Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on March 12, 2016

Bookmark and Share

$67 Oil Has All The Majors Converging Here

Consumption

Argentina offers one of the few places on earth where oil companies are not suffering from the full force of the collapse in prices.
Argentina regulates oil prices, a policy originally intended to insulate the public from the whims of the market, protecting people from triple-digit crude prices. But with the crash in prices since mid-2014, the effect of the regulation has reversed: motorists are now effectively subsidizing the oil industry. 

Prices for light oil are set at $67 per barrel and natural gas prices fixed at $7.50 per million Btu (MMBtu). That means consumers are not reaping the benefits of cheap fuel. The higher prices they pay offer a huge lifeline for the oil industry. 

From the consumer’s standpoint, that may not sound like a great deal. But it may help Argentina’s shale industry keep their momentum going. Argentina holds some of the largest shale potential outside of the United States. According to the EIA, Argentina has over 800 trillion cubic feet of unproved technically recoverable shale gas reserves (more than the 622 tcf located in the U.S.) and 27 billion barrels of shale oil, which is less than only the U.S., Russia, and China. 

The bulk of Argentina’s shale reserves are located in the Vaca Muerta, a vast shale basin in central Argentina. The Vaca Muerta has attracted companies from around the world, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and Gazprom. 

Drilling activity has continued to grow, but high costs and infrastructure constraints have prevented production levels from rocketing skywards as they did in places like Texas or North Dakota. 

But regulated oil prices could also prevent Argentina from suffering the effects of the bust that are now clearly visible across the well-known shale areas of the United States.

“This is so important, strategically,” said the outgoing CEO of state-owned YPF, Miguel Galuccio, referring to regulated prices, according to the WSJ. 

Last week, Galuccio announced that production from the Vaca Muerta continued to inch upwards, having reached 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boe/d), up from 44,000 boe/d last year. 

But Argentina faces profitability challenges even with regulated oil prices. Galuccio said that the profit from YPF’s shale oil and gas production was “marginal.” YPF announced spending reductions as well as the decision to reduce its rig count. The company spent only $4 billion in 2015, down from the original $6 billion it had planned on spending. YPF will trim another 25 percent from its budget for 2016. 

Galuccio argued, though, that the economics will improve as drilling scales up, techniques are refined, and operators learn more about the basin. He said that YPF has already reduced costs from the average shale well from $16 million to $13 million a piece. He expects that costs will decline to $10 million per well in 2016. 

Regulated oil prices can buy YPF – and other companies, including YPF’s joint venture partner, Chevron – some space to continue to drill and bring costs down. “We are doing this to sustain activity and employment,” said Argentina’s labor minister, Jorge Triaca, referring to artificially high prices. 

“You’ve got to incentivize people to do exploration and development, especially when prices are low,” said Ali Moshiri, the top Chevron official in Latin America said. “If Argentina carries on with these incentives, it will encourage others to come to the country.” 

Meanwhile, a corporate makeover is also underway. Argentina’s new President Mauricio Macri pushed YPF’s CEO Miguel Galuccio out the door last week. The FT reportedthat Argentina’s new energy minister, Juan José Aranguren, was not fond of Galuccio. In particular, he was critical of ballooning debt levels that took place under Galuccio’s management. Galuccio will be succeeded by a former JP Morgan executive. 

But Galuccio is also credited with turning YPF’s fortunes around. Since taking the helm in 2012 after the government of former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner nationalized YPF, he improved the company’s operations and achieved production increases. 

President Macri and the new YPF CEO hope to keep the momentum going. Whether or not having the Argentinian public subsidize oil prices is smart policy, it offers the shale industry a rare bright spot for the energy industry.

oilprice.com



48 Comments on "$67 Oil Has All The Majors Converging Here"

  1. Boat on Sat, 12th Mar 2016 8:49 pm 

    As a US citizen I have long thought drilling on on federal land should be used as government revenue. Cap the wells when the prices are low and create revenue when prices are high.

  2. GregT on Sat, 12th Mar 2016 9:23 pm 

    “As a US citizen I have long thought drilling on on federal land should be used as government revenue.”

    As an individual example of the naked ape species Boat, you display the characteristics most commonly exhibited by the sheep. The inability to think for yourself, the belief that money is the end-all be-all, and that other apes are responsible for your behaviour. Complete, and total mindless idiot that you are. Not a fucking clue.

  3. Practicalmaina on Sat, 12th Mar 2016 9:30 pm 

    The government was only charging 1$ a ton on some coal from federal land, we lost billions in revenue to prop up big coals profit and make it competitive with the falling prices on lng and renewables.
    How much did these desicions also add to increased healthcare cost in our country?

  4. GregT on Sat, 12th Mar 2016 9:40 pm 

    The government? We lost billions? Our country?

    Seriously Practical, you usually come across as an intelligent individual, but your above comment makes you sound more like a typical Boat sheeple.

  5. joe on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 4:35 am 

    What? Government intervention and regulation saved an industry and jobs? Thats Bernie Sanders communism, i bet big oil is really upset about this!

  6. Gordon Williams - Businessman on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 6:59 am 

    In my assessment of Oil price derailing and slow National GDPs in all Oil producing Countries and Finance Minister are all Lackeys. International Oil Price will return to US$71.25 per barrel by late July to early September 2016. How ever if Russia and Iran continues on their current trajectory, they will in fact cause prices to fall by Early November 2016 to $47 per Barrel. Here is my overview of what all the Major Economies of the world needs to become engaged with. First the US is heating up Trump is the GOP front runner a Putin Supporter and Clinton is the Dems front runner a pro-China President. We have major imbalances and big Geo-Political Ideological issues still. We have the Syrian Civil-war, Iraq ethnic race issue, we have Tension in the Arabian peninsula, major maritime disputes in the south China Seas, North and South Korea will go to war if a de-escalation is not properly brokered and China playing a role as a major Economic Power rather than a military Jack-ass carrying a massive military bill for no reason at all. China needs to back off its present trajectory of military confrontation with the US because china has given itself a bad name recently by laying claims to Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and other South Asian nations territorial waters. So can’t see China being able to confront bad Japan – Bad Vietnam small Philippines and Malaysia alongside the bad Great white shake of the seas USA naval outfit. China you behaving like hungry a pot-hung up against pit-bull USA. China please take my advise give back the south china seas island and return to business as usual policy and trade with Japan and the rest of Asia and enjoy Economic prosperity in the world and become the world greatest economy please. Get into the business of making cheap no go products and cars that only drive 100 miles and cannot return make cheap goods and bad milk with rock extracts, clear dump pits and protect your citizens not to engage the west

  7. Davy on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 7:59 am 

    Oil clearly has the potential to go to $67 but not much more if demand destruction is now the dominant economic trend which is appearing to be the case. We can’t afford higher prices we saw just a few years ago. We are likely in a period of demand and supply destruction which has a new and lower price range. Prices may spike again but the duration of that spike will be very restrained. The bubble finance period of QE, ZIRP, and a bubble driven Chinese economy are over and never to return.

  8. Outcast_Searcher on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 10:05 am 

    Davy, considering that global demand has increased slowly but fairly steadily for the past decade, except for the 2008-2009 global recession, saying that “demand destruction is the dominant economic trend” is utter nonsense. Also, outfits like the EIA and the IEA are forecasting demand for oil to continue to increase or at least be stable until 2040 or so.

    Why folks like you continue to preach “demand destruction” even as prices have become dirt cheap on a relative basis only makes sense if you are desperate to maintain the illusion of the short term economic doom meme, at the cost of your credibility about economics.

    So be it. Meanwhile in the real world, the pace of total third world demand increases is outpacing the savings the first world realizes through technology and conservation and slower growth. Oh, and the cheap gas is also causing demand for gasoline to rise in the US as people return in droves to gas guzzlers.

    If everyone in the US is too impoverished to buy gas for their car, it’s kind of odd how rents and real estate prices rise due to higher demand, people bought 17.5 million new cars (a record) in 2015 in the US, etc.

    If you’re going to just make stuff up, why not just read zerohedge?

  9. geopressure on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 10:18 am 

    Davy, China just received 300+ Billion U$D worth of stimulus last week…

    Demand Destruction does not exists…

  10. rockman on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 10:41 am 

    No matter how many post predictions of radical increases in the price of oil the Rockman will make one of his rare predictions regarding rates and prices: it ain’t going to f*cking happen. LOL.

    The Rockman won’t explain: everyone is so tied emotionally to their expectation OPINIONS will not change regardless of what FACTS are presented.

    In the last 70+ years has the inflation adjusted price of oil has ever returned to the level of a prervios price spike? That was when it reached $136/bbl in June 2008 compared to $117/bbl in Dec 1979. And that 2008 spike lasted only a few months. The recovery to just $110/bbl took several years. And the collapse from $60/bbl in 1985 took almost 20 years to recover to that price.

    And why? Because the KSA, frustrated with the rest of OPEC for not reducing production levels, opened their wells up and refused to reduce its rate.

    Sound familiar? LOL. Not that history repeats itself exactly but how different are the dynamics today then after the KSA produced almost full out for the 20 years after 1985? The only significance difference one might see today is the potential for more oil coming to market from an OPEC member, Iran. But how is that different then 1986 when the KSA opened the taps: in both cases these countries had the same motivation: recapture market share to increase revenue? Is Iran going to voluntarily hold back production so the KSA can reap the benefit? Is the KSA going to cut production so Iran can reap the benefit?

    Does anyone have any logic to offer that would support their expectations for oil prices to increase significantly any time soon? It’s very easy to predict higher oil prices without offering any reasonable explanation for it happening.

  11. Davy on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 11:12 am 

    Sure guys explain away all the systematic bad debt, malinvestment, overcapacity, ghost developement, unfunded liabilities, destroyed ecosystem and disrupted climate. You guys can wallow in your Econ soup and slow boil. I have eyes wide open to reality. Demand destruction is in control now with deflation, decay and growth that is really only a cancer. You will wake up one day to reality.

  12. shortonoil on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 11:13 am 

    “Davy, considering that global demand has increased slowly but fairly steadily for the past decade, except for the 2008-2009 global recession, saying that “demand destruction is the dominant economic trend”

    Over the last 5 years average world production of all liquids has increased by 1.16% per year. That is not even enough to account for the increase in inventories that have gone into storage. It is certainly not enough to account for the increased petroleum usage needed to produce petroleum. If production has not increased how can demand increase?

    http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=53&aid=1

    If talking about petroleum production, and not ethanol, palm oil and camel pea (condensate) the situation is even worse:

    http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=oil&graph=production

    Petroleum production is flat, and has been for several years. If you are pulling your facts off the MSM, you are as clueless as they are!

    “If you’re going to just make stuff up, why not just read zerohedge?”

    Take a look at the data, and stop parroting everything that you read.

  13. Davy on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 11:14 am 

    Geo, 1% of nothin is still nothin. Dream on about China saving the day. China is the poison pill that will bring the global system to its knees.

  14. geopressure on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 11:37 am 

    Who told you that? Some Pundit on CNBC?

  15. Davy on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 11:43 am 

    Geo, join reality and realize numbers are meaningless without context.

  16. Plantagenet on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 11:49 am 

    Rock man can’t think of a single reason why oil prices might go up

    Here’s one: PEAK OIL

    Saudi is going to peak soon and their production will drop. Russia is peaking now as well

    Less oil means higher prices.

    Cheers!

  17. geopressure on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 12:08 pm 

    Rock man can’t think of a single reason why oil prices might go up

    Increasing demand… 3 Million cars/month being sold in Asia…

  18. shortonoil on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 1:19 pm 

    “Increasing demand… 3 Million cars/month being sold in Asia…”

    Where has this oil that is being increasingly used coming from – the Moon? See post, and references above. It couldn’t possibly be that the Chinese Ministry of Truth is stretching the Truth a little bit? Either that or they blow up a 100 miles down the road. When 2 +2 comes out to 5 it is time to start asking a few questions.

    There seems to be a certain group of people who are going to ignore reality, no matter how blatantly it is pushed in their face. It is almost like it is their job to act stupid. What kind of a job application is used in the hiring process? A ten year old front cover from Mad Magazine?

    So stop insulting our intelligence and go buy yourself a car on a 100 year, no money down, 0% loan. Do your part for the economy!

  19. twocats on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 1:21 pm 

    Well the article is about setting a floor price for oil at $67, not prices going to $67. Generally these command-economy tactics don’t work, but perhaps in this case (at least in the medium term) it is working to avoid collapse in a vital industry.

