checkAd

    Ölpreise überverkauft: Gründe für den Absturz der Öl-Notierungen - 500 Beiträge pro Seite | Diskussion im Forum

    eröffnet am 24.10.14 09:14:10 von
    neuester Beitrag 22.08.19 09:53:05 von
    Beiträge: 241
    ID: 1.201.166
    Aufrufe heute: 0
    Gesamt: 111.183
    Aktive User: 0

    Werte aus der Branche Öl/Gas

    WertpapierKursPerf. %
    32,88+49,86
    350,00+22,38
    4,1100+10,19
    7,2500+9,85
    1,8000+8,43
    WertpapierKursPerf. %
    1.500,00-10,45
    0,5875-15,22
    0,7333-23,61
    17,550-24,45
    18,000-34,55

     Durchsuchen

    Begriffe und/oder Benutzer

     

    Top-Postings

     Ja Nein
      Avatar
      schrieb am 24.10.14 09:14:10
      Beitrag Nr. 1 ()
      Ein derartiger Kursrutsch bei den Ölpreisen, wie wir ihn aktuell gesehen haben, ist fundamental eigentlich kaum zu begründen, auch wenn die Internationale Energie Agentur (IEA) in ihrem Ölmarktbericht für den Oktober, der am Dienstag herauskam, …

      Lesen sie den ganzen Artikel: Ölpreise überverkauft: Gründe für den Absturz der Öl-Notierungen
      Avatar
      schrieb am 24.10.14 09:14:10
      Beitrag Nr. 2 ()
      Rohölförderung kostet durchschnittlich 7,70 Dollar pro Barrel

      Nach Berechnung der Deutschen Bank könnte der Ölpreis unter 20 Dollar je Barrel fallen, bevor die Ölproduktion in Ländern außerhalb der OPEC in großem Stil nachlassen würde. Die Deutsche Bank hat eine Analyse durchgeführt, um festzustellen, wie sich die Wirtschaftskrise kurz und mittelfristig auf das Ölangebot auswirken könnte. Die Analysten berechneten, bei welchem Rohölpreis neue Projekte, zum Beispiel in großen Wassertiefen vor Angola, Brasilien, Nigeria und im Golf von Mexiko, noch wirtschaftlich sein könnten. Das Ergebnis war erstaunlich: Die reinen Förderkosten (ohne staatliche Förderabgaben an die Förderländer) sind auch in solchen Gebieten relativ gering.

      In Russland, der Nordsee und Alaska bewegen sich die Förderkosten um die 15 Dollar je Barrel und liegen damit noch deutlich unter den gegenwärtigen Ölpreisen. Nur bei den kanadischen Ölsanden kam die Deutsche Bank auf Förderkosten von 28 Dollar je Barrel. Sinkt der Ölpreis unter 30 Dollar je Barrel, würde die Förderung von 35 Millionen Tonnen Rohöl unwirtschaftlich, wobei von dieser Menge fast 60 Prozent auf Kanadas Ölsande entfallen würden. Erst bei 20 Dollar je Barrel Förderkosten würden 175 Millionen Tonnen Ölproduktion im Jahr in die roten Zahlen geraten. Nach Berechnungen der Deutschen Bank betragen die durchschnittlichen, reinen Förderkosten, ohne Verzinsung des eingesetzten Kapitals und der staatlichen Abgaben, in den Förderländern 7,70 Dollar je Barrel. Unter diesem Wert liegen die Länder in Nahost, wie die Vereinigten Emirate, Kuwait, Saudi Arabien, Iran, Libyen, Algerien, Irak und Venezuela. Am höchsten sind die Förderkosten in der Nordsee, Alaska, Russland, China und bei den Ölsanden in Kanada.
      3 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.10.14 09:44:52
      Beitrag Nr. 3 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.120.896 von conny220 am 24.10.14 09:14:10kannst Du einen Link zu der Quelle geben?
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.10.14 10:38:10
      Beitrag Nr. 4 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.148.796 von R-BgO am 28.10.14 09:44:52http://www.ed-info.de/edplus/ArtikelAnsichtArc.php?newsId=15…

      ps:
      Der Artikel ist von 2009 und summiert sich dann womöglich sogar aus noch etwas älteren Daten.
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.10.14 10:41:28
      Beitrag Nr. 5 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.149.447 von Ruehrwerk am 28.10.14 10:38:10Danke, den hatte ich auch gefunden...

      Zumindest eine gute Gelegenheit, mal über die Kosten-Struktur nachzudenken.

      Trading Spotlight

      Anzeige
      Der Final Countdown: Hier heute noch rein!? Große Meldung angekündigt…mehr zur Aktie »
      Avatar
      schrieb am 30.10.14 12:06:50
      Beitrag Nr. 6 ()
      DON'T EXPECT A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN US SHALE PRODUCTION GROWTH
      http://www.rystadenergy.com/AboutUs/NewsCenter/PressReleases…



      October 15, 2014

      Author: Bjornar Tonhaugen, VP Oil & Gas Markets

      As oil prices are plummeting, the oil market is looking for clues about how low prices can go before we see a response on the supply side. The market’s attention is naturally turning towards OPEC and North American (NAm) shale production, but Rystad Energy’s latest analysis shows that a significant reduction in shale volumes at current prices should not be expected. NAm shale oil output will respond very slowly to a drop in oil prices. Recent history, such as outages in Libya, shows that supply shocks of up to 500 kbbld could be needed to move global oil prices 10 USD/bbl. Rystad Energy’s well-by-well database shows that even if the Brent price drops to 50 USD/bbl, it could take up to 12 months before NAm shale output would drop as much as 500 kbbld. In order to maintain production levels in 2015 at expected exit-2014 levels of 6.4m b/d, Brent-equivalent oil prices can fall to as low as USD 60-65 per barrel (Exhibit 1).


