SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: michaelrunge who wrote (24485)1/12/2005 1:40:19 PM
From: russwinter  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 110194
 
This is completely consistent with the enormous collapse in tanker rates from $11 bb to $3 in the last six weeks. see page 5:
raymondjamesecm.com

Middle Eastern producers simply don't plan to engage in emergency shipments going forward, trying to normalize the market (at $45-$50?). I suspect production problems as well, they've been using water injection (like eating your young).

Meanwhile Iraqi production sputtering:
Message 20941330



To: michaelrunge who wrote (24485)1/12/2005 3:03:59 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 110194
 
SA to cut 30-50%??

i saw that as well. but it is a misreading. the Saudis are not cutting their overall production by 30-50%--if they did that, oil would be at $150. as stated in the article, SA cut production from 9.5 mbpd to 9 mbpd, which works out to a 5.26% reduction.

the "30-50%" figure actually refers to the allocation cuts experienced by certain Europe-based traders. as the article notes:

"Europe-based trading sources at major oil companies reported Tuesday cuts in the amount of crude allocations in the vicinity of 30%-50%"

but overall production cuts are nowhere near this level. again from the article:

"At the same time, the Saudis left unchanged or only shaved off a few percentage points for term crude customers in Asia, Europe and the U.S. whose contracts are on a delivered basis for fixed destinations."



To: michaelrunge who wrote (24485)1/13/2005 11:10:44 AM
From: isopatch  Respond to of 110194
 
<edit>