Oil Exports From U.S. Jump to Record as Shale Output Booms

24 Comments on "Oil Exports From U.S. Jump to Record as Shale Output Booms"

westexas on Wed, 7th Jan 2015 8:10 pm 



Meanwhile, US net oil imports, on a total liquids basis (four week running average), rose from 4.7 mbpd in early November to 5.9 mbpd in early January:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTTNTUS2&f=4

The recent 1.2 mbpd increase in US net imports is equivalent to about one and a half times Mexico’s 2013 net exports, but why let data get in the way of a good story?

eugene on Wed, 7th Jan 2015 8:10 pm 



Once more my theory that BS is the grease upon which the world turns is proven.

DMyers on Wed, 7th Jan 2015 8:57 pm 



Really makes me feel good, to think we’re exporting oil. In spite of the huge volume of oil coming in (i.e., imports) we are able to push against the tide and force a little of our own out, into the other-world. The proof is in. We did it!

Plantagenet on Wed, 7th Jan 2015 9:25 pm 



Growing US oil exports were the last thing the Saudis wanted to see so they launched a price war. The Saudis think they can end the oil glut by undercutting US Shale producers

westexas on Wed, 7th Jan 2015 9:35 pm 



Plant,

US net oil imports increased by 1.2 mbpd from early November to early January (and this takes into account changes in gross exports of crude and product).

The US has recently become more reliant on net oil imports, not less.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_sndw_dcus_nus_4.htm

GregT on Wed, 7th Jan 2015 10:02 pm 



Plant,

The US is a net oil importer. Whatever oil is exported from the US needs to be made up for with imports, and then some. Many analysts believe that the US and Saudi Arabia are colluding against Russia and Iran. The Russians have come forward and said so, and so have the Iranians. Even our MSM is continually telling us about the great amount of damage being inflicted on both of their economies. Like it is a good thing, which it isn’t.

If you are not just trying to be an annoying troll, and you honestly believe what you are saying, you are one mixed up person.

Plantagenet on Wed, 7th Jan 2015 11:49 pm 



Greg t and west Texas

You both just repeated your earlier posts without comprehending the new point that i made

Let’s try again

The Saudis weren’t worried about the current low levels of US exports. They are worried about US oil exports GROWING in the FUTURE. So they moved to hurt US oil production

Get it now?

Northwest Resident on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 12:10 am 



Asserting that the Saudis “moved to hurt US oil production” is pure speculation. There is no proof or even circumstantial evidence to support that assertion. Just one of many “conspiracy theories” trying to explain away the actual economic and physical drivers of the oil price plunge.

It isn’t even logical to suspect that the Saudis would have an interest in hurting US oil production.

US shale oil production always was (and currently IS) going kaput anyway — in a flaming, crashing vortex of destruction, dragging billion$ in stocks, equities and assorted gambles down with it. Most of us on this forum saw this coming a long time ago, we’ve been discussing the inevitability for a long time. Are we now supposed to believe that the Saudis are so ignorant that they did not also see it coming, that they were duped into believing that American shale production was a long term threat to them when in fact it was never anything other than a hyped up fraud?! Not likely, not by a long shot.

Oil gluts. Saudis manipulating global oil price to take out American shale producers. Flying pink elephants. Anything I suppose to not just face the fact that shale was never sustainable, just a big jobs program and a last desperate grab for time before it all comes crashing down.

Plantagenet on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 12:36 am 



@nordent

You aren’t following the news if you don’t understand that (1) the Saudis have acted as the world’s “swing” producer for decades by generally cutting or increasing their production to smooth out oil pricing. They aren’t doing that now.

In fact (2) the Saudis are signing contracts at BELOW market prices putting downward pressure on oil prices

Platts just reported that global oil production now exceeds demand by 1000000 bbl each day. Do the math—–it’s an OIL GLUT

GregT on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 12:47 am 



The Saudis and the Americans are allies Plant. The Russians and the Iranians are their opposition. The Saudis hate the Iranians, and they hate the Assad regime in Syria. The US has been aiding the KSA in the overthrow of Assad by supporting the FSA. The FSA has metastasized into ISIS. When Obama didn’t act on his red line threat in Syria, even though it wasn’t proven that Assad had used chemical weapons, Saudi/US relations reached an all time low. The US is now bombing Syria, much to the delight of the KSA. Russia has warned the US of the consequences of ousting Assad, or attacking Iran. WW3 will be the likely outcome.

The Saudis are worried about a nuclear Iran, because they do not want another powerful nation in the region. They are also concerned with the overthrow of their own ‘kingdom’ by Islamists. The US wants to maintain the US petrodollar and USD global hegemony. The KSA is backing the US in exchange for cooperation in maintaining control in the region.

The KSA has no interest in hurting US oil production. They do have an interest in further ME destabilization, and a nuclear free Iran. They have every interest in hurting the Iranian and Russian economies, as does the US.

These low oil prices are a win for the US economy, at least in appearances, and temporarily. The US is a major oil importer. They are damaging to the economies of both Iran and Russia, being major oil exporters. This latest pullback is nothing more than the continuation of the last decade and a half in the middle east, of the game for world domination.

It isn’t going to work though, because PO is a game changer, and Russia and Iran have the oil.

GregT on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 12:58 am 



Oh, and before I forget. The Masters of wall street, the international banking cartels, the US MIC, and congress, (who have been eerily quiet these days), the Zionists, have had plans for ME destabilization for decades.

meld on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 2:33 am 



If we’re getting conspiratorial , it’s more likely the US and KSA are working together to bankrupt russia/iran. The shale drillers will get bailed out if and when that bubble bursts.

Davy on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 5:20 am 



We know who hates who in the world. We know the sins of each side and yes my friends Iran, Russia, and Syria do sin and have sinned. Russia is a gangster country run by a mafia boss. His cabal has looted Russia for personal gain and now many of that cabal are shipping Russia’s treasure out of the country with capital flight. Iran’s theocracy is looting Iran and exporting terrorism. We know what Assad did for Syria with Russia and Iranian backing.

To those who glorify these countries I am going to agree with them in their criticism of the US and KSA as sinning more in relation to the effect and the degree. I will also throw in the US moral hazard of being the biggest sinner on the block preaching a beacon of the free world puke. The current culmination of what runs the US is the epitome of looting, manipulation and corruption under the cover of a constitution that has been trampled on.

Yet the preaching I hear for Russia and friends is sickening. Guys don’t blow smoke up my ass about Putin and his gangster state. If you look at the number you see the theft in Russia. Putin the richest politician in the world at minimum is a gangster pure and simple. He is an eloquent and effective leader who should scare the hell out of people because he is the kind that can destroy the world through eloquence but sinister intentions. Putin is out for nobody but himself and his hubris. The credit growth in Russia clearly shows how Putin and his cabal carried this looting out. I need say nothing about Iran and Syria both at the bottom of the list of dreg countries in almost every category.

Onward to the oil price conspiracy theories. We know all sides are engage in bad behavior and gaming. I do believe the US and KSA had some kind of game pact going. What I think is neither saw prices falling this far. What was going to be a little pain for the bad guys and little pain at home turned into something that got out of control and metastasized. I think the trigger to the out of control nature of oil prices was the unrelated timing of the end of QE and the desire of the FED to get along with raising rates. The fed is naked without an interest rate tool for a FED recession. I think we have been in a recession since 08. The FED created recovery was only a bankster and 1%er recovery.

The so called US exports bragging is amazing because it is an outright and blatant lie in the way it is talked about. It is misleading for the people that do not understand oil and the markets. In this respect it is dangerous as manipulation and corruption. The US is a leading producer of oil and oil products and exports both as needed to maximize return but this is in a net import situation. This is an example of corruption of the truth at the highest level. It may sound innocent but it is an example of a broad and widespread manipulation of the truth from AGW denying, US foreign policy hypocrisy, and homeland spying denials.