      The most robust plays are Eagle Ford and Bakken with no significant volumes at risk with current levels of realized prices. In the Permian however, where supply growth has been the strongest this year, we see that merely about 100 kbbld could be at risk over the next 12 months at current WTI Midland prices (Exhibit 2). The Permian oil-price-spread to Cushing and Brent/LLS has narrowed to -7 USD/bbl with the recent opening of the BridgeTex pipeline. The BridgeTex moves 300 kbbld from Mitchell County to Houston and additional take-away capacity is expected to come online next year. Our analysis shows that NAm shale liquids output has passed 6 MMbbld (including 1.5MMbbld of NGLs) during the third quarter of this year and it grows with a staggering rate of 1.5 MMbbld year-on-year in 2014 and 2015. This growth rate is surprisingly insensitive to oil price fluctuations at current price levels.


      In today’s IEA Oil Market Report for October, the call-on-OPEC crude production to theoretically balance the oil market next year was lowered to 29.3 MMbbld vs. September 2014 OPEC crude production of 30.6 MMbbld. Downwards revised world oil demand growth of 1.1 MMbbld year-on-year compares with the UCube supply growth of 1.8 MMbbld for 2015 (Exhibit 3). In other words, markets may be even more oversupplied next year than previously thought. Either oil prices will come down further or a significant cut in supplies to the market has to be made, with the ball now firmly in OPEC’s court.






      Avatar
      schrieb am 30.10.14 12:14:00
      Beitrag Nr. 7 ()
      von Rystad kommt auch die cost-curve, die im Moment von allen präsentiert wird:
      .
      GLOBAL LIQUIDS COST CURVE: SHALE IS PUSHING OUT OIL SANDS AND ARCTIC, OFFSHORE IS STILL IN THE RACE June 12, 2014
      Rystad Energy estimates that oil sands and the Arctic continue to be the most expensive resources, with an average breakeven price of 75-80 $/boe. The attractiveness of the resources has declined over the past years, mainly as a result of the introduction of North American shale. The break-even price of NA shale is estimated at an average of 60-70 $/boe.

      Offshore is still in the race with lower break-even prices than U.S. and Canadian shale developments (ultra-deepwater at 55-60 $/boe; deepwater at 50-55 $/boe and offshore shelf at 40-45$/boe).

      “Though offshore projects have recently experienced a slowdown in investment levels, this decline is part of a natural cycle, and activity levels are expected to increase again. Both Deepwater and Ultradeepwater are necessary to develop in order to meet our demand outlook of around 100 million boe/d in 2020,” says Espen Erlingsen, Senior Analyst at Rystad Energy.

      Rystad Energy’s demand outlook is just above IEA’s demand outlook of 98 million boe/d in 2020.

      Avatar
      schrieb am 30.10.14 12:31:23
      Beitrag Nr. 8 ()
      OIL MARKETS: INCREASING RISK OF OVERSUPPLY DESPITE SUSTAINED ISSUES AROUND OPEC SUPPLY June 18, 2014
      IEA on June 17 released its Medium-Term Oil Market Report. Rystad Energy has compared the revised IEA demand outlook with own supply estimates deriving from its global upstream database UCube. The estimates are based on Rystad Energy’s bottom-up analysis of 30,000 fields and 2,500 oil companies in 150 countries.

      Analysis shows that oil markets have gradually been tightening over the last two years while the outlook indicates a possible inflection point early 2015 and an increasing downward pressure on oil prices for the coming two-three years. The recent geopolitical outages of oil production from the Middle East and North Africa has until now been perfectly balanced by the increased supply of unconventional tight oil from the United States. This predicted easing of the oil markets is partly driven by an assumption of gradual return over the next two years of oil from Libya, Iran, Iraq and Sudan, while US drillers are continuing their activities with unchanged intensity and increased efficiency.

      Rystad Energy now forecasts North American tight liquids production to pass 10 million barrels before 2020 making North America a net exporter of seaborne crude and petroleum products within three years from now.

      Avatar
      schrieb am 30.10.14 12:33:29
      Beitrag Nr. 9 ()
      Wenn man die Rystad-Berichte zeitnah gelesen und danach gehandelt hätte, wäre man recht gut gefahren...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 30.10.14 13:02:12
      Beitrag Nr. 10 ()
      es ist nicht einfach, was über cash-costs zu finden, aber so langsam gelingt es:

      z.B. bei Tullow Oil
      http://www.tullowoil.com/index.asp?pageid=113

      3 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 30.10.14 13:04:54
      Beitrag Nr. 11 ()
      und von der EIA, allerdings etwas älter
      http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=367&t=6
      Avatar
      schrieb am 30.10.14 13:27:55
      Beitrag Nr. 12 ()
      Und hier noch eine längere Abhandlung zu break-even, cash-cost, etc.: http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/312313/file-374680987-pdf/Whitep…


      Versuche mal, ein Zwischenfazit zu ziehen - feed-back welcome:

      1) der durchschnittliche break-even der Ölproduktion läuft langfristig weiter kontinuierlich nach oben; billlgeres Öl erschöpft sich und wird durch teureres ersetzt (#7)

