Discussion:
More trouble for the Alberta tarsands . . . .
(too old to reply)
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-11-04 21:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Seems Saudi Arabia is opening up its oil taps to compete with countries which
have been stock-piling oil supplies. Among those countries would be Canada and
the United States.
Lower, competing prices for oil at the source should mean lower prices for
consumers.

It could also mean the reduction of oil from the tarsands . . . which would
mean less CO2 emissions and less contribution to global warming. Saudi Arabia
still has 'flowing' oil resources with no fracking involved, so they can
extract it for a much lesser cost. We should all be thankful for this turn of
events in the oil industry - let Albertans put in a 5% PST tax like the rest of
the country and stop relying on money from pollution and destruction of our land.
____________________________________
http://www.reuters.com/LONDON Tue Nov 4, 2014

Saudi Arabia is not declaring a volume war (yet)


(Reuters) - Saudi Aramco cut the price of December crude deliveries to U.S.
refiners on Monday in order to protect its competitiveness amid an erosion of
its U.S. market share by rival exporters such as Canada and Iraq.

In August, U.S. crude imports from Saudi Arabia slipped below 900,000 barrels
per day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

With the exception of a brief period in 2009 and early 2010, Saudi exports to
the United States fell to the lowest level since 1988.

U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia in August were just 70 percent of the average
level for the past ten years which has been around 1.3 million barrels per day.

Saudi oil, which is priced at a differential to a U.S. sour crude marker, had
become too expensive compared with alternatives available to U.S. refiners.

So Saudi Aramco has been forced to cut the differentials for U.S. refiners by
between 45 and 50 cents (depending on grade) per barrel even as it raised
differentials for refiners in Europe and Asia.


RIVAL EXPORTERS

Some commentators have interpreted the U.S. price cuts as a signal the kingdom
is initiating a deliberate price-war targeting U.S. shale producers. The
reality is more complex.

Most Saudi exports to the United States are much heavier and certainly sourer
than the light sweet oils being produced from shale formations like North
Dakota’s Bakken and Texas’ Eagle Ford.

Aramco has therefore been spared head-to-head competition from rising U.S.
shale output, which has mostly fallen on U.S. imports from West Africa.

However, the company’s market share over the summer was hit by competition from
Iraq, Venezuela, Brazil and Canada, so Aramco has cut its prices in the region
to stabilize sales and buy back some of its lost share.


OFFICIAL PRICES

Saudi Aramco prices its crude sales against different benchmarks in the United
States, Europe and Asia and applies a different set of differentials in each
region to reach a final selling price.

Past experience suggests differentials are primarily used to offset variations
between the regional benchmarks to ensure Aramco’s crude sells at broadly the
same price in each region.

Final selling prices vary much less between the regions than the differentials
themselves.

For example, the differentials for Arab Medium grade delivered in December
range by more than $4 per barrel from a discount of $5.00 in Europe and $1.60
in Asia to a discount of just 65 cents in the United States.

But the outright prices (benchmark plus or minus the differential) currently
range just over $2 between the most expensive region (Asia) and the cheapest
(the United States).

For Arab Light, the differentials vary by $4.95 per barrel, but outright sales
prices currently vary by just $1.78.


MARKETING STRATEGY

Traders and refiners need liquid benchmarks to hedge their exposure to
fluctuations in crude. But none of the benchmarks closely resembles the grades
of oil marketed by Saudi Aramco, which is why the company has to apply large
and variable monthly adjustments to its selling prices via the differentials.

Saudi Aramco’s marketers attempt to ensure (1) refiners buy all the cargoes
which the company has on offer and (2) sales prices in the three regions are
broadly equalized.

The first point is obvious. Saudi oil has to be priced competitively with other
similar grades or refiners will buy something else instead.

The second is more subtle. Saudi exports are protected against inter-regional
arbitrage by destination clauses: oil sold to a refiner in the United States
cannot be diverted and resold to a refiner in Asia.

But other crudes can be arbitraged between the regions and so can the final
products produced from refined oil.

Refiners are all, to some extent, competing against one another in both the
market for buying crude and in the sale of refined products.

Aramco must price its crude to ensure its customers are not put at a
competitive disadvantage in either market.

While most Saudi oil is sold on long term contracts (with market-linked
pricing) Aramco would rapidly lose customers if its oil proved to be expensive
compared with other grades.

The potential for arbitrage in both crude and product markets ensures that
inter-regional differences in final selling prices are ordinarily no more than
$2-3 per barrel.


ARAMCO IS REACTIVE

Changes in official selling prices are often interpreted as evidence of a
“grand strategy” for market management by senior policymakers in Riyadh and
Dhahran.

For the most part, however, Saudi Aramco’s pricing strategy is reactive rather
than proactive. The company adjusts differentials in response to current and
forecast market conditions to maintain the competitiveness of its oil sales.

At the margin, Saudi Aramco can adjust differentials to push slightly more oil
into the market or hold sales back, as well as to alter the balance of sales
between regions.

But most of the changes in differentials are driven by the need to react to
external events (such as refining demand and the availability of competing
crudes) rather than Saudi strategy.

The distribution of Saudi sales to the three regions displays a high degree of
stability over time (in contrast to the differentials themselves).

In the case of the United States, Aramco’s crude was too expensive in June,
July and August, and export volumes slumped by almost 700,000 barrels per day.

Like any other marketer, to reverse some of those losses, Aramco has cut its
differentials to make its oil more attractive.

The price cuts will intensify the competitive pressure on U.S. shale producers,
but that is an indirect consequence of the policy, not its primary objective,
which is to maintain market share.

In any event, the Americas accounted for less than 20 percent of Saudi exports
in 2013, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

In the much larger Asian market, which accounted for almost 70 percent of sales
in 2013, where Aramco’s oil has been competitive, the company has actually
boosted differentials for December sales by around $1 per barrel.

Changes in differentials in the U.S. market are not a sign that Saudi Aramco is
declaring a volume war on U.S. shale producers or other oil exporters (any more
than differential increases in Asia signal the opposite).

But that might be the unintended consequence if everyone tries to defend their
market share. Sooner or later someone somewhere has to cut: whether it is the
Saudis and OPEC, non-OPEC suppliers like Canada, U.S. shale producers, or all
of them.
Alan Baker
2014-11-04 21:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Seems Saudi Arabia is opening up its oil taps to compete with countries
which have been stock-piling oil supplies. Among those countries would
be Canada and the United States.
Lower, competing prices for oil at the source should mean lower prices
for consumers.
It could also mean the reduction of oil from the tarsands . . . which
would mean less CO2 emissions and less contribution to global warming.
So if oilsands oil isn't burned but Saudi oil is...

...how will this reduce CO2 emissions exactly?
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Saudi Arabia still has 'flowing' oil resources with no fracking
involved, so they can extract it for a much lesser cost.
There's no fracking involved in the oil sands, Karen. But then, you're
not really interested in facts, are you?
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
We should all be thankful for this turn of events in the oil industry
- let Albertans put in a 5% PST tax like the rest of the country
Ummm... ...PST is 7% in BC, Karen;...

...8% in Manitoba...

...effectively 8% in Ontario...

...etc.

There is only ONE province where the PST rate is only 5%.

Again: that fact thing.
M.I.Wakefield
2014-11-04 22:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Seems Saudi Arabia is opening up its oil taps to compete with countries
which have been stock-piling oil supplies. Among those countries would
be Canada and the United States.
Wrong. They're driving prices lower because the don't want competition from
shale and the oil sands ... the Saudi's can produce oil for about $30 a
barrel ... oil from the North Dakota shale boom costs around $75 a barrel
... low prices will reduce development, allowing them greater profits later.
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Lower, competing prices for oil at the source should mean lower prices
for consumers.
Which will do what to oil consumption and CO2 emissions?
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
It could also mean the reduction of oil from the tarsands . . . which
would mean less CO2 emissions and less contribution to global warming.
Absolutely dead wrong. Again. Lower prices will increase consumption,
which will mean more CO2 emissions, and increased global warming.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-11-04 22:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Absolutely dead wrong. Again. Lower prices will increase consumption, which
will mean more CO2 emissions, and increased global warming.
People will start driving around and around the block, yelling out the window:
"Hey! It's only a dollar a litre!" ?

Loading Image...
Alan Baker
2014-11-04 22:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Absolutely dead wrong. Again. Lower prices will increase consumption, which
will mean more CO2 emissions, and increased global warming.
People will start driving around and around the block, yelling out the
window: "Hey! It's only a dollar a litre!" ?
People consume more...

...in this case, will make more discretionary trips...

...when prices are lower, Karen.

Has this basic economic concept really eluded you until now?
M.I.Wakefield
2014-11-04 22:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Absolutely dead wrong. Again. Lower prices will increase consumption, which
will mean more CO2 emissions, and increased global warming.
People will start driving around and around the block, yelling out the
window: "Hey! It's only a dollar a litre!" ?
People consume more...
...in this case, will make more discretionary trips...
...when prices are lower, Karen.
Has this basic economic concept really eluded you until now?
People also hang on to their gas-guzzling, emission spewing, dumb-ass pickup
trucks for an extra couple of years.

In some cases, half the cost of an airline trip is fuel surcharges ...
surcharges come down ... people fly more.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-11-04 23:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
People also hang on to their gas-guzzling, emission spewing, dumb-ass pickup
trucks for an extra couple of years.
That likely has more to do with the job situation in Canada under the Harper
regime - than it does the price of fuel.
Post by M.I.Wakefield
In some cases, half the cost of an airline trip is fuel surcharges ...
surcharges come down ... people fly more.
So you've seen the airlines drop surcharges when fuel prices come down. You
don't live in Canada, do you?

Loading Image...
Alan Baker
2014-11-04 23:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by M.I.Wakefield
People also hang on to their gas-guzzling, emission spewing, dumb-ass pickup
trucks for an extra couple of years.
That likely has more to do with the job situation in Canada under the
Harper regime - than it does the price of fuel.
1. He's talking about a consequence of lower fuel prices: less pressure
to replace a less fuel efficient vehicle.

2. For the record, when the PCs formed the government in 2006, the
unemployment rate was 6.3%...

...and then there was a world-wide recession that drove it to a peak of
8.3% in 2009...

...and it's been coming down since.

<http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=16>

Facts just aren't your friends, are they?
Barry Bruyea
2014-11-05 10:22:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by Alan Baker
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Absolutely dead wrong. Again. Lower prices will increase consumption, which
will mean more CO2 emissions, and increased global warming.
People will start driving around and around the block, yelling out the
window: "Hey! It's only a dollar a litre!" ?
People consume more...
...in this case, will make more discretionary trips...
...when prices are lower, Karen.
Has this basic economic concept really eluded you until now?
People also hang on to their gas-guzzling, emission spewing, dumb-ass pickup
trucks for an extra couple of years.
In some cases, half the cost of an airline trip is fuel surcharges ...
surcharges come down ... people fly more.
C'mon, are you trying to give Karen a stress headache?
Post by M.I.Wakefield
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Loading...