exporter. A lot of it will depend on oil prices. WTF brings up an interesting point,

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF View Post
Which is it IB....are you cheering for low oil prices that would hurt oil production in this country like you were for the last two weeks or are you now cheering for high oil prices that hurt the average consumer?
If the price of oil goes to, say, $40 per barrel as a result of OPEC continuing to keep the floodgates open, this will indeed mean the USA won't become a net exporter. The unconventional oil plays in the USA mostly aren't economic at that price.

If the price goes to $70/barrel and stays there, then we will become a significant net exporter.

What's best? IB and Trump would argue $40 per barrel, as that's good for the economy and the consumer. Others would argue $70 per barrel is worth paying if it means we can have energy security. If we're an exporter, the Saudis or Iran or Venezuela can't hold us over a barrel. Remember the Arab oil embargo of 1973 and the 1973 recession. I don't know which argument is better, both sides have good points.
Tiny is offline   Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 02:41 PM   #34
WTF
Lifetime Premium Access
 
WTF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1, 2010
Location: houston
Posts: 48,267
Default

Tiny, my problem is with people trying to give Trump credit for both sides of the equation!

There is a ying n yang to everything. Be nice if some realized the sun don't rise and set according to Donald J Trump
WTF is offline   Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 03:36 PM   #35
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF View Post
Tiny, my problem is with people trying to give Trump credit for both sides of the equation!

There is a ying n yang to everything. Be nice if some realized the sun don't rise and set according to Donald J Trump
The witticism "every cloud has a silver lining" comes to mind, and as Tiny conceded, an argument for either event has winning points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiny View Post
both sides have good points.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 03:39 PM   #36
LakeCityGuy
Gaining Momentum
 
Join Date: May 15, 2017
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 67
Default The Fact Is

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiny View Post
The weekly data showing net exports of 200,000 barrels per day was a fluke. I suspect it was caused by changes in inventories. USA crude oil inventories were the highest they've been in 2018 a couple of weeks ago. You're likely going to see net imports go back to about 2 million barrels per day soon.

In the medium term, in a year or two, the USA may indeed become a net exporter. A lot of it will depend on oil prices. WTF brings up an interesting point,



If the price of oil goes to, say, $40 per barrel as a result of OPEC continuing to keep the floodgates open, this will indeed mean the USA won't become a net exporter. The unconventional oil plays in the USA mostly aren't economic at that price.

If the price goes to $70/barrel and stays there, then we will become a significant net exporter.

What's best? IB and Trump would argue $40 per barrel, as that's good for the economy and the consumer. Others would argue $70 per barrel is worth paying if it means we can have energy security. If we're an exporter, the Saudis or Iran or Venezuela can't hold us over a barrel. Remember the Arab oil embargo of 1973 and the 1973 recession. I don't know which argument is better, both sides have good points.
Saudi Arabia's new fields especially offshore require %70 per barrel oil to breakeven.

Russia also needs a price above at least $50 per barrel. Russia's big issue is the thousands of miles that oil has to travel even get to ships just to go to China.

Price of oil also depends on how easy certain crudes are to refine into products. Most of the oil from tight shale crude has to be blended with heavier crude oils to make it refinery worthy. "Crude oil" such as that from Eagle Ford is actually condensate and a refinery will lose up to 30% capacity due the very light nature of it. Such a loss of capacity would bankrupt most refineries.

That being said, oil companies do invest in R&D for new technology and materials used elsewhere way the hell more effectively than Silicon Valley. Low oil prices mean that research PhD's lose their jobs. For instance single wall carbon nanotubes in compounded materials in deepwater high temp high pressure components at the wellhead were used there before being used by NASA or military.
LakeCityGuy is offline   Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 03:59 PM   #37
WTF
Lifetime Premium Access
 
WTF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1, 2010
Location: houston
Posts: 48,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
The witticism "every cloud has a silver lining" comes to mind, and as Tiny conceded, an argument for either event has winning points.
Yes but you have been arguing how great LOW OIL PRICES are.

Now you are bragging about our oil exports.

Those two things do not play well together.

Trump wants the Saudis to keep pumping to drive the price even lower. Or at least that is what the silly sob is trying to convince his followers.

Which is probably what he really wants as he is no friend of big oil.
WTF is offline   Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 04:04 PM   #38
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeCityGuy View Post
Saudi Arabia's new fields especially offshore require %70 per barrel oil to breakeven.

Russia also needs a price above at least $50 per barrel. Russia's big issue is the thousands of miles that oil has to travel even get to ships just to go to China.

Price of oil also depends on how easy certain crudes are to refine into products. Most of the oil from tight shale crude has to be blended with heavier crude oils to make it refinery worthy. "Crude oil" such as that from Eagle Ford is actually condensate and a refinery will lose up to 30% capacity due the very light nature of it. Such a loss of capacity would bankrupt most refineries.

That being said, oil companies do invest in R&D for new technology and materials used elsewhere way the hell more effectively than Silicon Valley. Low oil prices mean that research PhD's lose their jobs. For instance single wall carbon nanotubes in compounded materials in deepwater high temp high pressure components at the wellhead were used there before being used by NASA or military.
+1



Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF View Post
Yes but you have been arguing how great LOW OIL PRICES are. Trump wants the Saudis to keep pumping to drive the price even lower. Or at least that is what the silly sob is trying to convince his followers.

Which is probably right as Trump is no oil man.
"Every cloud has a silver lining." Right now, the U.S. just became a net oil exporter for the first time in 75 years, and the U.S. can enjoy those perks until the next cloud floats into position.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 12-07-2018, 04:14 PM   #39
Tiny
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Join Date: Mar 4, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,710
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeCityGuy View Post
Saudi Arabia's new fields especially offshore require %70 per barrel oil to breakeven.

Russia also needs a price above at least $50 per barrel. Russia's big issue is the thousands of miles that oil has to travel even get to ships just to go to China.
The Saudi's are sitting on 266 billion barrels of oil reserves. That's not the "resource", it's reserves which can reasonably be expected to be produced from existing fields. That's also around 70 years production at current rates. So what it costs them to develop new fields isn't really relevant to the supply/demand situation. From what I've read, their capital, operating, transportation and G&A costs total around $10 per barrel. Yes, there are people out there that say the Saudis overstate reserves, their large fields are about to water out, etc. I'd take that with a grain of salt, but I may be wrong.

If the price of WTI goes to $70/barrel, it will be because the Saudi's and possibly other producers make it happen, by lowering their production. And if they do that, U.S. production from the Permian and a few of the other unconventional plays will increase enough to make the USA a very significant exporter.
Tiny is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved