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.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (391784)6/17/2008 5:21:44 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577162
 
Lets have some accuracy:

the Saudis are having trouble unloading their 'sour' crude on the markets at a $25 discount to the Brent crude which is the crude commanding the $140 price tag and is the light, 'sweet' stuff? Literally, they have the stuff in ships waiting to go somewhere but there are no takers and they may have to discount it even more.

Reliance is opening a new refinery in India which can handle 500,000 bpd of that crude. And there are refinery projects underway in the Persian Gulf countries that will handle more.


Look........for the past six months, I have heard the same thing repeated.....the Saudis are having trouble unloading their sour crude. Below are comments from 6 months ago in the Financial Times. They are saying the exact same thing. Maybe this new Indian refinery will sop up the excess.....we'll have to wait and see...but right now, Saudi crude is sitting in tankers with no where to go.

And don't talk to me about accuracy.........no one knows for certain what is happening in the oil markets.......including you.

"Consider this statement, which although now six months old, was after a price increase in WTI from $70 in the late summer to $100 in early December, seems to support the Saudi claim that they don't see enough demand to warrant lifting more oil:

Each month the Saudi oil company, Aramco, announces a differential to WTI for firms buying Saudi crude for delivery to the United States in that month. For example, buyers lifting Arab Light Crude from Saudi Arabia this month will pay the WTI price that prevails 50 days from now less $11.65. (The delay allows for the oil’s transit time from Saudi Arabia to the United States.) Aramco adjusts this differential every month to reflect changes in market conditions.

As can be seen from Figure 3 (page 5), the differential set by Saudi Arabia for oil loaded in August was $2.15 per barrel. Five months later, the Saudis boosted the discount to $11.65. As every shopper knows, discounts do not deepen when supplies are tight. Rather, they increase when goods do not sell. Apparently, Saudi Arabia has been having trouble selling its oil."


nakedcapitalism.com


Now the ANWR which you all are so psyched up to despoil has the sour crap that we don't even use.

How could you possibly know what ANWR crude will be?


Huh? Its been reported repeatedly that ANWR oil is very sour. Would it not be reasonable to suspect they've done some drilling to determine the quality and quantity of the oil?

Prudhoe Bay produces intermediate sour crude. Perhaps you're generalizing from that. BTW Prudhoe Bay crude goes to west coast US refineries and Prudhoe Bay is now in decline. If ANWR crude is exactly like Prudhoe Bay (and no one knows) it will find a market there.

Another point, Prudhoe Bay has not been despoiled. The caribou and other wildlife is doing fine.


ANWR is pristine.....one of the few places left on the earth like it. Pristine means untouched by human hands. You bring in oil equipment and that changes everything no matter how diligent everyone is.

BTW you will find liberal propagandists spreading the meme that Alaskan oil goes or will go to Japan (thus we shouldn't care if drilling is allowed there). Here is the truth:

I will answer that above in another post....in the meantime, here are some myths about the ANWR:

"Turns out ANWR's a bit of a myth.

The first myth about ANWR is that we can solve today's oil problem by drilling there.

But the government says that, even under best-case scenarios, it would take 10 years to start production and the average net drop in price would be about 86 cents per barrel — 0.6 percent.

The second myth about ANWR is that drilling there would provide us with "energy independence."

But the government's most optimistic estimate is that peak ANWR production would be less than 1 percent of total world oil output — about 750,000 barrels per day in a country that consumes 19 million barrels per day.

In fact, the government admits that foreign-oil dependence would decrease only slightly, between the years 2022 and 2026, and would then return to pre-ANWR levels.

The third myth about ANWR is that drilling would produce a "supply effect" on gasoline prices. In that Economics 101 formulation, as oil supply increases, gasoline prices will drop.

But the government throws cold water on that myth, too, because "OPEC and other producers may cut output to offset the supply effect." In other words, OPEC won't sit still as we force price reductions — they'll match our production increases with production decreases to keep supply steady and prices high.

The fourth myth about ANWR is that we "know" there's an awful lot of oil just waiting to be pumped there.

But the government admits that "there is much uncertainty" about ANWR and "little direct knowledge" about the location of oil, how easily it can be recovered, the size of the fields and the quality of oil in them. What we "know" is little more than a guess, based upon some hypothetical, exploratory models.

The fifth myth about ANWR is that so-called "limited-footprint" technologies would minimize environmental harm.

But the government admits limited-footprint technology probably won't work and "full development of the 1002 area" would require infrastructure throughout the area.

And the government openly acknowledges the threat to what it calls "the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife," "the center of wildlife activity," and the only federal land that "protects, in an undisturbed condition, a complete spectrum of the arctic ecosystem in North America."


venturacountystar.com

And this is the fed document, commissioned by Ted Stevens, and from which the myths up above are pulled:

democrats.org



To: Brumar89 who wrote (391784)6/17/2008 5:39:10 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577162
 
Even though this article is old, its data is still sound. One of the reasons why we may not be able to use the ANWR crude, assuming its sour, is because of legislation passed in 1999 requiring less sulfur in the gasoline we produce. Meeting that requirement is easier with the sweet crude than it is with the sour.

August 21, 2005

Sweet and sour crude

Differences across grades of crude oil can tell us a lot about why oil prices have become so high.

Data source: Energy Information Administration

Not all the black gooey stuff that comes out of the ground is the same. Crude oil produced by different fields differs importantly in viscosity and sulfur content. The more viscous crudes (as measured by a lower API gravity) are called "heavier," and those with higher sulfur content are called "sour" (as opposed to low-sulfur "sweet" crude). The heavier and more sour the crude, the more difficult and expensive it is to turn into usable refined products. The price of oil you usually hear quoted (such as the recent highs of $67 a barrel) is the price of a light, sweet grade like West Texas Intermediate.

The graph at the right shows the price differential (in dollars per barrel) for European Brent (a relatively light, sweet crude) over Mexican Maya (a heavier sour). The price premium for light sweets had typically been about $5 a barrel up until last summer, when it began rising quickly, now standing at triple its earlier value. To put the size of the current price spread in perspective, if the price of light, sweet crude had only risen as much (in dollars per barrel) as the heavy sour, the increase in the price of light, sweet crude during the last year would have been a third smaller than what we actually observed.

Source: Energy Information Administration
O
ne factor contributing to the dramatic increase in the price spread is a decrease in the supply of light, sweet crude. The higher quality crude supplies of course get used up first, so the world is now increasingly reliant on a lower quality product. The graph at the left reveals that every year over the last five years, the average API gravity of non-OPEC oil production has decreased (produced crude is increasingly "heavy") and the sulfur content has increased (crude is increasingly "sour").Vital Trivia used data from OPEC's August Oil Market Report to calculate that global production of light, sweet crude actually declined between 2000 and 2004-- peak oil has already passed, at least as far as light, sweet crude is concerned.

While supply of light, sweet crude has gone down, the demand has gone up. In January 2004, the U.S. EPA's Tier 2 low-sulfur gasoline regulations began to be implemented. This rule was announced by President Clinton on December 21, 1999, though the announcement gave the nation's refineries four years to develop plans to cope with the changes that have only recently begun to be implemented. A study by Deutsche Bank noted regulations to reduce fuel sulfur content also being implemented by Europe, Singapore, Philipines, Australia, China, and India. Harry Chernoff mentioned Japan and Canada as well, and noted that the easiest way to meet these standards is to start with a lighter, sweeter crude:

These increasingly stringent standards would reduce the yield of gasoline and diesel per barrel of crude even if the quality of the crude inputs were not declining. Starting with heavier, sourer crudes means even lower yields of gasoline and diesel.

The third critical ingredient is refining capacity. British Petroleum reported that global refinery capacity increased by 1.8 million barrels a day between 2001 and 2004, while global crude production was up 5.3 mbd. Moreover, not enough of this capacity is able to process the increasingly heavy and sour crude supplies. Chernoff again:

The marginal refining capacity in the world cannot process heavy, sour crudes at all, let alone process these crudes into light, sweet products. Converting existing refining capacity to process heavy, sour crudes to produce light, sweet products is expensive and time-consuming. In the U.S., the conversion (for the refiners who are converting) is a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar project. Some refiners have elected to produce light, sweet products only from light, sweet crudes. Others have elected to retire refining capacity. In parts of the world that supply markets with only higher sulfur products or that have dropped out of the market to supply low-sulfur products, little or no conversion will take place and the demand will continue for the diminishing fraction of light, sweet crudes.

Although the change in the price spread is pretty dramatic, the explanation is quite simple: (1) supply is down, (2) demand is up, and (3) the capital investments necessary to cope with facts (1) and (2) were not made. Government regulation in response to environmental concerns appears to have played an important role in both (2) and (3).

econbrowser.com