Finally on to the Planter and Bobby oil glut dog with a bone. Planter and Bobby you all are ridiculing yourself claiming an oil glut. Your claim it is purely supply driven is so simplistic and comical. The glut is clearly a glut from financial repression and debt based QE policies in an economic malaise of marginal growth.

The destabilizing economic policies of the central banks have created broad disequilibrium with a destruction of normal economic fundamentals. One such result is a skewed oil sector. Oil prices were kept artificially high by bad policy. When this policy hit diminishing returns and was curtailed the disequilibrium in the oil sector broke and the result is crashing prices from lack of demand. LOW OIL PRICES SHOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY STOKE INFLATION AND CONSUMPTION IN A HEALTHY ECONOMY. We are not in a healthy economy.

westexas on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 6:48 am 



Plant,

You discussed, and I quote “Growing US oil exports,” in an article that focused on increasing US oil exports in November. As noted above, in fact the US reliance on net oil imports increased from early November to early January.

In any case, longer term, even without the oil price crash, I think that the US industry would have great difficulty in maintaining current production as an increasing share of total US oil production comes from very high decline rate tight/shale plays.

rockman on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 8:41 am 



And let’s hit the basics one more time. I understand it’s difficult for some to accept but no oil seller, including the KSA, sets the price that oil is sold for. The buyers, the refineries, decide how much they are willing to pay. The KSA and the Rockman have only one option: how much oil we’re willing to sell at the price the buyers are willing to pay. Again, imagine the conversation that must have happened to make the claim that the KSA is setting the price of oil lower by its own initiative:

Refiner: “OK…I need 10 million bbls of oil next month and can pay $90/bbl”

KSA: “That’s fine…we can send you 10 million bbls next month but we’ll only allow you to pay us $60/bbl”.

Refiner: “OK…you got a deal”.

If anyone has an alternative conversation that explains how the KSA is selling oil to refineries at a price lower then what the buyer can afford to pay let’s hear it. It really isn’t that complicated. I sell oil just like the KSA. Not nearly as much but I sell it to the refiners just like they do. The refiners couldn’t give a crap about how much I want to sell my oil for. They pay $X/bbl…period. My only option is to decide how much of my oil I’m willing to sell at that price. The KSA obviously could chose to not sell as much oil as they are today. That might increase prices. Or it might not depending on how much they cut production and if the demand is actually slowing down as much as it appears to me that it is. The KSA cut their production drastically back in the 80’s and only saw lower oil prices as a reward and received even less income. But whatever reduced volume of oil the KSA might sell it will still be at the price the buyers are willing to pay. And not a penny more.

I know it’s simplistic but it’s the same dynamic as when you buy a car. You determine how much you’re willing to pay for that car…not the dealership. The only option the dealership has is to not sell you the car at the max price you’re willing to pay. And your option is to not buy the car if the price is higher than the amount you can justify. Same with the refiners: they anticipate a certain market demand at a specific price point. If they can’t pay more than $X/bbl and make an acceptable return by selling the products they aren’t going to buy that oil at $X+/bbl.

GregT on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 10:07 am 



Two automobile dealerships. Let’s call them Ford and Chevy. Ford and Chevy both want to be the biggest dealership in the world. Ford has deeper pockets than Chevy, and has the support of the financiers that currently run the world, and want to maintain control over the world. Chevy is being financed by a different group, that the Ford financiers see as a threat to their control.

Ford, with the help of the financiers, sells their cars for less than what Chevy can produce cars for. Chevy is driven to bankruptcy, the financiers take over controlling interests of Chevy, Ford raises prices again, Ford continues business as usual. Chevy, now controlled by the financiers of Ford, becomes profitable again with higher prices. Ford and Chevy are both controlled by the same financiers, the competing financiers are now out of the picture.

Northwest Resident on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 11:12 am 



@pant — You are on this forum daily asserting that there is an “oil glut”. The problem that I and perhaps others have with your constant refrain of “oil glut” is that the term “glut” tends to describe a vast quantity.

Since the MSM and vested interests — those who have a lot to lose if people begin to understand what is really happening in the oil market — use the word “glut” to dramatically hype the very small OVERSUPPLY brought about by infinitely small increases in oil supply combined with dramatically falling demand for oil, it is perhaps a little irritating to see a shale oil hypster such as yourself on this forum daily spewing the hype and B.S. when the majority of us are here to seek and discuss the non-hyped truth.

With an “oversupply” of 1.5 to 2.0 percent in a world that burns about 90 million barrels of oil per day, wouldn’t it be more accurate to rephrase your “glut” with a more accurately descriptive phrase such as “minor and temporary oversupply”?

I realize that doesn’t pack the punch of “oil glut”, but it does describe the situation much more accurately, without the hype. And, your using that more accurate phraseology instead of “oil glut” might tend to make you seem less like a tool and mouthpiece of the fraudulent vested interests who are desperately trying to explain away the dramatic drop in oil price.

Just something to think about.

GregT on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 11:37 am 



Food energy is what is required for an organism to grow. Oil energy is what is required for economies to grow. Just as it would be ridiculous to say that an organism is experiencing a food glut, when that organism is hungry or starving to death, it is equally as ridiculous to say that the world is experiencing an oil glut, when economies are contracting and experiencing recession and depression.

rockman on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 12:57 pm 



Greg – There’s a big problem with your analogy. It typically doesn’t cost US producers, even the shale players, more to produce EXISTING WELLS then it cost the KSA to produce its EXISTING wells. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those old “brown stained water” wells in the KSA are costing more per bbl to lift. I have a 400 bopd conventional oil well in La. that’s costing me less than $2/bbl to produce. I could sell my oil for $3/bbl and still have a positive cash flow.

Of course, drilling new wells is a very different matter. But in that regards I haven’t seen any reports of the KSA drilling many NEW reserves at a low cost per bbl. Last summer ARAMCO announced a Red Sea discovery in 2,100’ of water. Give the huge cost of DW production facilities I doubt there will be a big profit margin on that field at the current price of oil. They finally did start producing an old discovery, Manifa Field. That project required building 27 islands and 25 miles of causeways along with some elevated bridges. This project alone cost almost $20 billion. That’s about the cost of 2,500 Eagle Ford Shale wells. They’ll have to produce around 400 million bbls of oil at current prices just to recover the investment let alone make a profit.

They have also upgraded their refinery system to handle the poorer quality oil they have left. The last word on that cost from ARAMCO is $90 billion. In addition to that expense they also project spending another $35 billion on other upstream projects.

Sometimes folks get confused by the difference in the cost to PRODUCE an oil well and the cost to DEVELOP a new oil well. The KSA has a lot of oil that isn’t too expensive to PRODUCE. But so does the US: remember our average well produces less than 10 bopd. If it were very expensive for us to do so many of those wells would have been abandoned long ago.

But it does take a very high price of oil to make the shales plays work with regards to NEW DRILLS. But I haven’t seen any reports of the KSA having any big NEW reserves that can be DEVELOPED on the cheap. Low cost production wells…yes…just like the US. But NEW DRILLS? Enlighten me if I’ve missed something. Saudi Arabia was once the land of huge reserves that did not cost a great deal to DEVELOP. But so was the US at one time. But the US isn’t today. And from what I’ve read neither is the KSA.

Remember what reserves the KSA has left to develop were there 10 years ago when oil prices, adjusted for inflation, were at the same level as they are today. And the KSA wasn’t developing them at the time. Just as the US shales weren’t having money thrown at them at the same time.

