ADVERTISEMENT

Oil Prices and Going Green

Nov 28, 2010
87,454
42,222
113
Maryland
Many people have said we'd go green only when the rising oil prices made green technologies more competitive than their fossil counterparts. Which might happen with dwindling supplies and accelerating demand from underdeveloped nations. Or could happen if we impose a carbon tax or other restrictions.

But now some people are suggesting that low oil prices might be the trigger. If the price of oil drops too much, a lot of the fossil fuel industry could collapse. Sure, Saudi Arabia and a few well-positioned nations and corporations will still manage very well, but a lot won't. And when they don't, will they lose the political clout necessary to keep green solutions from being enacted by governments around the world?
 
I doubt the fossil fuel industry collapses anytime soon until you get a safe, reliable, affordable, green method for powering our automobiles.

I will say that I don't think the investment in green energy is going to drop suddenly just cause oil is *somewhat* cheap again. Every adult alive today remembers $4 a gallon gas. . . they arn't just going to forget that and think "Oh that could never happen again."

The country still wants green energy. The only ones that don't are the oil companies and the politicians they own.
 
This is great for the green solutions people - prices to high good for green and prices to low good for green. I guess the only thing green has to worry about is a mid price between the two.

It will take some time but green will eventually catch up to fossil. This will be more about technology advances for green than what fossil fuel prices are.
 
I doubt the fossil fuel industry collapses anytime soon until you get a safe, reliable, affordable, green method for powering our automobiles.

I will say that I don't think the investment in green energy is going to drop suddenly just cause oil is *somewhat* cheap again. Every adult alive today remembers $4 a gallon gas. . . they arn't just going to forget that and think "Oh that could never happen again."

The country still wants green energy. The only ones that don't are the oil companies and the politicians they own.
And yet I hear that SUV and truck sales are skyrocketing.
 
This is great for the green solutions people - prices to high good for green and prices to low good for green. I guess the only thing green has to worry about is a mid price between the two.

It will take some time but green will eventually catch up to fossil. This will be more about technology advances for green than what fossil fuel prices are.
True, but probably too late if we just wait for it to happen.
 
True, but probably too late if we just wait for it to happen.
You won't be able to replace fossil with green until the availability, price, and production is there without some serious ripples to the economy. Big changes to the way we live and what we consume is not going to be popular from the poorest to the richest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk in SEC Country
Many people have said we'd go green only when the rising oil prices made green technologies more competitive than their fossil counterparts. Which might happen with dwindling supplies and accelerating demand from underdeveloped nations. Or could happen if we impose a carbon tax or other restrictions.

But now some people are suggesting that low oil prices might be the trigger. If the price of oil drops too much, a lot of the fossil fuel industry could collapse. Sure, Saudi Arabia and a few well-positioned nations and corporations will still manage very well, but a lot won't. And when they don't, will they lose the political clout necessary to keep green solutions from being enacted by governments around the world?

Some people are dreaming. If parts of the fossil fuel industry collapse (very likely to be smaller debt-ridden corporations without much political pull), their assets will be gobbled up at a discounted price by the larger corporations (see Exxon, SaudiAramco, etc.) who actually have political pull. The big boys are licking their chops right now as they sit on mountains of cash watching the stock prices of the smaller corporations (CHK, OAS, CLR, etc.) fall as they inch their way towards bankruptcy. The big boys will emerge from this downturn with more money and political power than ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Some people are dreaming. If parts of the fossil fuel industry collapse (very likely to be smaller debt-ridden corporations without much political pull), their assets will be gobbled up at a discounted price by the larger corporations (see Exxon, SaudiAramco, etc.) who actually have political pull. The big boys are licking their chops right now as they sit on mountains of cash watching the stock prices of the smaller corporations (CHK, OAS, CLR, etc.) fall as they inch their way towards bankruptcy. The big boys will emerge from this downturn with more money and political power than ever.
Probably. But what does Exxon do if it is sitting on vast reserves that aren't profitable to develop at $20/bbl?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Probably. But what does Exxon do if it is sitting on vast reserves that aren't profitable to develop at $20/bbl?

They're probably already sitting on vast reserves that aren't profitable to develop at today's price. They'll continue to only develop their assets that are profitable and produce the assets that are profitable to produce at any given price. It is highly unlikely prices continue to fall to the point where the big boys can't make any money and have to take on significant debt, but if they do, they will cut development and production and you'll see prices shoot from $20 (or whatever price it's at) to record prices so fast it will make your head spin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
They're probably already sitting on vast reserves that aren't profitable to develop at today's price. They'll continue to only develop their assets that are profitable and produce the assets that are profitable to produce at any given price. It is highly unlikely prices continue to fall to the point where the big boys can't make any money and have to take on significant debt, but if they do, they will cut development and production and you'll see prices shoot from $20 (or whatever price it's at) to record prices so fast it will make your head spin.
You know what would be really bad for a country like Saudi Arabia? To have the world go green while you still have a lot of unpumped oil in the ground.
 
If we were serious about getting out of fossil fuels, now would be the time to slap a tax on gasoline with the revenues dedicated to highway infrastructure projects.

Won't happen, of course.


You do realize there is already a $.31 a gallon gas tax in Iowa right? $215 M in revenue to infrastructure such as roads and bridges. This just got raised by $.10 a gallon in July 2015.
 
If we were serious about getting out of fossil fuels, now would be the time to slap a tax on gasoline with the revenues dedicated to highway infrastructure projects.

Won't happen, of course.
Why would raising the tax on gasoline get us out of fossil fuels? The price of gas has been higher and people still drove.
 
Saudi Arabia needs higher oil prices in the long term. They need oil in the $100 range to support their national spending. They have enough cash to support themselves on lower oil prices for a period of time but eventually they will need oil prices to rise. Throwing it out there--fire away...
 
Would you feel bad for them?
Why is that even a question?

I guess my point was too subtle. If you are sitting on assets that stand to become worthless in the future, selling now - even at deep discounts - is smarter than still sitting on them when the market switches from oil to what you don't have.
 
Saudi Arabia needs higher oil prices in the long term. They need oil in the $100 range to support their national spending. They have enough cash to support themselves on lower oil prices for a period of time but eventually they will need oil prices to rise. Throwing it out there--fire away...
As I understand it, they are making a profit at these prices and may still be making a profit at half this price. Almost no other producer can do that. Apparently it has to do with their oil being easier to extract than the norm, and their infrastructure being fully built out and paid for.

If, in 20 years, SA is out of oil while Iran and Iraq and Venezuela are still sitting on massive reserves, SA is laughing all the way to the bank. Because in 20 years EVERYBODY will insist the world stop using oil. And SA will be the only folks who unloaded all of theirs while it still had value.
 
A decade or 2 ago people were asking why Iran would build nuclear power plants. Couldn't be for nuclear power, since they had all that oil they could use to fuel their power plants, so must be for nukes.

Iran's answer was that they'd rather sell the oil and build a nuclear power grid that would last them into the middle of this century and beyond.

Sure, they may still want bombs; or not; who knows? But the argument that they want a source of electricity beyond oil, and the recognition that they could sell the oil to do other things with the money makes good sense.

The same logic applies to what SA is doing now. That isn't the only reason, but you can be sure it's a good part of it.
 
I guess my point was too subtle. If you are sitting on assets that stand to become worthless in the future, selling now - even at deep discounts - is smarter than still sitting on them when the market switches from oil to what you don't have.[/QUOTE]

Your point wouldn't have been so subtle if there was even a snowball's chance in hell of the market switching to what they don't have, any time soon.
 
As I understand it, they are making a profit at these prices and may still be making a profit at half this price. Almost no other producer can do that. Apparently it has to do with their oil being easier to extract than the norm, and their infrastructure being fully built out and paid for.

If, in 20 years, SA is out of oil while Iran and Iraq and Venezuela are still sitting on massive reserves, SA is laughing all the way to the bank. Because in 20 years EVERYBODY will insist the world stop using oil. And SA will be the only folks who unloaded all of theirs while it still had value.

The Saudi's are a nationalized oil nation and their oil may be "profitable" as low as $20/bbl when considering oil production as it's own entity, separate from the government that runs it, but that doesn't mean the Saudi's are technically profiting in the grand scheme of things. The government/company that controls the oil production, needs about $100/bbl to function in it's current capacity without losing money.

And there are some major, major caveats to everybody insisting the world stop using oil in 20 years. But in the very slim chance that comes to fruition and the Saudi's have unloaded all of their oil by then, it won't be because of "smart" planning on their part. It will be because of dumb luck that the current market conditions forced them to unload it early at discounted prices.
 
I guess my point was too subtle. If you are sitting on assets that stand to become worthless in the future, selling now - even at deep discounts - is smarter than still sitting on them when the market switches from oil to what you don't have.

Your point wouldn't have been so subtle if there was even a snowball's chance in hell of the market switching to what they don't have, any time soon.
So . . . my assessment explains what SA is doing but you say it's wrong. What's your assessment?
 
The Saudi's are a nationalized oil nation and their oil may be "profitable" as low as $20/bbl when considering oil production as it's own entity, separate from the government that runs it, but that doesn't mean the Saudi's are technically profiting in the grand scheme of things. The government/company that controls the oil production, needs about $100/bbl to function in it's current capacity without losing money.

