Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 17, 2014
Deeper Saudi Oil Cuts Seen After Biggest Drop Since ’12
Saudi Arabia will need to keep cutting oil output to sustain prices above $100 a barrel, even after the kingdom’s largest reduction in two years, according to BNP Paribas SA and Societe Generale SA.
The world’s biggest crude exporter told OPEC last week it pumped 408,000 barrels a day less last month, about as much as Australia produces. Output rose in Iran, Iraq and Nigeria, adding to supply that drove benchmark Brent crude futures below $100 this month for the first time since June 2013. Saudi Arabia probably will have to cut a similar amount again to stabilize prices, the banks said.
Global oil demand growth this year will be the weakest since 2011, just as the U.S. shale boom means oil production from countries outside OPEC rises by the most since the 1980s, according to the International Energy Agency. The glut is prompting most of OPEC’s Middle Eastern members, including Saudi Arabia, to cut prices to customers.
“We are swimming in crude, and they know that better than anyone because they are the biggest exporter,” Mike Wittner, the head of oil market research at Societe Generale in New York, said by phone Sept. 9. “History shows that the Saudis will just do what’s necessary.”
Industrial Output
Brent crude traded at less than $99 a barrel today in London, within a range of $95 to $110 described as “fair” by Saudi Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi at a meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in June. It was at $98.77 as of 8:57 a.m. on the ICE Futures Europe exchange in London.
Futures fell to $96.21 on Sept. 15, the lowest intraday price in two years, as China’s industrial output expanded at the weakest pace since the global financial crisis in 2008. China will account for about 11 percent of global oil demand this year, compared with 21 percent for the U.S., according to the IEA.
Saudi Arabia made the biggest contribution to OPEC’s production cuts in 2008 and 2009 as demand contracted amid the financial crisis. The group took almost 5 million barrels of daily output off the market, reviving prices from about $30 at the end of 2008 to almost $80 a year later.
The kingdom “will act to stabilize and then shore up the oil price, not only because it is in its interest, but in the interest of fellow OPEC members in the Middle East,” Harry Tchilinguirian, BNP’s head of commodities markets strategy in London, wrote in an e-mail Sept. 11.
A Saudi Oil Ministry media official declined to comment on the nation’s policies when contacted by phone yesterday, asking not to be identified citing government policy.
Government Budget
Brent will average $107 in the fourth quarter and $105 in 2015, according to the median of as many as 31 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Brent may average $90 in the fourth quarter if Saudi chooses not to keep cutting output, according to Societe Generale’s Wittner.
Petroleum exports account for about 90 percent of Saudi Arabia’s state budget. King Abdullah announced $130 billion of investment in 2011 to create jobs and a $500 billion plan to build cities in the desert started last year.
Saudi Arabia may also want to boost oil prices to aid Iraq, the second-largest OPEC producer, as it battles the spread of Islamic State in the north, according to Tchilinguirian.
Saudi Arabia will probably reduce production by a further 500,000 barrels a day in the fourth quarter as the summer peak in domestic demand for power generation passes, according to Julian Lee, a strategist at Bloomberg News in London. The kingdom burned 827,000 barrels a day to generate power in June, the most in four years, according to the Riyadh-based Joint Data Initiative.
Oil Prices
OPEC officials, including Saudi Arabia’s Naimi, have said they see no urgent need to respond to the drop in oil prices, which are still more than twice their level a decade ago.
Prices “always fluctuate and this is normal,” Naimi told reporters in Kuwait on Sept. 11. The decline is a seasonal fluctuation and prices will recover by the end of the year, Secretary-General Abdalla El-Badri said in Vienna yesterday. The group’s output may fall to 29.5 million barrels a day next year from about 30 million currently, El-Badri said.
There may be incentives for Saudi Arabia to let oil continue its decline, according to Bank of America Corp. and DNB ASA, Norway’s biggest bank.
Allowing Brent to fall below $85 could slow the U.S. shale boom because some producers would lose money pumping at that price, Francisco Blanch, head of commodities research at Bank of America, said in a report Sept. 9.
U.S. crude output will climb by 1 million barrels a day to 9.53 million next year, the most since 1970, Adam Sieminski, the administrator of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, said in a statement Sept. 9.
Fiscal Firepower
Curtailing the shale boom would ensure continued U.S. reliance on Middle Eastern energy, Bank of America’s Blanch said. Saudi Arabia’s crude exports to the world’s biggest oil user fell to 1 million barrels a day in June, compared with an average of 1.4 million in the first five months, according to the IEA, a Paris-based adviser to 29 industrial nations.
“For Saudi Arabia, I can’t see why they’d come in and manage prices unless it falls below $90,” Torbjoern Kjus, an analyst at DNB in Oslo, said by phone Sept. 10. “It benefits the Saudis to test where the limit is for U.S. shale.”
OPEC’s de facto leader has the “fiscal firepower” to tolerate prices as low as $70 for two years without experiencing economic difficulties, according to Energy Aspects Ltd., a consultant in London. The kingdom held reserve assets valued at $741.6 billion in July, almost double the level five years earlier, according to the Saudi Arabia Monetary Agency.
Discount Reversed
Saudi Arabia shouldn’t focus on price levels alone, according to Seth Kleinman, the head of European energy research at Citigroup Inc. in London.
Production cuts are necessary to reverse the discount on immediate versus later deliveries of crude, a market structure known as contango which encourages traders to stockpile crude, he said. That stored oil can return to the market outside of the kingdom’s control, potentially thwarting efforts to stabilize prices, he said.
“This market’s clearly significantly oversupplied,” Kleinman said by phone. “It’s not just the $100 mark, which everyone’s looking at, it’s the fact you’ve got this steep contango.”
38 Comments on "Deeper Saudi Oil Cuts Seen After Biggest Drop Since ’12"
rockman on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 6:50 am
“This market’s clearly significantly oversupplied”. I suppose it depends on how you define “oversupplied”. To me it means there aren’t enough buyers for the commodity available. Which is obviously not the current situation. There are many buyers at the current price of oil with more coming to the market if prices decline further. Of course there were fewer buyers when oil was $115/bbl. And a great deal fewer buyers when oil peaked over $145/bbl a few years ago. The KSA was still selling oil at that price but not as much as they needed to sell. Their profit per bbl wasn’t the driving force…it was their total income that was critical to running the country.
The dynamics in play are no different today than when oil was selling for $115, $145 or $30 per bbl. And no different than when oil was selling for an inflation adjusted price of $100+/bbl in the late 70’s. So what will life be like for the KSA if the price they get drops to $80/bbl? Rather simple math: they’ll be receiving about 260% more income then they were 10 years ago. I don’t recall any great concern about the KSA’a functionality when their income was about 1/3 of what it would be in the future if oil drops to $80/bbl. And unless the world suddenly slips into another major recession there should be a great demand for $80/bbl oil so there certainly won’t be an “oversupplied” market at that time. If nothing else the Chinese will go into a feeding frenzy as they did the last time oil prices tumbled. And that was at a time when they weren’t building their own Strategic Petroleum Reserve as they ate now.
And the effect of $80/bbl on the US shale drilling boom? Time will tell but again recall the time lag: it might take the better part of a year before the full impact will be fully demonstrated IMHO. Takes a bit of time: resource development is like a giant seagoing ship: it changes course very slowly but it takes a great deal to alter that path once it’s set. Supply always balances with demand. Price modulation sees to it…eventually. IMHO the dynamics at play today are no different than what I’ve observed first hand for the last 4 decades.
But hey, what do I know: I’m not an economics expert. I’ve just been hunting for and selling oil for the last 40 years. LOL.
Nony on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 7:00 am
There was another story saying KSA and Kuwait met with the Russians to coordinate production cuts.
