After oil spiked earlier on an anonymously-sourced Reuters “report” that Saudi Arabia has offered to cut production in exchange for an Iran production freeze, a proposal which was promptly shut down by third party observes, moments ago WSJ reporter Summari Said effectively killed this particular attempt to spike the price of oil when she reported – also citing sources – that Saudis and Iranians have clshed over output freeze levels, and that Iran has refused to cap output.
This is what she tweeted in its entirety:
- Saudis, Iranians Clash Over Output Freeze Level–Sources
- Saudis Want to Use Secondary Sources for Output Freeze Levels–Sources
- Iran Wants to Use Govt Projections for Freeze Levels–Sources
- Disagreements in Vienna Go Unresolved Ahead of Algiers Meeting– Sources
- Iraq Won’t Cap Output Until It Reaches 4.75M B/D to 5M B/D–Statement
- Iraq Output Cap Implies Boost of 150,000B/D to 400,000 B/D Vs August
Oil has recouped some of its gain, but is still well above the intraday lows. We expect many more such headline headfakes in the coming days and especially early next week during the Algiers OPEC meeting.
makati1 on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 7:38 am
No surprise here. Iran is not stupid.
shortonoil on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 9:19 am
Did anyone expect anything different? Like the $4 spike earlier this week from trying to front run the central banks, this was just another attempt at jawboning the price up. There was a little increase in price, but no increase in volume. Mr Market isn’t buying it!
penury on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 9:43 am
Like all equity markets today, an attempt to drive prices by leak management. When the truth is revealed (after all responsible people are dead) peeople wll be shoked to learn how bankrupt the nations of the world are.
denial on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 9:49 am
short the latest story on CNBC is that there is a more and more oil being found and we are shifting to cleaner energy. How do you combat these misstatements? The majority of the populations think that because of “clean energy” we won’t need oil in the future and that is why oil is being sold so cheap. Destabilization of countries has made oil more cheap in my opinion.
Cloggie on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 10:09 am
short the latest story on CNBC is that there is a more and more oil being found and we are shifting to cleaner energy. How do you combat these misstatements?
Misstatement?
How about playing a little with the interactive data from the Fraunhofer institute to see first hand how far renewable electricity generation has already penetrated (see for instance May 2016).
https://www.energy-charts.de/power_de.htm
And this is only 2016. By 2023, more than 50% will be generated renewable when a lot of new North Sea wind pwer will get online in Germany, Britain, Holland and elsewhere:
The majority of the populations think that because of “clean energy” we won’t need oil in the future and that is why oil is being sold so cheap.
The main reason why oil prices dived is because of fracking in the US and elsewhere which caused a sudden “glut” in a matter of a few years. This will not have a very grave impact on the development of renewable electricity generation, because of the climate concerns. Everybody (in Europe) is afraid to be stuck with brand new fossil fuel power stations that will be told to limit CO2 output.
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/eon-and-rwe-report-losses-in-fossil-power-generation-as-they-turn-to-renewables_100023623/#axzz4L5umvjRq
Fossil is getting out of fashion in Europe.
Plantagenet on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 10:19 am
There once was a giant oil glut
That became a big pain in the but
The Saudis kvetched
And Iran was distressed
But no one would actually cut
Cheers!
Cloggie on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 10:46 am
World, we have found a successor for Shakespeare aka mr Glut, or “the Glutser” for friends like NWR.
Cloggie on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 10:55 am
Wind record: 12.12.2014
Solar record: 20.04.2015
Verify here:
https://www.energy-charts.de/power_de.htm
Note: this is electricity only; not included is space heating and transport, big chunks in the total energy budget.
Cloggie on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 10:59 am
Here is a more telling graph, cumulative electricity generation per source in Germany in 2016:
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_de.htm
Roughly 25% is now covered by renewable. Will be ca. 50% in ca. 7 years time, mainly due to new large offshore projects in the North Sea.
GregT on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 11:04 am
“There once was a giant oil glut
That became a big pain in the but
The Saudis kvetched
And Iran was distressed
But no one would actually cut”
Sounds like early onset cabin fever way up there in the northern colonies.
observerbrb on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 11:57 am
“Fossil getting out of fashion in Europe”
Perhaps I am living in Europe, the moon of Jupiter, because I only see thousands of ICEs vehicles (sometimes I see an Electric One, to be honest) each and every day.
I also see hundreds of oil-powered airplanes, trucks and ships.
Between 85-90% of Germany primary energy consumption comes from non-RE sources of energy (gas, coal, petroleum, uranium). I wouldn’t believe that we achieved a breakthrough until I see that number down to 50%-
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/germany_mmtoe_area.png
penury on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 1:24 pm
For the true believer in renewable energy (?) everything is wonderful. However, I would like to see a real estimate of the total costs involved to switch to the majority of renewables, Dreams are wonderful and we all need them,but a little reality at times help to flavor the soup.
Cloggie on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 2:03 pm
For the true believer in renewable energy (?) everything is wonderful. However, I would like to see a real estimate of the total costs involved to switch to the majority of renewables, Dreams are wonderful and we all need them,but a little reality at times help to flavor the soup.
Why are you waiting like Cinderella until somebody to lead through the calculations?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station
Average life time power station 40 years.
Meanwhile solar and wind can cost compete with fossil.
In other words: in 40 years time the entire fossil power base can be replaced with renewable without additional cost, apart from storage facilities. And since we will have enough conventional + unconventional fossil fuel for the coming 40 years, there is no energy problem, only a storage challenge, which will be solved.
Sorry to disturb the doomer party.
rockman on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 2:29 pm
The good news: many countries are increasing the PERCENT of energy the are getting from renewables. The bad news: the amount of global energy made from fossil fuels has consistently increased for more then 70 years: from 5,000 million metric tons in 1940 to 30,000 million metric tons in 2014…a 6-fold increase.
http://www.c2es.org/facts-figures/international-emissions/historical
As the chart shows the rate of increase has been very steady for the last 40+ years with a projection that it will continue to due so for the next 15 years. That projection may or may not prove correct.
But since 1970 the amount of energy generated from ff had consistently been between 55 and 58 quadrillion Btu per year…until 2012 when it hit an all time high of 62 quadrillion Btu. Note the world experienced high oil and coal prices that year. And now both are less expensive today and at least the near future.
Unfortunately climate change isn’t a function of the energy % from fossil fuels but the absolute amount of fossil fuel Btu’s being generated. And at this time that doesn:t seem to be decreasing. And worse: it may be increasing.
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/fossil.jpg
Davy on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 2:30 pm
Clog, less a party and more a requiem to paradise lost. Your beloved technology has mechanized life into a horror show and yet, you still trumpet it as our salvation. Maybe you can sell it to my kids but me, I want to die a free man or more free.
Apneaman on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 2:56 pm
Clogged lives in what will soon be DOGGERLAND 2.0
Cloggie on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 3:19 pm
I live at 17 m elevation, in contrast to much of Vancouver.
Your live would be pretty boring without your climate change, eh?
Apneaman on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 4:55 pm
My live? What’s that?
You’re one to talk with you incessant conspiracies and hour long ALEX JONES SHOUTING AND YELLING VIDEOS!!!!!! A never ending stream of neoreactionary golden age renaissance fantasies and techno utopian wet dreams. What I talk about is real and happening right now – not some future fantasy. BTW, it’s not just “my” climate change it belongs to everyone including the soon to be born. At 72 with your high stress level you’ll be dead soon (good riddance) and not have to worry too much, but I’m sure there will be plenty of fucking retards to carry on with your moronic childish dreams……… for a minute, until the combined human destruction of the biosphere wipes them from existence.
makati1 on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 5:07 pm
Cloggie, YOUR elevation will not mean much when most of your country is underwater. Ports will be the first to go. Our farm is at 85m elevation, but it too will be affected when the port town (elevation ~7 meters) nearby goes under. By that time, all roads to the area will be underwater. True self sufficiency will prevail.
I hope you are prepared for that day. It may come sooner than you think. Storm surge will likely seriously damage all lower elevations long before the ocean rises to that level. Ask Miami how they are dealing with it. Salt intrusion into aquifers, regular flooding, soil damage, etc. Many dollars to keep it all patched up. Good luck!
Cloggie on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 5:23 pm
Cloggie, YOUR elevation will not mean much when most of your country is underwater. Ports will be the first to go. Our farm is at 85m elevation, but it too will be affected when the port town (elevation ~7 meters) nearby goes under.
And when is that going to happen? Last time I checked there were predictions of some 100 cm in a century. Now I know that the ape thinks that I am 72, but even being a lot younger, I don’t expect to live that long. And even 100 cm Holland will survive unharmed.
I hope you are prepared for that day. It may come sooner than you think. Storm surge will likely seriously damage all lower elevations long before the ocean rises to that level. Ask Miami how they are dealing with it. Salt intrusion into aquifers, regular flooding, soil damage, etc. Many dollars to keep it all patched up. Good luck!
Yeah, yeah. Throughout history there have always been people believing in the End of Times, the Seven Plagues, etc.
I absolutely believe major transformations will take place this century, like in several other centuries before. Most worrying is environmental damage and mass migration, that could potentially bring down and undo 2500 years of civilization and throw the world back into barbarism.
makati1 on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 6:02 pm
Cloggie, have you noticed that the melting of ice on Greenland has increased and Antarctica has been calving burgs the size of states these days? How much ice water and melting bergs are needed to raise the oceans a few meters? Greenland has enough ice to raise it 20 feet. Antarctica another 180 feet or more. Both of these processes are increasing in speed every year. Where is the tipping point where it happens all at once?
And, have you considered that Greenland ice water is ALL fresh and may also affect the salty Gulf Stream that makes Europe livable? If the Gulf Stream turns south earlier, or worse, stops altogether, your part of Europe becomes Reykjavik, without the volcanic warmth.
There is more to worry about than banks or Muslims in the EU. lol
rockman on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 6:23 pm
Mak – “YOUR elevation will not mean much when most of your country is underwater”. I grew up 2′ below sea level in New Orleans and did OK. But I did make it to Texas long before Hurricane Katrina hit. Now I live high and dry 9′ above level. LOL.
rockman on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 6:33 pm
Mak – “Both of these processes are increasing in speed every year. Where is the tipping point where it happens all at once?” Not arguing for or against your position. But you do understand that everyone on this site has a higher probability of being killed by a drunk driver then by climate change, don’t you?
Oh hell, forget it. Let’s go get a drink.
makati1 on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 6:39 pm
Rockman, good move. 9′ isn’t much but an 11′ improvement on your previous location is good. Perhaps you are far enough inland that that proximity to sea level is not as dangerous. But, if you have a beach house, I suspect you will be relocating once more in the not too distant future.
Even DC is only 9′ above sea level on the Mall. Most cities will be underwater when all of the ice melts. Hopefully that day will not be soon.
Apneaman on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 7:40 pm
Your houses can all be high and dry, it’s when the ports are rendered inoperable due to sea level rise that you’ll notice that JIT is no longer viable. Not an “If” a “when”. Then it’ll be neighbourhood cat hunting time.
makati1 on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 8:00 pm
Ap, some areas of the world will hardly notice. It may mean a bit of loss for the few who have a few ‘conveniences’ but most of the world’s population do not. The port town I mentioned will move up the mountain behind it. The fishing boats will still sail. The gardens will still produce fruits and veggies, the pigs will still multiply and the chickens will still lay eggs. When it gets to the point where none of that can happen, it will mean the rest of the world is dead also. No place will be livable.
Will it affect me? Of course. I will not get to discuss world affairs with the PO gang. lol. I’ll lose my connection to my US friends and family and, of course, SS. They will be missed, but it will not affect my ability to live. I have preps for that. The internet did not exist when I grew up. A/C was rare. No great loss.
Our farm house uses rainwater gravity for it’s water supply. (~10′ annually) We can cook with charcoal made locally from storm downed trees and bamboo. Most of the mountains nearby are uninhabited at this point and will be inhabited by most of the town’s people when the seas rise. Not a problem for us. That is across the river at the bottom of our hill.
So, yes, life will change, but then, it has been changing for me for the last 15 years as I “degrow” my footprint on the earth. A good thing, I think.
Boat on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 9:39 pm
Both Libya and Nigeria have started pumping more oil. If peace survives you can add another year to the glut.
rockman on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 9:58 pm
Mak – Actually I live about a mile from an inlet to Galveston Bay…which is essentially and detention of the Gulf of Mexico. And if that isn’t risky enough I live right across the highway from the second largest oil refinery in the western hemisphere.
Hey, you only live once. And only die once. LOL. But the odds are still much greater for me to be killed by a drunk driver…especially in Texas.
makati1 on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 10:15 pm
rockman, you seem to have my attitude about life and death. I keep telling everyone who seems concerned about me living in the Ps and Manila, that my chances of being killed by an automobile or in a plane crash is more likely than by a terrorist or robber. I feel safer here than I ever did in the Philly burbs.
I could name at least 5 times I could have been killed in my 72 years but here I am. One time was when a white phosphorus mortar round fell short during range firing in Puerto Rico. Missed me by about 1 minute and 500 yards. I can close my eyes and still see the huge brilliant white ball of fire explode behind my escaping jeep. Closest I ever came to having to change my pants. lol
Kenz300 on Sat, 24th Sep 2016 11:27 am
Maybe those deep pockets in the Canadian Tar Sands projects need to rethink their investments.
How long can they continue to lose money and stay in business.
They have been predicting prices to rise for over a year.
Looks like more low prices for the foreseeable future.
Once they fold the market will be in better supply balance.
High cost producers keep throwing money away.
Even deep pockets have to question the wisdom of these investments.