And there are some major, major caveats to everybody insisting the world stop using oil in 20 years. But in the very slim chance that comes to fruition and the Saudi's have unloaded all of their oil by then, it won't be because of "smart" planning on their part. It will be because of dumb luck that the current market conditions forced them to unload it early at discounted prices.
I've never seen anything that even remotely supports your claim that they need to make $100/bbl. Can you back that up? We aren't talking about Venezuela.
 
So . . . my assessment explains what SA is doing but you say it's wrong. What's your assessment?

What's your assessment again and how does it explain what SA is doing? Please be more concise than "as I understand it derp, derp, derp".
 
Last edited:
I've never seen anything that even remotely supports your claim that they need to make $100/bbl. Can you back that up? We aren't talking about Venezuela.

Hey, $100/bbl is a complete generalization and nobody knows the true number (not even SA). You got some hard figures to give on your part?
 
If, in 20 years, SA is out of oil while Iran and Iraq and Venezuela are still sitting on massive reserves, SA is laughing all the way to the bank. Because in 20 years EVERYBODY will insist the world stop using oil. And SA will be the only folks who unloaded all of theirs while it still had value.

You got something to back that up with brah? Or is that just more diarrhea rolling down your leg?
 
Those who argue that hard numbers are difficult to come by with all things Saudi are correct--especially when it comes to oil. The best I can come up with in terms of hard numbers ( and I am admittedly bad when it comes to internet research) is, per Wikipedia, that Saudi Aramco ( the state owned oil company) produced some 3.479 billion barrels last year. A look at the SA government website tells us that their most recent year budget is $248,000,000. Are those two numbers accurate? Hard to say but if we use those numbers and let's say, 100% of Saudi Aramco production is for sale, and the production cost of that oil is zero, then the cost to run the government, as a function of oil production, is in the $70 per barrel range.

Saudi Arabia' cost to get a barrel of oil out of the ground is cheaper than anyone else. No question about that. Accordingly they can sell oil at a profit a lower oil prices than anyone in the world. But the question is the Saudi Kingdom's spending as it relates to its main source of income and that is oil production.

Eventually Saudi needs higher oil prices.
 
On the subject of Saudi governmental spending, you might wish to read this from the WSJ

page1image720

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit http://www.djreprints.com.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-a...5-billion-to-plug-budget-shortfall-1439305126

MARKETS

Saudi Arabia Issues Bonds Worth $5 Billion to Plug Budget Shortfall

No. 1 oil exporter grapples with the fallout from lower crude prices

Al-Faisaliya tower is seen through metal bars from a nearby building under construction during a sandstorm in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The country relies on oil sales for 90% of its budget revenue. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS

By NICOLAS PARASIE in Dubai and AHMED AL OMRAN in Hofuf, Saudi Arabia

Updated Aug. 11, 2015 2:09 p.m. ET

HOFUF, Saudi Arabia—Saudi Arabia has issued bonds worth 20 billion riyals ($5.33 billion), and plans to raise billions more to maintain its spending plans, as the world’s top oil exporter grapples with lower revenues amid a dramatic drop in energy prices.

The bonds were sold to local banks and institutions in three tranches of five-, seven- and 10-year maturities, the official Saudi Press Agency, or SPA, said Tuesday, citing the Saudi finance ministry. Saudi Arabia issued development bonds worth 15 billion riyals in June as well, its first sovereign issuance since 2007. More multibillion debt sales could follow in the coming months, the SPA said.

Saudi Arabia’s debt issuance comes as the kingdom and the other oil-exporting economies of the Persian Gulf are contending with the fallout of lower oil prices that have sunk below $50, roughly half of what they were at a year ago. Oil revenue makes up for most of the budget income of these countries, or close to 90% in the case of Saudi

page1image15648

Arabia.

Until now, most of the Persian Gulf states have opted to continue spending on infrastructure to spur economic growth. That reluctance to cut spending comes at the cost of widening deficits and increasing budgetary strains.

The International Monetary Fund recently said Saudi Arabia is likely to run a fiscal deficit of about 20% of its gross domestic product, or about $150 billion, this year. Economic growth, meanwhile, will hover around 3.5% this year but weaken in 2016, the IMF said.

“While the large fiscal expenditures and infrastructure projects are pushing the deficit higher this year, it is also keeping domestic activity resilient, helping to partly offset the oil shock,” said Kaan Nazli, senior economist for emerging market debt at Neuberger Berman.