Davy on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 7:33 am
Rock, KSA has come a long way from 10 years ago. Both Russia and KSA are not in a good position to see revenue decline. Both are consuming more of the actual oil internally and the resulting export revenue on budget expenses. Both countries are facing difficulties meeting the demands they have committed to over the last 10 years to social, military, and economic expenditures. Yet, I see a time lag for a revenue crunch these top producers may experience just like you mentioned with the shale drilling boom. We will have to see the degree and duration of price volatility. With today’s market dynamics stable prices are anything but assured. The stable price we have seen is the same thing we are seeing with attitudes concerning the delusions of BAU growth. Humans easily get situational conditioning like a frog in the pot. This whole economic racket we are in globally is going risk off with capex compression, earnings disappointments, and QE curtailment. IOW people are getting nervous and the all-important confidence card will come in play. What about the latest black swan with Scotland? Apparently if this independence vote passes the Forex market is going to flat line until a realignment occurs especially with the carry trades. Just another reason to say we are in uncharted waters. Eventually one of these ongoing visits by black swans are going to tip us into a scenario of market depression.
shortonoil on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 10:22 am
Saudi Arabia is now between a rock, and a hard spot. It needs a minimum flow of funds to keep the Kingdom together, at the same time its fields are aging, and in decline. If prices fall it can no longer pump a few extra million barrels to make up the difference. It now only has the capacity to lower production.
At the same time we have hit Peak Price; the consumer can no longer afford to pay continually increasing prices. The value of a barrel of oil has hit its limit to the end consumer. If the Saudis cut production to increase price it will only cut demand for its production by a comparable amount. Like every other producer in the world its per unit production costs continue to climb.
The Saudi dilemma is not unique; it is now being faced by every producer in the world. Increasing production costs, and a maximum market price. As depletion continues its relentless march forward, and we advance closer to the end of the oil age, the situation will only worsen!
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Plantagenet on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 10:58 am
Its basic economics. The price of oil depends on both SUPPLY and DEMAND. SUPPLY is slowly growing, thanks to US fracking. Some here claim global oil demand is falling, but that contradicts the fact global oil consumption is still rising.
Davy on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 11:10 am
Planter, global oil demand growth is falling is what most are claiming.
westexas on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 11:11 am
I wonder if Saudi net oil exports will fall below their 2005 annual rate of 9.1 mbpd (total petroleum liquids + other liquids)?
Oh, wait a minute. I just remembered.
Saudi net exports have been below their 2005 annual rate for eight straight years, as annual Brent crude oil prices increased from $55 in 2005 to the $109 to $112 range for 2011 to 2013 inclusive.
This is somewhat different from the pattern that they showed from 2002 to 2005, as annual Saudi net exports increased from 7.1 mbpd in 2002 to 9.1 mbpd in 2005, as annual Brent crude oil prices increased from $25 in 2002 to $55 in 2005.
Plantagenet on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 11:14 am
davi, global oil consumption is still growing.
Why not accept the facts?
Northwest Resident on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 11:29 am
Plant — According to this Wall Street Journal article, quoting BP, global oil consumption grew faster than production last year. It may be that for the time being global oil consumption is increasing, but that is a very short term and precarious phenomenon — nothing to crow about. With production not keeping up with consumption we are guaranteed that world oil consumption will start sliding. And with the looming bust of the shale “boom”, combined with proven declines in conventional oil fields well underway, the future we can see before us is one of less and less oil consumption due to declining oil production, if nothing else.
ht tp://online.wsj.com/articles/global-oil-consumption-outpaces-production-1402905600
Davy on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 12:11 pm
Thanks NR, you saved me the trouble.
Plantagenet on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 12:18 pm
@Davi + NWR:
OK…are we all finally in agreement that global oil consumption is currently increasing? And we all agree that oil production is currently increasing? You guys understand what the numbers mean now?
GREAT!
ANd so no more out-of-touch-with-reality posts claiming oil prices are falling because demand is dropping?
GREAT!
So we all understand now that KSA is cutting their production to reduce the SUPPLY in order to make oil prices go back up?
GREAT!
JuanP on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 12:19 pm
NWR, You may not be aware that BP’s definitions of what is oil are different for consumption than for production. When they talk about consumption they include things like biofuels, that are not included in the production calculations, so BP’s oil consumption always exceeds BP’s oil production in their reports’ statistics. The same thing applies, by extension to their respective increases.