      2) kurzfristig wirkt sich der shale-oil boom in den USA so aus, dass a) die Produktion sehr stark gestiegen ist (#6), wobei die break-even Kosten für nennenswert weiteres Wachstum von heute aus oberhalb von 60$ liegen; erst unter 60$ wird es keinen starken weiteren Ausbau geben

      3) die shale-oil Angebotsausweitung hat den Ölmarkt aus dem Gleichgewicht gebracht UND das wird sich möglicherweise 2015-17 noch verschärfen (#8)

      4) nochmals verschärfend kommt hinzu, dass -ebenfalls kurz- und evtl. sogar mittelfristig- die break-even Kosten gar nicht so entscheidend sind, sondern die cash-Kosten (so etwas ähnliches habe ich schon im PV-Sektor erlebt): solange man mit der Produktion mehr einnimmt, als die cash-Kosten, verschlechtert sich die Bilanz weniger stark, als wenn man aufgibt. D.h. wenn es ein Überangebot gibt, dann muss der Preis soweit runter, dass die Jungs am oberen Ende der cash-cost-curve das Handtuch werfen, solange bis Angebot und Nachfrage wieder im Gleichgewicht sind.

      5) da die cash-costs SEHR viel niedriger (#10, #11) zu sein scheinen, als die break-even costs (was plausibel ist, angesichts der gigantischen CapEx) bedeutet das, dass die Anpassung primär über unterlassene Produktionsausweitung (=gestrichene Investitionen) erfolgen muss; gemildert werden kann das über stärker als erwartet steigende Nachfrage


      => in Summe für mich mal wieder ein klassischer Fall für "markets are made at the margin", mit gewalttätigen Schweinezyklusattributen

      bin gespannt, wer lang genug lebt, um den nächsten Boom wieder zu ereichen
      4 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 30.10.14 16:35:46
      Beitrag Nr. 13 ()
      Schwer zu sagen, ich schätze aber mal der hier möchte u.A. einen Aufschwung der Energiepreise schon noch erleben und wenn an den Gerüchten was dran ist hat er eventuell nicht mehr allzu viel Zeit seinen Patriotismus "bestmöglich" umzusetzen.Wenn´s wahr ist fände man darin auch womöglich aus psychologischer Sicht heraus eine Teilerklärung für verstärkt drängendes unnachgiebiges Vorgehen.
      http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/geruechte-verdichten-sic…
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 30.10.14 17:49:17
      Beitrag Nr. 14 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.176.218 von Ruehrwerk am 30.10.14 16:35:46und was soll "der hier" an den Marktverhältnissen machen können?

      die russische Förderung einstellen, um denn Markt zu beruhigen? ;)
      Avatar
      schrieb am 01.11.14 11:11:33
      Beitrag Nr. 15 ()
      auf der letzten Seite der in #12 verlinkten Quelle findet sich eine Kostenabschätzung für die majors, derzufolge:

      production cost rund 15$ per barrel
      finding & development cost rund 35$ per barrel

      betragen;

      stützt die These, dass Marktgleichgewicht über unterlassene Investitionen herzustellen ist
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 02.11.14 10:53:10
      Beitrag Nr. 16 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.193.552 von R-BgO am 01.11.14 11:11:33Apropos Ölpreis: Schon mal was von "Hemisphere Energy" gehört?
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.11.14 13:55:58
      Beitrag Nr. 17 ()
      WTI gestern $76,70
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.11.14 18:40:59
      Beitrag Nr. 18 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.173.359 von R-BgO am 30.10.14 13:27:55
      Zitat von R-BgO: 5) da die cash-costs SEHR viel niedriger (#10, #11) zu sein scheinen, als die break-even costs (was plausibel ist, angesichts der gigantischen CapEx) bedeutet das, dass die Anpassung primär über unterlassene Produktionsausweitung (=gestrichene Investitionen) erfolgen muss; gemildert werden kann das über stärker als erwartet steigende Nachfrage


      Das stimmt zwar alles, ist meiner bescheidenen Meinung nach aber nur die halbe Miete.

      Der Ölpreis ist so wenig ein reiner Marktpreis wie die Ölförderer reine gewinnorientierte Unternehmen sind.

      Zwar nicht der größte Teil der Ölförderung, aber immer noch ein entscheidend großer ist in der Hand der Saudis und ihnen nahestehenden sunnitischen Arabern. deswegen tragen sie im amerikanischen die Bezeichnung "swing state" oder "swing producer".

      Meine These lautet dementsprechend, dass die Saudis letztlich den Preis bestimmen. Das hatten einige vergessen, und zwar nicht nur us-amerikanische Fracker, sondern vor allem undisziplinierte OPEC-Kartellbrüder. Die Iraner, Venezuelander, Nigerianer etc. sind weder politisch noch religiös mit den Saudis verbündet. Eher im Gegenteil. Sie haben in den letzten Jahren einfach drauf los gepumpt, um ihre Haushalte durch Öleinnahmen zu finanzieren. Das nicht-OPEC Land Rußland im Prinzip ebenso.

      Diese Staaten trifft es jetzt auch am härtesten. Die independent oil companies können in der Tat auch mit niedrigeren Ölpreisen weiter profitabel fördern. sie kürzen eben entsprechend stark bei den Investitionen und verdienen weniger.

      Was aber soll Venezuela machen? Deren verstaatlichte Ölindustrie kann keine Investitionen kürzen, weil die noch nicht einmal die dringend notwendigen Wartungsarbeiten schaffen. Die sind schon kaputt gespart. Gleichzeitig ist Venezuela nahe der Zahlungsunfähigkeit und das sozialisitische Regime kann auch kaum Sozialausgaben kürzen, ohne eine Rebellion zu riskieren.

      Was soll der Iran machen? Durch die Sanktionen haben die nichts mehr außer der Ölindustrie. ihr überdimensionierter Militärapparat verschlingt laufende Kosten, die sie sich nicht leisten können und außerdem gibt der Iran viel Geld für außenpolitische Abentuer aus, z. B. Unterstützung der Hisbollah.

      Was soll Putin machen? Auch Rußlands Ölindustrie müßte investieren. Der Staatshaushalt ist aber auf der Basis eines Ölpreises von $100 kalkuliert. Bei $70 fehlen die Milliarden hinten und vorne. Politisch müssen die Krim, andere ukrainische Separatisten sowie weitere Vasallenstaaten alimentiert werden. Alles teure Kostgänger. Der russische Militärapparat dürfte auch sehr teuer sein und die Bevölkerung wird Putin kaum kürzungen der Sozialausgaben verzeihen - solange er durch die sanktionen unnötig hohe preise verursacht.

      Was soll Nigeria machen? Dieser Staat ist durch und durch korrupt und wird nur durch die Öleinnahmen notdürftig zusammen gehalten. Dieser Staat ist so herunter gewirtschaftet, dass die sich weder gegen Ebola noch gegen Boko Haram wehren können. Wie groß muß der Frust in der Bevölkerung sein, dass islamistische Terroristen 300 Mädchen entführen können und damit durchkommen?

      Diese Staaten haben eben um ihre Ausgaben finanzieren zu können einfach gepumpt, was möglich war und müssen jetzt lernen, dass sie trotzdem sparen müssen.
      3 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.11.14 12:18:35
      Beitrag Nr. 19 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.220.186 von DJHLS am 04.11.14 18:40:59Hallo DJHLS,

      zuerst einmal danke dafür, dass Du diesen Thread besuchst. Ich denke er wird dadurch besser werden.


      Zu Deinem Posting:
      Ich widerspreche keiner Deiner Aussagen, frage mich aber was das konkret für Prognosen bedeutet.

      In der Tendenz verstehe ich Deine Punkte so, dass seitens Venezuela, Iran, Russland, Nigeria et al. ein enormer Druck besteht, so viel Cash wie möglich zu generieren.

      => d.h. bei den vermuteten geringen cash-Kosten maximale Förderung

      => da die meisten wohl sowieso keinen großen Slack mehr haben, bedeutet das "so viel wie bisher"

      => das wiederum würde ceteris paribus -falls meine obigen Überlegungen stimmen- dazu führen, dass die Einnahmendefizite ggü. den Planungen dieser Länder bereits jetzt gigantisch sind und im Falle eines weiteren Rückgangs auf vielleicht sogar 60$ noch weitaus dramatischer werden könnten; das dürfte dann länderspezifische politische und wirtschaftliche Folgen haben (von denen mir persönlich einige eher gefallen würden)


      Besonders interessant wäre aber eine Abschätzung dazu, wie sich die von Dir beschriebenen Investitionsdefizite auswirken, insbesondere wenn sie durch fehlende Einnahmen verschärft werden. Ab wann führen sie zu welchen Rückgängen der Förderkapazität?
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.11.14 13:19:53
      Beitrag Nr. 20 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.228.040 von R-BgO am 05.11.14 12:18:35
      Zitat von R-BgO: Hallo DJHLS,

      zuerst einmal danke dafür, dass Du diesen Thread besuchst. Ich denke er wird dadurch besser werden.


      Zu Deinem Posting:
      Ich widerspreche keiner Deiner Aussagen, frage mich aber was das konkret für Prognosen bedeutet.

      In der Tendenz verstehe ich Deine Punkte so, dass seitens Venezuela, Iran, Russland, Nigeria et al. ein enormer Druck besteht, so viel Cash wie möglich zu generieren.

      => d.h. bei den vermuteten geringen cash-Kosten maximale Förderung

      => da die meisten wohl sowieso keinen großen Slack mehr haben, bedeutet das "so viel wie bisher"

      => das wiederum würde ceteris paribus -falls meine obigen Überlegungen stimmen- dazu führen, dass die Einnahmendefizite ggü. den Planungen dieser Länder bereits jetzt gigantisch sind und im Falle eines weiteren Rückgangs auf vielleicht sogar 60$ noch weitaus dramatischer werden könnten; das dürfte dann länderspezifische politische und wirtschaftliche Folgen haben (von denen mir persönlich einige eher gefallen würden)


      Besonders interessant wäre aber eine Abschätzung dazu, wie sich die von Dir beschriebenen Investitionsdefizite auswirken, insbesondere wenn sie durch fehlende Einnahmen verschärft werden. Ab wann führen sie zu welchen Rückgängen der Förderkapazität?


      Erst einmal vielen Dank für den freundlichen Empfang.

      Die Förderkosten der Staaten bzw. staatlichen und halbstaatlichen Förderunternehmen sind nicht so transparent wie bei den börsennotierten, privatwirtschaftlichen Unternehmen. Oft wird auch hinzu genommen, was diese Staaten für einen Ölpreis brauchen, um einen ausgeglichenen Haushalt zu erreichen.

      Im Falle Nigerias und Venezuelas würde ich von gar nicht mal so niedrigen Cash Costs ausgehen. Mit Rußland und dem Iran teilen sie veraltete Förderanlagen.