Saudi Arabia has been tapping its foreign reserves to make up for the loss in oil revenue: at the end of June, the central bank’s foreign assets stood at about $664 billion, down more than 9% from $733 billion a year earlier.

Besides Saudi Arabia’s domestic spending on infrastructure and welfare, the country is fighting the growing menace of Islamic State, and is directly involved in the Yemen conflict, where it is leading a military coalition against the Iran-backed Houthis.

In recent years, the country has also been ramping up its military spending, investing billions of dollars into building and upgrading its arsenal amid growing unrest in the region.

Saudi Arabia, whose debt-to-GDP ratio is estimated at less than 2%, sold its bonds locally and relied on its domestic financial sector rather than tapping international markets, a move some bankers attribute to ample liquidity on the banking side.

The country has already raised about 35 billion riyals through bond sales locally, and news reports suggest that amount could reach 100 billion riyals by the end of the year. The ministry of finance couldn’t be immediately reached for comment on Tuesday.

Analysts at London-based Capital Economics said the bond issuances are a sign of Saudi Arabia’s willingness to widen its domestic capital market. In June, Saudi Arabia for the first time opened its stock market to direct foreign investments.

“A deeper government bond market would provide investors with a greater choice of assets to hold in their portfolios,” said Capital’s William Jackson. “And it would allow the development of a yield curve, allowing for the more efficient pricing of private-sector debt,” he added.

Write to Nicolas Parasie at nicolas.parasie@wsj.com and Ahmed Al Omran at Ahmed.AlOmran@wsj.com

Copyright 2014 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.
 
Hey, $100/bbl is a complete generalization and nobody knows the true number (not even SA). You got some hard figures to give on your part?
Good grief. Exxon and BP and the rest all have numbers on this. Are they precise to the penny? Of course not. But within a buck or 2.
 
every time somebody invented as carb in the 1970's that got 100mpg, big oil operatives and GM bought it then took it out back and beat it with a hammer
 
Those who argue that hard numbers are difficult to come by with all things Saudi are correct--especially when it comes to oil. The best I can come up with in terms of hard numbers ( and I am admittedly bad when it comes to internet research) is, per Wikipedia, that Saudi Aramco ( the state owned oil company) produced some 3.479 billion barrels last year. A look at the SA government website tells us that their most recent year budget is $248,000,000. Are those two numbers accurate? Hard to say but if we use those numbers and let's say, 100% of Saudi Aramco production is for sale, and the production cost of that oil is zero, then the cost to run the government, as a function of oil production, is in the $70 per barrel range.

Saudi Arabia' cost to get a barrel of oil out of the ground is cheaper than anyone else. No question about that. Accordingly they can sell oil at a profit a lower oil prices than anyone in the world. But the question is the Saudi Kingdom's spending as it relates to its main source of income and that is oil production.

Eventually Saudi needs higher oil prices.

Thanks for doing the dirty work. Sometimes it takes a
Good grief. Exxon and BP and the rest all have numbers on this. Are they precise to the penny? Of course not. But within a buck or 2.

The International Monetary Fund estimates the "break even" price for Saudi Arabia is $106/bbl.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html
 
Just science. Eventually even idiot deniers have to face the truth.

I'm not a "denier", FWIW. But I do think you're a pompous moron who probably doesn't understand climate change science any better than you understand global economics.
 
Thanks for doing the dirty work. Sometimes it takes a


The International Monetary Fund estimates the "break even" price for Saudi Arabia is $106/bbl.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html
Apples and oranges. We are talking about profit after production costs - LIKE WE WOULD WITH ANY OTHER BUSINESS - not profit after paying the entire national budget.

What's the matter with you people? You wouldn't measure the price point for Exxon or Shell that way.
 
Apples and oranges. We are talking about profit after production costs - LIKE WE WOULD WITH ANY OTHER BUSINESS - not profit after paying the entire national budget.

What's the matter with you people? You wouldn't measure the price point for Exxon or Shell that way.

No duh. Because they are not nationalized oil companies. And yes, it is apples to oranges. I tried explaining that to you about 6 posts ago when I told you their oil production is profitable at a low price only when considered as an entity that is separate from their government. Problem is, it is not an entity separate from the government. If you could read, you would have already known that by now.

If EXXON were spin off it's production unit as it's own entity separate from everything else it does, suddenly their oil would become "profitable" at an extremely low price as the rest of the company went broke much like Saudi Arabia will if they continue to produce at very low prices.
 
Last edited:
Wwjd. I was attempting to respond to the point you made in your original post. There you wrote " Sure, Saudia Arabia and a few well positioned nations and corporations will still manage very well. "

I was trying to make it clear that Saudia Arabia will eventually need higher oil prices to support continued spending at current levels.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT