Iran is contemplating closing the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for sanctions placed against the country by the EU. The EU will enforce an oil embargo against Iran for their failure in halting the Iranian nuclear program. The Strait of Hormuz is a waterway in which 20% of the worlds oil passes.
If we see a substantial price increase in oil, that will likely become a bigger issue as we close in on the American election. The Obama administration should be fairly nervous right now.
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Article here
Iran is contemplating closing the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for sanctions placed against the country by the EU. The EU will enforce an oil embargo against Iran for their failure in halting the Iranian nuclear program. The Strait of Hormuz is a waterway in which 20% of the worlds oil passes.
If we see a substantial price increase in oil, that will likely become a bigger issue as we close in on the American election. The Obama administration should be fairly nervous right now.
I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or not... but regardless if Iran takes any action or not... the threat of them taking action is likely to have some impact on the price of oil.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
seems highly unlikely that iran would do that.
I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or not... but regardless if Iran takes any action or not... the threat of them taking action is likely to have some impact on the price of oil.
Oil prices rose above the $100-a-barrel level for the first time in
three weeks, propelled higher by mounting tension over Iran and the
effects of a strike among Norway’s offshore oil and gas workers.
The threats from Iran over Hormuz come after the latest European and US
sanctions on the country’s oil exports came into effect on Sunday. Oil
traders believe the sanctions would knock another 400,000 barrels a day
from Iranian sales, on top of the already 600,000-800,000 b/d that
earlier US sanctions have already disrupted.
The loss of Iranian sales is tightening the oil market again even if Saudi Arabia continues pumping at a 30-year high of 10m b/d, according to industry sources. July will mark the sixth consecutive month of Saudi production near the 10m b/d mark, according to industry officials.
The scramble for supplies has been exacerbated by the workers’ strike in
Norway, which has cut the country’s output by 13 per cent of capacity,
according to some estimates. Norway is the world’s fifth-largest oil
exporter and its supplies affect the Brent oil market particularly hard.
0
Oil prices rose above the $100-a-barrel level for the first time in
three weeks, propelled higher by mounting tension over Iran and the
effects of a strike among Norway’s offshore oil and gas workers.
The threats from Iran over Hormuz come after the latest European and US
sanctions on the country’s oil exports came into effect on Sunday. Oil
traders believe the sanctions would knock another 400,000 barrels a day
from Iranian sales, on top of the already 600,000-800,000 b/d that
earlier US sanctions have already disrupted.
The loss of Iranian sales is tightening the oil market again even if Saudi Arabia continues pumping at a 30-year high of 10m b/d, according to industry sources. July will mark the sixth consecutive month of Saudi production near the 10m b/d mark, according to industry officials.
The scramble for supplies has been exacerbated by the workers’ strike in
Norway, which has cut the country’s output by 13 per cent of capacity,
according to some estimates. Norway is the world’s fifth-largest oil
exporter and its supplies affect the Brent oil market particularly hard.
Well I agree with the majority, that Iran taking action is unlikely. Unfortunately with oil being a traded commodity, the price can often be driven by perception rather than reality.
In the case of Iran threatening the stability of oil flow in the region, that isn't going to do us any favours at the pump.
0
Well I agree with the majority, that Iran taking action is unlikely. Unfortunately with oil being a traded commodity, the price can often be driven by perception rather than reality.
In the case of Iran threatening the stability of oil flow in the region, that isn't going to do us any favours at the pump.
These sanctions on Iran are an act of war. If I was in Iran's position I would close the straits. They have been war-gaming this scenario for 50 years.
Would the U.S. be justified in agressing an Iranian blockade?
It is kind of a catch-22 to say that it is wrong for Iran to retaliate against economic warfare, then proceed to attack them militarily for imposing (in effect) Economic sanctions against those that threaten their economic viability.
Looks like there is no real moral high ground. how will the United States respond to a new war that is overtly for oil, and where there was no imminent threat to the homeland?
Looks like they will have to get the psy ops guys working overtime on this one.
0
So much for lower gas prices.
These sanctions on Iran are an act of war. If I was in Iran's position I would close the straits. They have been war-gaming this scenario for 50 years.
Would the U.S. be justified in agressing an Iranian blockade?
It is kind of a catch-22 to say that it is wrong for Iran to retaliate against economic warfare, then proceed to attack them militarily for imposing (in effect) Economic sanctions against those that threaten their economic viability.
Looks like there is no real moral high ground. how will the United States respond to a new war that is overtly for oil, and where there was no imminent threat to the homeland?
Looks like they will have to get the psy ops guys working overtime on this one.