JuanP on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 12:21 pm
NWR, Robert Rapier explains this better than I can in this article: http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2014/07/10/world-sets-new-oil-production-and-consumption-records/
shortonoil on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 12:28 pm
Total world production has only increased because of the added 2.5 mb/d in US shale production over the last few years. Without it production on a volume bases would be declining. But, US shale production is composed of about 50% condensate, which is not a fuel producing product. It is a feed stock for other products. Taken on an apples to apples bases world production is now in decline. Classifying condensate with crude is like calling hamburg, steak because both come from a cow. It is disingenuous at best, and an out right falsehood at worse. It would not be possible to run the world on condensate for a minute. It just doesn’t posses the needed molecular structure to do the job.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Don on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 12:29 pm
I think people are getting velocity and acceleration mixed up. consumption can still be rising while growth is falling just like your speed can keep increasing even if your acceleration is slowing down.
rockman on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 12:30 pm
Davy – “Both Russia and KSA are not in a good position to see revenue decline.” So true but how many other countries, including the US govt, are in a good position to see revenue decline? We talk about how the energy industry is on a death march regardless of how hard they try to hide it. But the same is true to some degree for most countries…oil producers and consumers.
It would be great if the alts could eventually bail us out to some significant degree but I just don’t see that capability developing fast enough to mitigate the great pain on the way. Some, like the KSA and Norwegians, might be lounging in their first class cabins while many of us are down in steerage. But when we hit that PO berg we’re all going down with the ship. LOL
JuanP on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 12:31 pm
Plant pointed out that oil consumption is increasing. A correct observation.
Davy points out that the rate of increase in oil demand is diminishing. Another correct observation.
Somehow out of this an argument starts.
As far as KSA goes, I believe they may have some real spare capacity at this time, maybe for the first time in a while, and probably not for long. I believe that at times in the past they were producing all they could, and lying about a spare capacity.
Northwest Resident on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 12:34 pm
JuanP — Thanks for that info! Who could ever have guessed that BP would fudge their numbers by counting non-oil as oil? But from what I understand, that is common practice now for all the oil companies, all the better to make things look less dire than they actually are.
Plant, you’re the poster child for out-of-touch-with-reality posts. You’ve been smacked down so hard by so many people on this forum that I’m surprised you have the audacity to keep returning with your ludicrous claims and shale cheerleading antics. What, no shame? Or, more likely, your sole and only purpose for being here is because you’ve got nothing better to do and because you’re the personality type that just loves being argumentative. Oh yeah, and to vent your love and admiration for Obama. Not that I care. OK!! Oil production (including bio fuels, that crap they call shale oil which is good for next to nothing except giving loony birds like you reason to crow, etc..) is increasing, for now, temporarily. BFD!! The trends and the future is clear to see, and it is nothing that you will be crowing about, that is guaranteed.
JuanP on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 12:46 pm
Doesn’t KSA normally cut production after their summer’s over. Could that account for part of this cut in production on KSA’s part?
JuanP on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 1:09 pm
NWR, Words like oil, crude, petroleum, fuels are constantly used interchangeably by big oil and in the press as part of their plan to confuse the sheeple.
As Short correctly points out above, the definition of oil has been modified to include things like condensate that can’t be used to make diesel or similar products. And also to include biofuels and refinery gains and other things. None of these things are real crude.
Another thing they did around the same time was start using the “Barrels of Oil Equivalent” or BOE for short, instead of just barrels of oil, as it had always been done before. I think most PO old timers are aware of these tricks.
All of this was done in the last decade or so to hide the real crude production decline from the sheeple, with much success, I might add. This has been, at least, a partly coordinated PR campaign, IMO.
I guess it’s all part of the New Millenium! 😉
Don on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 1:11 pm
Just to clarify what we are seeing for those without a calculus background
change: positive, increasing
rate of change: positive, decreasing
rate of rate of change: negative, decreasing
Funny enough this is how the peak of a bell curve is formed and something we should all be pretty familiar with. Lol.
Northwest Resident on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 1:18 pm
Plant — See JuanP’s post above. Does it comfort you to know that you are one of the sheeple who have been tricked into “thinking” that officially reported barrels of oil are actually oil, versus a ragtag mixture of substances of which real oil is only a part? Not that facts or reality will sway your point of view — you’re here to do your cheerleading routine for shale oil and NG production — to represent the deluded and sheeple point of view, and to play rude “gotcha” games. Why don’t you take a vacation and let Nony do the talking for your point of view — at least Nony has a bit of a sense of humor and is worth a laugh every now and then. Just a suggestion…
JuanP on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 1:28 pm
NWR, When reading articles like the one you referred to, I try to always be aware of the fact that both the writer and the reader have been and are being manipulated, and that it’s all about word usage and manufactured statistics. I am always looking for these words and numbers as I read along, as I know you are. I have a lot of fun looking for these words and numbers, and understanding how they are being used by the writers and to what purpose, but I don’t have the training you do. Just trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Plantagenet on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 1:29 pm
@NWR
Your ignorance is showing again. It wasn’t BP that changed the definition of oil—it was the US government under our current Obama administration. You just don’t know the facts, NWR, and it shows.
“Why do government … officials….equate total liquids and total oil supply? …. In a recent report the U.S. Energy Information Administration put it this way: “The term ‘liquid fuels’ encompasses petroleum and petroleum products and close substitutes, including crude oil, lease condensate, natural gas plant liquids, biofuels, coal-to-liquids, gas-to-liquids, and refinery processing gains.”
from Resource Insights:
Northwest Resident on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 1:34 pm
JuanP — To be honest, I read Plant’s post, I instinctively (and factually in a sub-conscious kind of way) knew that Plant was dead wrong. So, in the midst of working my ass off on tight-deadline programming assignments and preparing for a meeting and trying to fend off my pesky service techs who are always asking me questions, I did a quick google search, found that article, thought it was relevant and so I went with it. And Plant, being the “gotcha” kind of guy he is, living for the moment where he can “prove” himself right on this forum, jumped all over my admittedly poor choice for substantiation of my point of view. Which goes to show once again that if you can’t do something right, don’t do it at all — I should have just focused back on my work and avoided trying to post, since I’m actually getting paid to work… 🙂 Thanks for your feedback! BTW, you write Just Fine, you can stop trying to be modest now…
Northwest Resident on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 1:37 pm
Plant — You moronic goon. Point to where I stated that BP “changed the definition of oil”. I wrote: “Who could ever have guessed that BP would fudge their numbers by counting non-oil as oil?” in a joking and offhand kind of way. And you want to use that statement to try to prove my “ignorance is showing again.” You’re a sad pathetic piece of shit, Plant. Fuck off.
JuanP on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 1:39 pm
NWR, I know from some of Plant’s comments that he is very smart, educated, and well informed, even if I disagree with many things he says and thinks.
Plant has been on this forum, contributing regularly, since 2007, and must be as aware of these things as I am, but he chooses to ignore them, I believe. I do value his contributions when he is in a contributing mode.
Plantagenet on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 1:46 pm
@NWR
Your potty mouth is overflowing. Please flush.
JuanP on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 1:48 pm
NWR, I was referring to your college PR education, in general, not your writing skills, in particular, and I was just sharing this because I know you see things the same way, and would enjoy the info. The way these terms have been manipulated in the past would not be apparent to someone who started researching PO in the past five years, after the change was effected. We are all constantly being manipulated and almost everything we read is lies.
Northwest Resident on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 2:26 pm
JuanP — I enjoy and appreciate your comments. Thanks for clarifying! And I agree — when I studied journalism in college the emphasis was on double and triple-checking facts, getting to the truth, and exposing that truth to the world. These days they must be teaching students how to bend and twist the truth without feeling guilty about it or losing any sleep over it. Nowhere is that more true than in “reporting” on oil/energy in today’s world. But please… Plant “smart, educated and well informed”? JuanP, I congratulate you on your diplomacy and cordiality.
Perk Earl on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 2:44 pm
“So we all understand now that KSA is cutting their production to reduce the SUPPLY in order to make oil prices go back up?”
Plant, it will be interesting to see how high oil price can be driven (by reducing supply) per shortonoil’s post above; “At the same time we have hit Peak Price; the consumer can no longer afford to pay continually increasing prices. The value of a barrel of oil has hit its limit to the end consumer.”
I have no idea what that exact max. price point the end consumer can afford is now (although I suspect it is around 105 for Brent), however I do agree with short on this and it should be interesting to see how the supply/demand dynamic plays out to determine price.
It’s important for the Saudi’s to get this right because fewer barrels sold has to be made up for by sufficient rising price or there is reduced revenue (albeit saving some supply for the future). In any case if they do cut supply I welcome it as a way to test this theory of end user affordability. Cut away – let’s see what happens.
rockman on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 7:29 pm
Earl – “…KSA is cutting their production to reduce the SUPPLY in order to make oil prices go back up?” But that’s the tricky balance, eh? Is the KSA concerned about how much profit they make PER BBL? Given their production costs are fixed to a degree they could cut their production 50% and price of oil will zoom up to $X/bbl. Max profit PER BBL for the KSA. But there will be a limited market for oil priced at $X/bbl. So it would be easy to assume that KSA total income will be significantly less at the higher price.
So IMHO the KSA wouldn’t achieve their primary goal – higher income – by reducing production to increase prices. So there’s the $64,000 question: what KSA production volume times the resultant price of oil will max their revenue?
This is the same reason the vast majority of US operators didn’t cut their NG production rates when NG prices collapsed: max profit per mcf wasn’t the goal…max cash flow was. Many operators sold NG for less then it cost them to develop those reserves.
Cash flow is KING for most producers… the KSA and most US companies alike. Fortunately the Rockman’s owner is one of the richest f*ckers in the land so we don’t have to kiss the KING’S ass. LOL.
Makati1 on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 7:44 pm
Wow! Isn’t it fun that we can debate and remain rational, open-minded humans? (sarc)
PO brings out the real us, but how many of us realize it? After a few years of reading comments here, you get to know the personalities behind them pretty well. Mine is obvious. I’m a 70 year old American who stopped pretending that the articles we read and the government we have, are/is real, factual, and honest. You cannot prepare on the basis of lies.
If you know the real history, you know why west and east Ukraine are so far apart and what motivates each. You know why Japan and China are foes. You know how the US forced Japan into Pearl Harbor. But then, most don’t want to know. They just want to be fed BS and remain oblivious to reality.
Anyway, tomorrow is another day and none of us can do anything to change it outside of our own personal lives. Even then, we have little control. Enjoy!
BillC on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 11:33 pm
Time to sell short
rockman on Thu, 18th Sep 2014 6:32 am
M – “If you know the real history…” you know why most Americans respond with “USA” when asked by a foreigner where they come from and why folks here say “Texas” when asked. Didn’t realize that until a Canadian tour guide pointed that out to me years ago when I answered “Texas” while all the other citizens said “USA”. LOL.
Davy on Thu, 18th Sep 2014 7:42 am
I wonder how life in the deep jungle will be with 100MIl hungry folks migrating in search of food in such a small area. I have heard whities are more tender than darkies and the taste resembles chicken. But I imagine 70 year olds are not very tender nor tasty. In that case the people in their 70’s will feed the dogs instead.
Danlxyz on Thu, 18th Sep 2014 9:26 am
“And the effect of $80/bbl on the US shale drilling boom? Time will tell…”
Does everyone realize that the price of ND Sweet was $74.50 on 9/12 when the latest Directors Cut was posted? Maybe next year we will see how many new wells are drilled.
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/directorscut/directorscut-2014-09-12.pdf
Kenz300 on Fri, 19th Sep 2014 2:19 pm
Demand in China and India is still rising and will drive oil price increases in the future.
Both China and India are looking at producing biofuels as a transportation fuel and at increasing their use of electric vehicles. China’s adoption of electric vehicles can be the driver that speeds up the adoption of electric vehicles around the world.