  20. geopressure on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 1:23 pm 

    Car Sales is a number that can’t be lied about the way that GDP & Jobs numbers can be…

  21. twocats on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 1:24 pm 

    As for the price of oil, demand destruction, and all the things you guys are talking about, I would caution against any firm opinion in either direction. Shit is really complicated right now, and not in the energy patch, I’m talking about the world economic patch.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-13/what-ray-dalio-thinks-trump-phenomenon

    the entire interview is instructive. he starts with talking about Long Term Debt Cycles. Around minute 4 he talks about “Monetary Policy 3” and giving Money Directly to Consumers (even calls it Helicopter Money). So don’t think they aren’t contemplating that.

    So clearly there is economic worry by the Masters of the Universe. He mentions the loss of the “Wealth Effect” numerous times, about 5 or 6.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-03-03/bridgewater-s-ray-dalio-on-economy-investing-success

    But the section mentioned at ZH doesn’t begin until minute 27…

  22. twocats on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 1:28 pm 

    So he’s calling for moderation, kumbaya, cooperation, working together, level headed-ness. Yeah, that’s because the Master are Scared Shitless by Sanders and Trump!

    At a time when the Wealth Gap is at astronomical highs, who at the bottom is going to listen to calls for moderation! HE MENTIONS haves / have-not’s so he KNOWS what the problem is!!

    The moderation he’s referring to has a name Jackass, it’s called THE MIDDLE CLASS! That was Capitalism’s answer to the Class Struggle – put a barrier in-between the Rich and Poor, give the Poor something realistic to strive for, and put a Buffer, vested in the system, equally fearful of the poor, inbetween You (the rich) and the Poor.

    Well, the Buffer is gone. And now they’re fucked, and they don’t know what to do.

    Peak oil might mean that there are just fewer crumbs left on the table to sweep to the poor and former middle classes of the world, I really don’t know. But these issues that are grinding the gears on the global economy, it goes beyond Peak Oil.

  23. Boat on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 2:35 pm 

    short,,,,

    “Over the last 5 years average world production of all liquids has increased by 1.16% per year. That is not even enough to account for the increase in inventories that have gone into storage”.

    Your a trip, lol. This is how a glut is built. That and all improved efficiency you doomers discredit. Look at your 2nd chart. It goes back to the 60’s. 1-2 percent demand growth is normal. Another thng doomers can’t quite wrap their heads around…..

  24. rockman on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 4:00 pm 

    Two points. Less oil production doesn’t lead to high prices. Oil didn’t go to $100/bbl because oil production DECREASED. Such simplistic thinking ignores the POD and puts too much emphasis on PO dates.

    As far as the increase in Asian auto sales please try to stay up with the conversation. LOL. The discussion was dealing with PRICES. And one wishes to inject demand into the discussion that’s OK. But it has to be about GLOBAL DEMAND. A little bit of uncommon sense should apply: in the last few years we’ve seen a huge increase in Asian auto sales, in particular China. And what has happened to oil prices: they tanked. So there you go…proof positive: increased auto sales in China caused lower oil prices. LOL.

    Does the Rockman have to tell the story about the blind men and the f*cking elephant again? Dealing with folks cherry picking individual components of the POD to debate separately is starting to feel like trying to herd cats. LOL.

  25. GregT on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 4:16 pm 

    “Look at your 2nd chart. It goes back to the 60’s.”

    “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.” – Abraham Lincoln

  26. rockman on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 4:19 pm 

    And as far as the govt shutting in wells on govt leases during low price periods they can’t: those wells don’t belong to them. They belong to the companies that PAID the govt to produce the oil/NG from the wells those companies PAID to drill. So if the govt wants to have that control all it has to do is make it part of any NEW leases it grants. I’m sure that won’t impact the enthusiasm of companies that would be spending mucho $BILLIONS on Deep Water GOM projects on those new leases. LOL.

    Or better yet: let the govt invest the capital to develop reserves on their leases. They could put the operations under the US Post Office since they are so good at handling $BILLIONS of tax payers money. LOL.

    Or even better: use the Venezuelan play book on dealing with govt fossil fuel leases…that’s working out so well for them today.

    Maybe we need to post a warning on our website’s opening page: “CAUTIION – CHILDREN AT PLAY”. LOL.

  27. shortonoil on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 4:57 pm 

    “It goes back to the 60’s. 1-2 percent demand growth is normal.”

    Boat, are you trying to be an idiot or does it come naturally?