Of course, with their $700 billion of monetary reserves the KSA can survive the lower oil prices easily. But that doesn’t mean current price levels are adequate for them to replace much of their EVER DEPLETING ASSETS. And the day will come when KSA oil revenue won’t be sufficient to keep the natives content and that monetary reserve will steadily deplete just like the oil reservoirs.

GregT on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 1:27 pm 



Rockman,

Without the financiers, and their monetary systems, there wouldn’t be positive cash flow, or oil production in any meaningful quantities. Which I highly suspect will be exactly the case after our economies come crashing down. The oil will stay in the ground, where IMHO, it should be.

Plantagenet on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 1:33 pm 



@gregT

You’ve got it backwards. KSA is Sunni while the Assad regime and Iran are Shia

KSA is livid that obama is working with Shias to destroy Sunni rebels in Syria and Iraq. KSA also sees that obama is going to do nothing while Iran goes nuclear

GregT on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 9:10 pm 



Plant,

Plant,

What are you talking about? The KSA is allied with the US in the fight against IS.

“In late September, Saudi Arabia joined the coalition in airstrikes in Syria, attacks that hit ISIS vehicles and logistics bases, Centcom said.”

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/

Yesterday: January 7, 2015|7:15 am

“The Islamic State is claiming responsibility for an early Monday-morning altercation involving four militants and a Saudi border patrol post on the Iraq-Saudi border that left three Saudi border officers dead and two others injured.”

“It is the first attack by Islamic State itself against Saudi Arabia and is a clear message after Saudi Arabia entered the international coalition against it,” an Iraqi security analysts with close ties to the Saudi interior ministry, Mustafa Alani, told Reuters.

ht tp://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-kills-high-ranking-saudi-border-officer-in-suicide-attack-after-failed-infiltration-attempt-saudi-arabia-fertile-ground-for-isis-recruitment-132186/

GregT on Thu, 8th Jan 2015 9:27 pm 



More Plant,

You can read, right?

After “talking” peace with Iran for the first time in decades, Obama chose the warpath yet again.

This decision was finalized recently when the “ISIS deal” was struck between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, again cementing this ugly alliance. In exchange for Saudi Arabia attacking ISIS, the U.S. would commit to war against the Syrian government, which the Saudis want toppled to undermine their rival Iran. The Syrian rebels that Saudi Arabia agreed to train — with $500 million from U.S. taxpayers — will be used against the Syrian government, not to fight ISIS. The U.S. allies in the region understand the war against the Syrian government as a first step to war against Iran. Even if a nuclear deal is struck between the U.S. and Iran the path to war will have been set.

Economics is a key reason that U.S. allies want Iran destroyed. Iran stands as a competitor for markets and investment throughout the region, and the destruction of Syria and Iran would open up new markets for the vulture-like U.S. allies. The economic oil war between Saudi Arabia and Iran has recently heated up, with Saudi Arabia selling oil at extra low prices to put political pressure on Iran. This, coupled with the ongoing “economic war” that Obama is waging, has the potential to weaken Iran via internal chaos, softening it up to possible invasion if the Syrian government falls.

Iran’s military is another reason the U.S. wants regime change. There are U.S. military bases scattered around the Middle East, though none in Iran, which has a powerful regional military force that patrols the strategic Strait of Hormuz, jointly controlled by Iran and Oman. It’s intolerable for the U.S. and Saudi Arabia that one fifth of the world’s oil production must pass through this Iranian controlled area.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-obama-rejected-peace-with-iran/5409693

October 25, 2014

Davy on Fri, 9th Jan 2015 5:20 am 



Greg, while I agree with that research I believe there are alternative factions in the US government who want a more pragmatic approach with Iran and likewise in Iran. In the game of Poker you never show your true intentions as another angle. Your description sounds reasonable other than it treats Syria and Iran as if they were angelic with no sin. Both regimes are gangster states as is US foreign policy in the region. KSA is a hideous state who’s decrepitude hides behind holy sites.