These sanctions on Iran are an act of war. If I was in Iran's position I would close the straits. They have been war-gaming this scenario for 50 years.
Would the U.S. be justified in agressing an Iranian blockade?
It is kind of a catch-22 to say that it is wrong for Iran to retaliate against economic warfare, then proceed to attack them militarily for imposing (in effect) Economic sanctions against those that threaten their economic viability.
Looks like there is no real moral high ground. how will the United States respond to a new war that is overtly for oil, and where there was no imminent threat to the homeland?
Looks like they will have to get the psy ops guys working overtime on this one.
Remember Gulf War I. .... It was fought overtly for oil.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
So much for lower gas prices.
These sanctions on Iran are an act of war. If I was in Iran's position I would close the straits. They have been war-gaming this scenario for 50 years.
Would the U.S. be justified in agressing an Iranian blockade?
It is kind of a catch-22 to say that it is wrong for Iran to retaliate against economic warfare, then proceed to attack them militarily for imposing (in effect) Economic sanctions against those that threaten their economic viability.
Looks like there is no real moral high ground. how will the United States respond to a new war that is overtly for oil, and where there was no imminent threat to the homeland?
Looks like they will have to get the psy ops guys working overtime on this one.
Remember Gulf War I. .... It was fought overtly for oil.
Rush, We had the moral high ground because Saddam was the aggressor. There was still psy ops employed such as the Nayirah testimony where a young girl testified to the human rights committee that Iraqi soldiers were killing babies by taking them out of incubators, taking people off of life support, and beating and killing people in hospitals.
None of it was true.
Link
The point being that the U.S. had a legitimate reason to get into that war, and they still used psy ops to get the U.S. public to go along. I think people are more savvy to the BS these days. It will be interesting to see what the new psy op will be.
0
Rush, We had the moral high ground because Saddam was the aggressor. There was still psy ops employed such as the Nayirah testimony where a young girl testified to the human rights committee that Iraqi soldiers were killing babies by taking them out of incubators, taking people off of life support, and beating and killing people in hospitals.
None of it was true.
Link
The point being that the U.S. had a legitimate reason to get into that war, and they still used psy ops to get the U.S. public to go along. I think people are more savvy to the BS these days. It will be interesting to see what the new psy op will be.
Imagine that. more threats of higher oil prices in the future,,,,,oooohh i'mma shakin' in me boots!
Remember the thread we had here early in the spring, about all the refineries that were being shut down in the NE and how that would lead to all around higher prices, especially in NE USA what with refined gas being so hard to come by these days
It's tough for any speculative commodity bets to hold such high price tags, while the global economy circles the drain of this deflationary death spiral
Besides, Middle East oil is old hat. Venezuela = the new ME
link
so lets see what kind of freedom obama will have to deliver to Venezuela here in his second term. He obviously has all the leftists wrapped around his pinky finger, so we could launch a full scale occupation for no reason at all and there'd be no blowback
0
Imagine that. more threats of higher oil prices in the future,,,,,oooohh i'mma shakin' in me boots!
Remember the thread we had here early in the spring, about all the refineries that were being shut down in the NE and how that would lead to all around higher prices, especially in NE USA what with refined gas being so hard to come by these days
It's tough for any speculative commodity bets to hold such high price tags, while the global economy circles the drain of this deflationary death spiral
Besides, Middle East oil is old hat. Venezuela = the new ME
link
so lets see what kind of freedom obama will have to deliver to Venezuela here in his second term. He obviously has all the leftists wrapped around his pinky finger, so we could launch a full scale occupation for no reason at all and there'd be no blowback
The crazy thing is that we have enough oil to give the Middle East the middle finger, but instead "our" president is on bended knee to them while giving the American citizenry the one finger salute.
0
The crazy thing is that we have enough oil to give the Middle East the middle finger, but instead "our" president is on bended knee to them while giving the American citizenry the one finger salute.
The crazy thing is that we have enough oil to give the Middle East the middle finger, but instead "our" president is on bended knee to them while giving the American citizenry the one finger salute.
I'm not so sure that this is factual. Primarily, the assumption that we have 'enough' domestic oil to blow off all of our exporters. Secondly, i'[m wondering what specific energy policy that this Bama admin has in place that is adversely affecting the citizenry here (as it comes to petro prices etc.) We are drilling domestically like we've never drilled before, and that is a result of early Bush admin years policy
click
0
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:
The crazy thing is that we have enough oil to give the Middle East the middle finger, but instead "our" president is on bended knee to them while giving the American citizenry the one finger salute.
I'm not so sure that this is factual. Primarily, the assumption that we have 'enough' domestic oil to blow off all of our exporters. Secondly, i'[m wondering what specific energy policy that this Bama admin has in place that is adversely affecting the citizenry here (as it comes to petro prices etc.) We are drilling domestically like we've never drilled before, and that is a result of early Bush admin years policy
The crazy thing is that we have enough oil to give the Middle East the middle finger, but instead "our" president is on bended knee to them while giving the American citizenry the one finger salute.
Like BE said, that really isnt factual.
We have potential for doing this but obtaining the product where it is located would be extremely costly..
0
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:
The crazy thing is that we have enough oil to give the Middle East the middle finger, but instead "our" president is on bended knee to them while giving the American citizenry the one finger salute.
Like BE said, that really isnt factual.
We have potential for doing this but obtaining the product where it is located would be extremely costly..
We have potential for doing this but obtaining the product where it is located would be extremely costly..
Is that still the case though?
I'm no expert, but for years here in Canada they said the tar sands were not a viable option due to the cost of extracting the oil. Now though, due to the increased cost of oil (over 600%), extracting oil from the tar sands is an incredibly profitable venture.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Like BE said, that really isnt factual.
We have potential for doing this but obtaining the product where it is located would be extremely costly..
Is that still the case though?
I'm no expert, but for years here in Canada they said the tar sands were not a viable option due to the cost of extracting the oil. Now though, due to the increased cost of oil (over 600%), extracting oil from the tar sands is an incredibly profitable venture.
I'm no expert, but for years here in Canada they said the tar sands were not a viable option due to the cost of extracting the oil. Now though, due to the increased cost of oil (over 600%), extracting oil from the tar sands is an incredibly profitable venture.
The reserves are in very remote locations..for the high quantity stuff..so places like Alaska and in very challenging places in Utah or shale deposits in North Dakota etc.
The easy stuff that has refineries nearby are already being hit up.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Renton:
Is that still the case though?
I'm no expert, but for years here in Canada they said the tar sands were not a viable option due to the cost of extracting the oil. Now though, due to the increased cost of oil (over 600%), extracting oil from the tar sands is an incredibly profitable venture.
The reserves are in very remote locations..for the high quantity stuff..so places like Alaska and in very challenging places in Utah or shale deposits in North Dakota etc.
The easy stuff that has refineries nearby are already being hit up.
Now though, due to the increased cost of oil (over 600%)
That's something unique to canada. relative to america. that most americans probably never think about. NOt only did oil spike 400+%, but our currencys went from 1/1.5 to parity
How many people factored that into all their silly paper retirement schemes
Renton, like wall said, the easy stuff that has refineries nearby are not only already being hit up but in decline of production. We all knew this was going to happen.
We are suffering thru the realitys of Energy Economics. ERoRI
American oil field productions peaked back with wages before i was born 31 years ago. Funny how domestic wages and domestic petro production peak at the same time, isn't it?
0
Now though, due to the increased cost of oil (over 600%)
That's something unique to canada. relative to america. that most americans probably never think about. NOt only did oil spike 400+%, but our currencys went from 1/1.5 to parity
How many people factored that into all their silly paper retirement schemes
Renton, like wall said, the easy stuff that has refineries nearby are not only already being hit up but in decline of production. We all knew this was going to happen.
We are suffering thru the realitys of Energy Economics. ERoRI
American oil field productions peaked back with wages before i was born 31 years ago. Funny how domestic wages and domestic petro production peak at the same time, isn't it?
100$+ per barrel makes more projects economically feasible. But that is the problem, not the solution. It's merely a symptom of declining capacity of total global petroleum. This isn't new news though.
The Hubbert peak theory says that for any given geographical area, from an individual oil-producing region to the planet as a whole, the rate of petroleum production tends to follow a bell-shaped curve. It is one of the primary theories on peak oil.
Choosing a particular curve determines a point of maximum production
based on discovery rates, production rates and cumulative production.
Early in the curve (pre-peak), the production rate increases because of
the discovery rate and the addition of infrastructure. Late in the curve
(post-peak), production declines because of resource depletion.
The Hubbert peak theory is based on the observation that the amount
of oil under the ground in any region is finite, therefore the rate of
discovery which initially increases quickly must reach a maximum and
decline. In the US, oil extraction followed the discovery curve after a
time lag of 32 to 35 years.[1][2] The theory is named after American geophysicist M. King Hubbert, who created a method of modeling the production curve given an assumed ultimate recovery volume
"Hubbert's peak" can refer to the peaking of production of a
particular area, which has now been observed for many fields and
regions.
Hubbert's Peak was achieved in the continental US in the early 1970s.
Oil production peaked at 10,200,000 barrels per day (1,620,000 m3/d). Since then, it has been in a gradual decline.
click
0
100$+ per barrel makes more projects economically feasible. But that is the problem, not the solution. It's merely a symptom of declining capacity of total global petroleum. This isn't new news though.
The Hubbert peak theory says that for any given geographical area, from an individual oil-producing region to the planet as a whole, the rate of petroleum production tends to follow a bell-shaped curve. It is one of the primary theories on peak oil.
Choosing a particular curve determines a point of maximum production
based on discovery rates, production rates and cumulative production.
Early in the curve (pre-peak), the production rate increases because of
the discovery rate and the addition of infrastructure. Late in the curve
(post-peak), production declines because of resource depletion.
The Hubbert peak theory is based on the observation that the amount
of oil under the ground in any region is finite, therefore the rate of
discovery which initially increases quickly must reach a maximum and
decline. In the US, oil extraction followed the discovery curve after a
time lag of 32 to 35 years.[1][2] The theory is named after American geophysicist M. King Hubbert, who created a method of modeling the production curve given an assumed ultimate recovery volume
"Hubbert's peak" can refer to the peaking of production of a
particular area, which has now been observed for many fields and
regions.
Hubbert's Peak was achieved in the continental US in the early 1970s.
Oil production peaked at 10,200,000 barrels per day (1,620,000 m3/d). Since then, it has been in a gradual decline.
In India, Reliance Industries has built
the world’s biggest refinery complex at Jamnagar in Gujarat state.
Motiva, a joint venture between Saudi Aramco and Royal Dutch Shell,
will this year add 325,000 b/d of capacity at a Port Arthur, Texas
refinery that will make it the largest in the US. Down river from
Philadelphia, a New Jersey company called PBF Energy recently bought
two refineries that can process cheaper, heavier crude than their
neighbours.
PBF, led by Tom O’Malley, a veteran refining investor
who until last year chaired Petroplus, says in its prospectus its
refineries are “well positioned” to profit from the “continued
rationalisation” of refining capacity on either side of the
Atlantic.
0
Financial Times
In India, Reliance Industries has built
the world’s biggest refinery complex at Jamnagar in Gujarat state.
Motiva, a joint venture between Saudi Aramco and Royal Dutch Shell,
will this year add 325,000 b/d of capacity at a Port Arthur, Texas
refinery that will make it the largest in the US. Down river from
Philadelphia, a New Jersey company called PBF Energy recently bought
two refineries that can process cheaper, heavier crude than their
neighbours.
PBF, led by Tom O’Malley, a veteran refining investor
who until last year chaired Petroplus, says in its prospectus its
refineries are “well positioned” to profit from the “continued
rationalisation” of refining capacity on either side of the
Atlantic.
As big eastern US cities search for replacement fuel sources, Gujarat
in India may even hold the advantage over the Gulf of Mexico.
The
reasons are part infrastructural, part legal.
The Colonial Pipeline, the main petroleum products line running from
Houston to the north-east, is nearly full.
A planned expansion will add
less capacity than that of the Philadelphia refinery destined to close.
This leaves tankers, which the Jones Act of 1920 requires to fly the US
flag and employ American crews if they are ferrying products between US
ports.
A debate is raging over whether there are enough, or at least
cheap enough, vessels to ship fuel eastwards.
The EIA says a limited number of Jones Act tankers are free to carry
refined products from the Gulf to the east coast, while Jones Act barges
can cost three times more than hiring a tanker from Europe.
Morten
Arntzen, chief executive of OSG, a tanker company, counters:
“Transportation is a really minuscule part of the delivery cost of
gasoline.”
0
More from the Financial Times
As big eastern US cities search for replacement fuel sources, Gujarat
in India may even hold the advantage over the Gulf of Mexico.
The
reasons are part infrastructural, part legal.
The Colonial Pipeline, the main petroleum products line running from
Houston to the north-east, is nearly full.
A planned expansion will add
less capacity than that of the Philadelphia refinery destined to close.
This leaves tankers, which the Jones Act of 1920 requires to fly the US
flag and employ American crews if they are ferrying products between US
ports.
A debate is raging over whether there are enough, or at least
cheap enough, vessels to ship fuel eastwards.
The EIA says a limited number of Jones Act tankers are free to carry
refined products from the Gulf to the east coast, while Jones Act barges
can cost three times more than hiring a tanker from Europe.
Morten
Arntzen, chief executive of OSG, a tanker company, counters:
“Transportation is a really minuscule part of the delivery cost of
gasoline.”
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
strategic oil reserve 
Hot Forum Topics