    Between 1960 and 2009, 50 years according to the EIA, production grew from 20.99 mb/d to 72.26 mb/d. Now get out your TI calculator and figure out the average yearly growth rate for those 50 years. The equation is F = P(1+i)^50; that is 2.52% per year average growth for a half century (just in case you don’t know what 50 years is either).

    When you have learned how to add, subtract, multiply and divide come back and see us. In the meantime work on getting that shoe out of your mouth; the one with the foot connected to it.

  28. twocats on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 5:06 pm 

    Over the last 5 years average world production of all liquids has increased by 1.16% per year. That is not even enough to account for the increase in inventories that have gone into storage”.

    Your a trip, lol. This is how a glut is built. That and all improved efficiency you doomers discredit. Look at your 2nd chart. It goes back to the 60’s. 1-2 percent demand growth is normal. [boat]

    just want to be clear, you do understand Short said 1.16% PRODUCTION increase. You then mention Demand. Just want to be clear because you sound a little confused.

    Also, wasn’t there general agreement (recently) that demand growth has been averaging AT LEAST 1.4% over the past several decades? Well, now we’re down to only 1% demand growth (I mean Demand has to be Less than Production in order to have a glut? Right? Right?)

    and to be honest Boat, there are some changing goal posts here. I remember a time when anything below 2% Growth WAS considered anemic. You can only get to the “1.4% Demand-Growth-Is- Awesome” IF you throw in RECESSIONS.

    According to everything I’ve read we haven’t had a Recession since the 2007 – 2009 period.

    I mean, I’m not asking you to concede that the world is ending. And there is the efficiency factor that you mentioned. But I have trouble seeing how 6 – 10% a year India / China demand growth for oil (and drop in US and Europe) somehow equates to the US economy doing Great, or even Normal?

    That’s a hell of a lot of decoupling!

  29. twocats on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 5:13 pm 

    Between 1960 and 2009, 50 years according to the EIA, production grew from 20.99 mb/d to 72.26 mb/d. Now get out your TI calculator and figure out the average yearly growth rate for those 50 years. The equation is F = P(1+i)^50; that is 2.52% per year average growth for a half century (just in case you don’t know what 50 years is either). [short]

    Thank you Short! Please Boat – feel free to respond.

  30. shortonoil on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 5:20 pm 

    Oil has fallen almost 70% in price and there has been almost no compensatory increase in demand. Demand has not risen by 3% because production has not risen by 3%. For the last five years it has averaged 1.16% per year. Because of depletion the value of oil to the economy has fallen. The same thing has happened to petroleum that has happened to every mineral that has ever been extracted for the last 2000 years.

    http://www.jayhanson.org/MoreCurves.html

    It takes an ever increasing amount of energy to produce it.

    Because oil is an energy source (it isn’t much good for anything else) there is less an less energy available for sale from any specific amount of production. The economy slows as a result and the demand for oil goes down. Consequently the price goes down.

    The world is now headed for the bottom of the barrel, and it will not take long to get there!

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

  31. geopressure on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 5:24 pm 

    It is difficult to have an intelligent conversation about the crude oil market & it’s complexities here… I have tried before & failed… But You comment about Chinese/Indian Auto sales skyrocketing, yet the price going down, is an excellent opportunity to point out that since mid 2014, manipulation (on the supply side) has played a key role in the crude oil market…

    How do you get a Supply Excess when Libya, Iran, & Iraq are all producing practically nothing & yet Asian demand is growing by leaps & bounds?

    How did an excess of supply suddenly spring forth so fast that Crude Analysts & Futures Traders had no idea this new supply was even in the development stage???

    Either there were some top secret discoveries being developed & brought online while being hidden from market analysts or the excess supply came from storage…

    Here’s the chart: http://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?t=CL&p=m1

  32. shortonoil on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 5:27 pm 

    “Thank you Short! Please Boat – feel free to respond.”

    Having trouble with the math, or the EIA data?

    One is set in stone, the other is the best that there is!

  33. Boat on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 7:25 pm 

    short, twocats,

    I did say a couple things wrong. Poduction growth has been typic

  34. marmico on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 7:26 pm 

    Between 1960 and 2009, 50 years according to the EIA, production grew from 20.99 mb/d to 72.26 mb/d.

    Who gives a shit. Production has risen a little less than 1% per annum from 1980 to 2015 from 59.56 mb/d to 80.07 mb/d.

  35. Boat on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 7:46 pm 

    Typically 1-2 mbpy production is normal growth for decades. I was using rough math admittedly. Using 1-2 percent production was wrong.

  36. twocats on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 7:54 pm 

    marmico – you’re an idiot. You can’t use post-2002 as a baseline for what peak oil doesn’t look like, 2002 is the early onset of peak oil. So yes, if almost half of your time frame includes the onset of peak oil, of course the production increase is going to look small. That’s the meaning of peak oil. God, get out of here, I’m trying to understand Boat.

  37. twocats on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 8:02 pm 

    Thank you boat, I appreciate your admission. I think the two sides get so entrenched and invested in their positions they aren’t willing to let any data in which might threaten that position.

    Especially on a conversation about price – it’s really hard to tell what’s causing it. For instance, I like your opinion about the changing nature of Iran’s contribution to world supply. It’s that type of perspective that I’d like to keep open at least for my own sake.

  38. Boat on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 8:57 pm 

    twocats,

    I an not pro oil or anti oil. I just like to guess where it’s headed.

  39. GregT on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 10:59 pm 

    “I an not pro oil or anti oil. I just like to guess where it’s headed.”

    You’re full of shit Boat. You constantly ignore any and all info that doesn’t fit with your narrative, and you continually call down those who are honestly trying to find the truth.

    Not only are you a moron, you’re a liar as well.

  40. twocats on Sun, 13th Mar 2016 11:35 pm 

    Boat,

    As far as being curious about where things are headed, Yep, I feel the same way.

    pro and anti oil, that’s a good question. I guess I appreciate oil’s stored energy potential, I just wish humans were smarter about its use. I’m assuming that’s not an unpopular opinion on this site.

    Well, I’ll see you at the next thread.

  41. Boat on Mon, 14th Mar 2016 12:03 am 

    GregT,

    Brush those two teeth and put down the banjo Your rual outrage is damaging to your health.

  42. GregT on Mon, 14th Mar 2016 12:47 am 

    “Brush those two teeth and put down the banjo Your rual outrage is damaging to your health.”

    Your childish imagination has no basis in reality Boat, and does nothing what-so-ever to counter your denial, your ignorance, or your stupidity.

  43. marmico on Mon, 14th Mar 2016 2:28 am 

    From 1960 to 1973 (13 year period), oil production cumulatively increased ~150% [~35 mb/d]; from 1973 to 2015 (42 year period), ~45% [~25 mb/d].

    Geez, I wonder what happened in 1973, 2felines.

  44. rockman on Mon, 14th Mar 2016 6:40 am 

    “How did an excess of supply suddenly spring forth so fast…” Easy answer: a huge drop in demand for expensive oil. Unlike the huge demand increase we’ve just experienced for $30/bbl oil.

  45. Practicalmaina on Mon, 14th Mar 2016 9:44 am 

    Boat brushes his teeth with pure fluoride 🙂 I have no opinion or passion for where prices are going. I do not have spare cash to bet on futures. I hope they are low at the gas stations I go to, because I will reinvest savings wisely, and expensive as fuck for everyone else, so people stop buying half ton pickups for grocery getters.

  46. GregT on Mon, 14th Mar 2016 9:58 am 

    Gasoline prices in Vancouver BC first rose above the $1/litre mark in 2005. People were in a panic to get rid of their large SUVs and pickup trucks. They couldn’t give them away.

    http://climate.uvic.ca/people/ewiebe/gasoline_prices.php

    Fast forward to 2016, 11 short years later, gasoline at the pump is $1.16/ per litre, and people now think that it is cheap. Full sized pickups and SUVs are flying out of the dealership doors.

    If there is one thing for certain, human beings in general, have extremely short memories.

  47. geopressure on Mon, 14th Mar 2016 1:26 pm 

    Demand was growing throughout 2014…

    Demand was growing throughout 2013 & the first half of 2014 when prices were over $100/BBL…

    The rate of demand growth has only escalated with declining prices…

    So: “a huge drop in demand for expensive oil” can’t be the reason for the rice decline…

  48. shortonoil on Mon, 14th Mar 2016 2:26 pm 

    “From 1960 to 1973 (13 year period)”

    1960 to 1973 is 14 years you friging idiot.

    60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,
    70,71,72,73

    The EIA reports year END.

    Next time take your shoes off before you open your mouth. That way you can count past ten.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *