#1 2014-12-01 11:39:28
You cut off the money supply. I have said this before, and it is finally happening. The U.S. is producing oil at a profit at a price well below OPEC's break even point. Now, if we can just keep our own government from being bought off by the oil sheiks, we can put these ragheads back in the desert herding goats and out of the terrorism business.
“We can produce down to $50 a barrel,” said Harold Hamm, from Continental Resources. The International Energy Agency said most of North Dakota’s vast Bakken field “remains profitable at or below $42 per barrel. The break-even price in McKenzie County, the most productive county in the state, is only $28 per barrel.”
In the meantime, oil below $70 is already playing havoc with budgets across the global petro-nexus. The fiscal break-even cost is $161 for Venezuela, $160 for Yemen, $132 for Algeria, $131 for Iran, $126 for Nigeria, and $125 for Bahrain, $111 for Iraq, and $105 for Russia, and even $98 for Saudi Arabia itself, according to Citigroup.
Offline
#2 2014-12-01 14:39:40
But can you convince the powers that be to get our troops out of those said countries, or even reduce our military footprint? I think not. Imperialism is Imperialism.
Offline
#3 2014-12-01 17:32:23
Dmtdust wrote:
But can you convince the powers that be to get our troops out of those said countries, or even reduce our military footprint? I think not. Imperialism is Imperialism.
Some imperialists we are. From what I see, we have gained nothing but trouble from being in the Middle East. Without need to protect our oil connections, I say we get out and let them go back to tribal warfare if that is their wish.
Offline
#4 2014-12-01 17:56:18
Of course, not burning the stuff in the first place is the most viable option.
Offline
#5 2014-12-01 20:19:16
Tall Paul wrote:
Of course, not burning the stuff in the first place is the most viable option.
Good luck with that. This is something that only the normal citizens want, not the people who run this country.
Offline
#6 2014-12-02 04:47:43
That's if you trust Citi's numbers, I don't.
Offline
#7 2014-12-02 06:27:13
Emmeran wrote:
That's if you trust Citi's numbers, I don't.
I only trust Shitigroup to be evil conniving weasels, so I'm never disappointed.
Offline
#8 2014-12-02 09:00:05
Tall Paul wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
That's if you trust Citi's numbers, I don't.
I only trust Shitigroup to be evil conniving weasels, so I'm never disappointed.
Precisely, Citi has a lot of skin in this game. The idea that the Saud's are underwater at $98 but we are good down to $50 doesn't pass the smell test either. The costs for their production have already been offset while our shale fields are still being developed under a massive and quickly growing corporate debt pile.
And don't forget for a moment that Europe and Asia have massive shale fields also. Eliminating dependency on this commodity is the only realistic answer to our problem.
Offline
#9 2014-12-02 13:48:30
Like abandoning it before we taint/pollute every water table on the continent. Seriously, we have other options.
Offline
#10 2014-12-02 16:40:17
Dmtdust wrote:
Like abandoning it before we taint/pollute every water table on the continent. Seriously, we have other options.
But what fun is there in that? Next you're going to say we should stop fighting over shit that is polluting our two most vital resources (air & water).
Offline
#11 2014-12-02 16:57:40
Emmeran wrote:
Tall Paul wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
That's if you trust Citi's numbers, I don't.
I only trust Shitigroup to be evil conniving weasels, so I'm never disappointed.
Precisely, Citi has a lot of skin in this game. The idea that the Saud's are underwater at $98 but we are good down to $50 doesn't pass the smell test either. The costs for their production have already been offset while our shale fields are still being developed under a massive and quickly growing corporate debt pile.
And don't forget for a moment that Europe and Asia have massive shale fields also. Eliminating dependency on this commodity is the only realistic answer to our problem.
Last time this happened, in the late 1980's I think, Texas and Oklahoma started capping wells at $28. Fast-forward 25 years later, what's their break-even point now?
Offline
#12 2014-12-02 18:27:44
Baywolfe wrote:
Last time this happened, in the late 1980's I think, Texas and Oklahoma started capping wells at $28. Fast-forward 25 years later, what's their break-even point now?
Last time we got in a price war with the Saud's we got our asses handed to us. However this time I think it's aimed more at IS & Russia.
Offline
#13 2014-12-02 22:30:04
Regardless of the breakeven points, the more oil on the market, the better for everyone in the world except OPEC and Russia and anyone invested in them. Coincidentally, most of the OPEC members are either sponsors of terrorism or bitterly anti American. To hell with all of them.
Offline
#17 2014-12-13 21:07:56
Emmeran wrote:
Yeah, I tried to explain this Phred but he has no clue about economics. Fuck the towel-heads, the Americans will cap them fucking wells as soon as they're not making a profit on them.
We've got $2.00 a gallon gas here in Texas based on future projections of demand continuing to diminish.
However, none of this is new news to anyone who has read the business pages the last few years. American dependency of foreign oil is rapidly approaching zero and we will soon become an oil exporter, not importer. Just as predicted by the patterns of consumption and production for the last decade.
Offline