      Alle diese Länder haben zudem entweder durch Korruption, Krankheiten, sozialistische Bürokratie, Handelsembargo oder Restriktionen den Nachteil, dass ausländische Unternehmen der Öl-Zulieferindustrie entweder nicht liefern dürfen oder Preisaufschläge nehmen.

      Was bedeutet das nun?
      Ihre Förderung werden die wohl mittelfristig aufrecht erhalten können, aber dann kommt unweigerlich die Klippe. Es ist m. E. weniger ein linearer Abstieg als vielmehr ein starkes Abknicken. Wäre aber Zufall, wenn sich das in Rußland, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria gleichzeitig ereignen würde. Davon gehe ich nicht aus.

      Die Fähigkeit Einnahmeausfälle zu verkraften, dürfte recht unterschiedlich ausgeprägt sein. Für manche dieser Staaten ist dann China die letzte Hoffnung, aber da müssen sie dann ihre Ölprodutkion verpfänden. Außerdem bekommen die Chinesen derzeit das Öl ja auch auf dem Weltmarkt recht billig.

      Ich vermute, dass diese Länder nunmehr - wo die Saudis klare Kante gezeigt haben - die ersten sind, die wieder zu Förderdisziplin zurückkehren wollen und Besserung geloben werden. Da sie ihre Förderung erstmal sowieso nicht ausweiten können bzw. eine Schrumpfung nur Frage der Zeit ist, werden sie für engere Quoten plädieren.

      Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass Saudi-Arabien aus disziplinarischen Gründen der Ölhahn erstmal noch weiter aufdreht und den Preis drückt, bis der Schmeerzlevel für Rußland, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria groß genug ist, damit sie förmlich kapitulieren.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.11.14 13:47:11
      Beitrag Nr. 21 ()
      NA Shale scheint wirklich einer der entscheidenden Faktoren in der globalen Balance zu sein; hier ein bisschen background vom WSJ (schade, dass nix zu cash-Kosten gesagt wird):


      Kippt der Fracking-Boom in den USA?
      Von RUSSELL GOLD, ERIN AILWORTH und BENOÎT FAUCON VERBINDEN
      Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2014, 19:40 Uhr

      Ölbohrungen in der Eagle-Ford-Formation in Texas. Analysten glauben, dass hier ab Preisen zwischen 53 und 65 Dollar wirtschaftlich gearbeitet werden kann. Eddie Seal

      Der Einbruch der Ölpreise dürfte dem Förder-Boom in den USA vorerst nichts anhaben. Auch nach dem Einbruch der vergangenen Monate müssten die Preise noch mindestens um 20 Dollar je Barrel fallen, ehe sich die Produktion abkühlt, sagen Branchenexperten. Einige kleinere Förderer könnten allerdings bereits bei einem leichteren Rückgang in ernsthafte Probleme geraten.

      Hinter dem rasanten Anstieg der Ölproduktion in den USA, die laut staatlichen Statistiken im Oktober 8,97 Millionen Barrel am Tag erreichte, stehen kleine und mittelgroße Unternehmen – nicht die globalen Energieriesen. Einige dieser Förderfirmen haben sich eine Menge Schulden aufgeladen. Vor wenigen Monaten, als der Ölpreis noch klar über 100 Dollar lag, war das noch leichter zu rechtfertigen.

      Am Mittwoch kostete ein Barrel der US-Ölsorte WTI zum Handelsschluss 82,20 Dollar. In einigen Teilen der Vereinigten Staaten, in den wenige Pipelines vorhanden sind, um das Öl zu den Raffinerien zu transportieren, liegen die Preise noch deutlich tiefer. Niedrigere Preise bedeuten für die Förderfirmen, dass sie weniger Geld haben, um ihre Schulden zu bedienen – vor allem dann, wenn die Preise weiter absacken sollten.

      Bisher haben die US-Firmen nicht auf den jüngsten Preisrutsch am Ölmarkt reagiert. Die Zahl der Bohrtürme für die Suche nach Öl auf amerikanischem Boden ist seit dem 20. Juni, als die Ölpreise ihren Höhepunkt erreichten, sogar leicht gestiegen.

      Die Organisation Erdöl exportierender Staaten (Opec) scheint darauf zu wetten, dass sich das bald ändert. Abdalla Salem el-Badri, Generalsekretär des Ölkartells, prognostizierte am Mittwoch, dass die Hälfte des amerikanischen Öls, das aus Schieferformationen gefrackt wird, auf dem aktuellen Preisniveau unwirtschaftlich sei. Entsprechend erwartet er, dass die Firmen ihre Produktion stoppen werden.

      Diese Sichtweise widerspricht den Erwartungen der meisten Analysten in den USA. Diese gehen davon aus, dass die Ölproduktion bei den gegenwärtigen Preisen stabil bleiben kann, da die Firmen effizientere Förderwege gefunden und so die Kosten gesenkt hätten. So hat sich die Menge, die aus jeder neuen Quelle in Südtexas gezapft werden kann, seit 2012 nahezu verdoppelt, wie US-Statistiken zeigen.

      80 Prozent der Firmen verdienen bei 80 Dollar Geld
      Marianne Kah, Chefvolkswirtin bei Conoco Philipps, sagt, die Ölpreise müssten bis auf 50 Dollar je Barrel fallen um der Ölproduktion in den US-Schieferbecken “wirklich zu schaden”. Laut ihr arbeiten 80 Prozent der Firmen in der US-Schieferbranche – in der Conoco Philips einer der größeren Anbieter ist – bei Preisen zwischen 40 und 80 Dollar je Barrel WTI profitabel.

