News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Zorax

06/06/22 7:14 PM

#415589 RE: fuagf #415587

What I said. A very temporary profit loss for companies who deliver oil, not the producers. It lasted two days and contracts righted themselves around the world. And now citizens pay for that excuse every day.

An analogy is businesses who raise prices for a product shortage that they know is going to be a single cycle for whatever reason, and when the product normalizes, they do not lower their price back down, or take many many months to bring the price back to norm. Gas station retailers do this every day with up to 5 price changes a day depending on holidays or time of day of rush hours. Station owners also play with their shipment dates as well.
On futures contracts, you have buy or puts and your contracts can go into negative plenty of times but it's transitory. I've watched my forex stay negative on a call for days til something brought it up to profit. The negative claim was just that, artificial and almost no one really paid like they said. You buy a stock for 120.00 bucks like dw-ac and now it's 40.00, you have a loss of 80.00 standing in your account. Like stock morons say, you don't lose unless you sell. But you are losing. So, you hope the stock goes back up. The oil commodity righted itself in two days within expiration dates and nobody consequential was giving oil away. As the article states, big oil was still making over 20 a barrel.

And as aside, 80% of the articles that defend or rationalize big oil and try to look unbiased are from big oil themselves or media paid by oil. One has to do some digging on authors and sources for all info on the web. A 'submission' to a well known media source will look to people like that source is the one that originated the data. This is a well known tactic of stock promoters and in the last 5 years the disinformation peddlers.

Again, I'm sorry if I'm too simplistic in my comments. But I've found out that my gut jerk thoughts turn out correct more often than not.

cliff krauss
Well, it gets very technical, and I don’t want to get into the technicalities of this. But basically, these were futures contracts that rolled over. And so this was a phenomena that occurred over a 12 to 24-hour period. So there’s something a bit artificial about it. But it does reflect something that’s real. Nobody wants the oil. It is not a precious commodity right now because people are not driving, people are not flying, cruise ships are not cruising, and industry is not burning as much fuel as it was. And yet the world is still producing this oil.
icon url

Zorax

06/06/22 10:45 PM

#415603 RE: fuagf #415587

Here's another article, this from an entrenched oil exe so his comments are carefully crafted for protection, however, he may have inadvertently gave some inside knowledge slip in the two paragraphs I snipped from the article.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Where-Are-Oil-Prices-Headed.html

Flash forward to today, and as of the most recent EIA-WPSR, we are bumping around 420 mm bbl currently. Hence the case can be made that as a combination of fiscal restraint in the post-2019 era, and OPEC+'s voluntary withdrawals, the strategy to raise prices, by reducing supply has been pretty successful.

In the “hard-landing” scenario, my expectation is that we will get a demand-led sell-off in crude, and an inventory build that should work to put a lid on prices. I think this will be in the current range of $90-$110 per barrel due to persistent underperformance in raising output significantly by shale producers or OPEC.

In short, the world is going to experience an era of higher oil and gas prices, and there just isn’t much anyone can do about it.


I don't agree with his final comment, because just with the two examples I show, there are parties that are withholding production with the intent to create much higher prices and the same people can reverse that greed. Most the comments that follow the article are from people with vested interest in oil and profits.