      Jason Bordoff, Direktor am Zentrum für globale Energiepolitik der Columbia Universität, glaubt, dass die Preise noch viel weiter fallen müssten, um ernsthaft Druck auf die boomende Energiebranche auszuüben. “Ich bin nicht sicher, ob 80 Dollar genug sind”, sagt er. „Für einen echten Stresstest bräuchte es wohl Preise von 60 oder 65 Dollar.

      Der Vorstandschef von Occidental Petroleum erklärte vergangene Woche, dass er auch zu den aktuellen Preisen reichlich Fördergelegenheiten im Permian-Becken in West-Texas sehe. “Wir denken, dass es bei 75 Dollar eine Menge wirtschaftlich rentablen Öls gibt”, sagte Steve Chazen in einer Telefonkonferenz mit Analysten. „Ob ich denke, dass es auch bei 50 Dollar viel wirtschaftlich rentables Öl gibt? Nein, denke ich nicht”, fügte er hinzu.

      Im Permian-Becken wird so heftig gefördert wie nirgendwo sonst in den USA. Laut einer Studie von Robert W. Bard & Co rechnet sich die Produktion für Firmen dort ab WTI-Preisen von 57 bis 75 Dollar je Barrel. Unternehmen wie Chevron, Apache oder Pioneer Natural Resources dürften ihre Förderung in Permian daher fortsetzen.

      Im Bereich der Eagle Ford Formation – einem Fördergebiet weiter im Süden von Texas, wo Marathon Oil, Anadarko Petroleum und EOG Resources bohren – wäre die Produktion laut Baird sogar bei niedrigeren Preisen profitabel. Die Grenze sehen die Analysten hier bei 53 bis 65 Dollar. In der Bakken-Formation in North Dakota liegt der Grenzpreis demnach bei 61 bis 75 Dollar je Barrel. Zu den Unternehmen, die hier Öl fördern, zählen Continental Resources, Whiting Petroleum und Hess.

      ...

      http://www.wsj.de/nachrichten/SB1191213138250241451900458024…
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.11.14 14:24:35
      Beitrag Nr. 22 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.242.299 von R-BgO am 06.11.14 13:47:11
      weiterer Datenpunkt zu NA-Profitabilität
      EOG scheint einer der profitabelsten NA-unconventional Player zu sein; sie hatten sehr gute Zahlen gestern und hielten diese Präsentation: http://www.eogresources.com/investors/slides/InvPres_1114.pd…


      Auf Seite 6 findet sich eine interessante Darstellung zur Wirtschaftlichkeit der verschiedenen Basins. Einerseits wird die "after-tax-rate-of-return" (=ATROR) bei einem Preis von $80/bbl angegeben, andererseits der Preis bei dem man noch 10% ATROR schafft.

      Demnach liegen wohl alle ihre Plays so, dass dass auch noch mit 50$ klappt und rund die Hälfte sogar bis unter 40$.



      Die Renditen bei 80$ möge sich jeder selber ansehen; fange echt an, mich zu fragen, ob das deepwater-offshore nicht richtig weh tun kann.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.11.14 14:30:35
      Beitrag Nr. 23 ()
      und hier noch was von Old Simmons,
      das war der Typ, von dem ich 2006 "Twilight in the Desert" gelesen habe, was mein Interesse an der ganzen peak-oil Problematik erst geweckt hat;

      ist schon was älter und ich werde eine Weile brauchen, bis ich mich durchgekämpft habe, aber bereits auf den ersten Seiten befinden sich Diagramme zu "treshold-economics" für die verschiedenen Fördergebiete, die GROB zu den anderen Punkten passen.

      Quelle: http://multibriefs.com/briefs/aesc/WellEconomicsReport.pdf
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.11.14 10:06:21
      Beitrag Nr. 24 ()
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.11.14 10:08:19
      Beitrag Nr. 25 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.265.753 von R-BgO am 09.11.14 10:06:21
      Zitat aus der Quelle:
      "Marginal cost support.
      With many domestic producers citing profitability down to prices as low as $60, we believe the downside is too great for OPEC to try to force significant production out of the market. The IEA has stated that just 4% of U.S. shale output needs prices above the $80 level to be profitable."
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.11.14 18:09:15
      Beitrag Nr. 26 ()
      SHALE REMAINS ECONOMICAL WITH LOWER PRICES
      November 07, 2014

      Despite a drop in oil prices over the last month, major U.S. shale plays will continue to be profitable on condition that WTI price levels stay above 65 USD/bbl, concludes Rystad Energy through their latest research.

      “A key parameter to assess sustainability of the shale oil revolution is breakeven pricing. We find profitable core areas in shale plays like Eagle Ford, Niobrabra and Bakken, with a WTI breakeven oil price of under 50 USD/bbl”, says Espen Erlingsen, Senior Analyst at Rystad Energy.

      Eagle Ford (Oil & Condensate), Niobrara (Wattenberg) and Bakken (ND) contribute to about 50% of total North American shale liquid production, and make up a 60 BUSD in yearly investment.

      Rystad Energy research estimates the average breakeven price for more than 1,500 different acreage positions. Key inputs are well costs and liquid content reported by companies and well performances reported by state authorities.



      http://www.rystadenergy.com/AboutUs/NewsCenter/PressReleases…


      =>sie sind etwas skeptischer als die IEA
      Avatar
      schrieb am 11.11.14 21:59:24
      Beitrag Nr. 27 ()
      Wenn ich die ganzen Angaben zu break-even Preisen lese, frage ich mich mit welchen Annahmen die jeweils gerechnet sind:

      -Kapitalkosten?
      -Output je Quelle und zeitlicher Verlauf?
      -Kostenentwicklung über den Zeitraum der Ausbeutung einer Quelle?

      Ich denke, dass man durch Verschieben dieser Annahmen recht unterschiedliche break-even Preise für ein und dieselbe Quelle ermitteln kann...


      Hat mal jemand so eine break-even Kostenermittlung en detail gesehen/gefunden?
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.11.14 09:18:39
      Beitrag Nr. 28 ()
      Falling Crude Prices to Slow Midcontinent Production Growth
      Midcontinent production is still rising, but lower prices will greatly reduce next year's growth.
      New York, NY (PRWEB) November 11, 2014

      NYC-based PIRA Energy Group believes that falling crude prices will slow midcontinent production growth. In the U.S., the stock excess versus last year increased and with a significant draw last year, the commercial excess should grow even more for the week of November 7. In Japan, crude runs fell, imports rose and stocks built. Specifically, PIRA’s analysis of the oil market fundamentals has revealed the following:

      Falling Crude Prices to Slow Midcontinent Production Growth
      Crude prices plunged in October, with Brent falling nearly $10/Bbl and WTI ending the month below $80. Midcontinent differentials were little changed, except for those in the Permian Basin, where new pipeline capacity allowed prices to rebound from deep third quarter discounts. Midcontinent production is still rising, but lower prices will greatly reduce next year's growth.

      Creeping Excess Storage
      A look back at the most recent month of DOE weekly data shows a significantly smaller stock draw, compared to the same month last year, in spite of demand being up, year-on-year. A 630 MB/D difference in U.S. commercial stock change is a reflection of a global imbalance of supply over demand, this year compared to last year, of over 1 MMB/D. Far from being a mystery, this imbalance is apparent in stocks around the world. For winter, we expect the surplus to manifest itself in smaller draws, which will be reflected in a creeping stock excess. Come the spring, this surplus will appear as higher outright inventory levels. For this week, the stock excess versus last year increased to 15.4 million barrels, and with a significant draw last year, the commercial excess should grow even more for the week of November 7.

      Japanese Crude Runs Fall, Imports Rise, Stocks Build
      Crude runs eased to their lowest level since early July. Crude imports rose such that stocks built. Gasoline and gasoil demands were modestly changed and both product stocks drew, with the biggest draw being for gasoil. Kerosene demand was relatively strong and stocks posted their first seasonal draw. Refining margins are better with all the major product cracks firming.

      Medium-Term Crude and Gas Price Outlooks Revised Down
      Many of the bearish guideposts for our low case have emerged in the past six months. In the absence of new supply disruptions, we are likely to see prices at or below current levels for the next several years. We still believe that demand growth will return to a trend of 1.2 MMB/D, and combined with high-cost project cuts, this will lead to strengthening prices later in the decade. In the case of North American natural gas, the extremely strong growth in supply, even at sub-$4 prices and declining rig counts, suggests that prices are likely to stay lower for longer. Those changes, coupled with a weaker outlook for global gas demand growth, have led to reductions in the European and Asian gas outlooks as well.

      U.S. LPG Stocks Remain Stubbornly High
      Last week, U.S. propane inventories posted their second draw this heating season. The relatively small draw was influenced by a decline in both imports and in apparent demand. Inventories ended the week at 77.7 MMB, while the surplus expanded to 18.4 million barrels as the year ago withdrawal of 2.5 MMB stood much higher than the recent one. High U.S. stocks will ultimately need to clear by export. National LPG stocks are now well poised to both supply the harshest of winters and an increasing export market. Weaker prices relative to export destinations will be necessary for exports to increase.


      The information above is part of PIRA Energy Group's weekly Energy Market Recap - which alerts readers to PIRA’s current analysis of energy markets around the world as well as the key economic and political factors driving those markets.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.11.14 10:21:51
      Beitrag Nr. 29 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.11.14 10:44:15
      Beitrag Nr. 30 ()
      How $80 oil postpones the floater recovery
      (neu von Rystad: http://www.rystadenergy.com/AboutUs/NewsCenter/Newsletters/O…)

      The outlook for the floater market, before the substantial oil price drop, reflects a short-term oversupply due to a massive fleet increase combined with lowered demand growth rates. In September 2014 we saw market fundamentals suggesting a recovery for the floater market by late 2016, shown by the implied utilization increase post-2016 (Figure 1).
      With the past month’s oil price fall to around 80 USD/bbl, a key question remains pivotal for the industry; how will this drop affect the market balance ahead, and what happens to the anticipated market recovery?

      - The September demand and supply scenario with a Brent price of 105 USD/bbl – Late 2016 Recovery
      The floater demand has seen an average annual growth rate of 9% from 2010-2013. However, due to existing market conditions with E&P companies delaying and cancelling projects, we expect a slowdown in the floater demand growth to 4% from 2013-2016. On the supply side we do not see the same slowdown as numerous floater newbuild deliveries are expected during the same period. The result is a period, where implied gross utilization decreases (Figure 1) and we see challenging market conditions for drillers with limited contract coverage. Reaching late 2016 however, fundamentals point towards a market recovery with average annual demand growth rates again reaching 9% towards 2020. The rig demand growth recovery is supported by the necessity of offshore drilling to bring new volumes into an economy which still grows its oil consumption, and where offshore is still an important contributor.



      - The Sustained $80 Oil Price Scenario – Oversupply Could Lead to Attrition
      If the oil price stabilizes at 80 USD/bbl, we anticipate halved short- and long-term average annual demand growth rates compared to the September scenario; 2% during 2013-2016, and 4% for 2016-2020 respectively. In the sustained $80 Oil Price Scenario, the short term effects will be related to an immediate drop /sustained low level of exploration drilling. Medium- to long- term we anticipate high breakeven projects (those with breakeven prices above 80 USD/bbl) to be delayed or cancelled, of which 50% of the floater demand at risk is located in deepwater areas of Brazil and West Africa. The effects of the above mentioned development in floater demand will create further downwards pressure on implied gross utilization: from an anticipated utilization of around 80-90% in our September view, to a utilization level of around 70-75% (Figure 2). Adding to this, and as a direct reaction to falling utilization levels, we could see increased fleet attrition. This would in turn help the recovery of the market and reduce the negative effects of the lower oil price on utilization levels. However, little doubt remains that a sustained $80 oil price will have significant negative effects on the markets, and that drillers will have to be even more patient in their wait for better days.

      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.11.14 10:46:50
      Beitrag Nr. 31 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.318.727 von R-BgO am 14.11.14 10:44:15Die 64.000 Euro-Frage ist, wieviel vom zweiten Szenario bereits in den aktuellen Preisen von Seadrill & Co. eingearbeitet ist...

      100%?
      50%?

      oder sogar 200%?
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.11.14 11:46:28
      Beitrag Nr. 32 ()
      Shale Drillers Idle Rigs From Texas to Utah as Oil Rout Deepens
      http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NENCZ46TTDSI0…
      Lynn DoanNov 07, 2014 8:00 pm ET
      Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- The shale-oil drilling boom in the U.S. is showing early signs of cracking.

      Rigs targeting oil sank by 14 to 1,568 this week, the lowest since Aug. 22, Baker Hughes Inc. said yesterday. The Eagle Ford shale formation in south Texas lost the most, dropping nine to 197. The nation’s oil rig count is down from a peak of 1,609 on Oct. 10.

      Drillers are slowing down as crude prices tumbled 24 percent in the past four months. Transocean Ltd. said yesterday that its earnings would take a hit by a drop in fees and demand for its rigs. The slide threatens to curb a production boom in U.S. shale formations that has helped bring prices at the pump below $3 a gallon for the first time since 2010 and shrink the nation’s dependence on foreign oil imports.

      “We are officially seeing the slowdown in oil drilling,” James Williams, president of energy consulting company WTRG Economics, said by telephone from London, Arkansas, yesterday. “There’s no doubt about it now. We’re already down 49 rigs since the peak in October. It’ll have fallen by more than 100 rigs by the end of year.”

      ...

      Chesapeake, EOG
      Executives at several large U.S. shale producers, including Chesapeake Energy Corp. and EOG Resources Inc., have vowed to maintain or even raise production as they reported earnings this week. They say their success in bringing down costs means they can make money even if prices slump further.

      The oil rig count will drop to 1,325 by the middle of next year amid lower prices, Genscape Inc., an energy data company based in Louisville, Kentucky, said in a report Nov. 6.

      Drillers from Apache Corp. to Continental Resources Inc. have said this week that they’re laying down rigs in some oil plays.

      Transocean, owner of the biggest fleet of deep-water drilling rigs, is delaying the release of its third-quarter results after saying its earnings would be hit by $2.76 billion in charges from a decline in the value of its contracts drilling business and a drop in rig-use fees. The company had been scheduled to report earnings yesterday.

      Transocean’s competitors will probably have to take similar measures as “this is going to be an industry wide phenomenon,” Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said in a research note yesterday.


      Self-sufficient
      While the drop in oil prices limits spending in shale plays, production will continue to boom next year and North America may become self-sufficient in oil by 2016, Per Magnus Nysveen, head of analysis for Oslo-based consulting company Rystad Energy AS, said by e-mail yesterday. Liquid output from North American shale will rise to 6.5 million barrels a day in December and to 12 million barrels by 2020, he said.

      U.S. oil production climbed 2,000 barrels a day in the week ended Oct. 31 to 8.972 million, the highest level in at least three decades, Energy Information Administration data show.

      WTI futures are still a “long way off” from rebounding, said Mike Wittner, the head of oil market research at Societe Generale SA.

      “The market needs to see much more significant reductions in the rig count on a steady, sustained basis for it to have any impact on production and prices,” he said by telephone from New York yesterday. “Growth is so strong now that it’s going to take a long time and many months for it to actually peter out and turn into negative growth.”

      ...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.11.14 12:23:36
      Beitrag Nr. 33 ()
      Was die breakeven cost für die shale plays angeht, sind sich die analysten offenbar sehr uneinig und es bestehen zwischen den einzelnen Regionen sehr große Unterschiede:

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/idUSL3N0SH5N220141…
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.11.14 12:28:45
      Beitrag Nr. 34 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.11.14 13:03:46
      Beitrag Nr. 35 ()
      Ich habe hier nicht alles mitgelesen.
      Hat schon jemand die Möglichkeit aufgezeigt, dass es sich hier um eine politisch gesteuerte Preisbildung handeln könnte.
      Ende der 80er haben die USA den Ölpreis als politische Waffe eingesetzt.
      Die Russische Wirtschaft ist damals bei Preisen von ca. 10 $/Fass zusasmmengebrochen.
      Nachträglich wurde eine politische Einflussnahme auf einige Förderländer (u.a. Saudi-Arabien) eingeräumt.
      Der aktuell kritische Punkt für die russische Wirtschaft soll bei ca. 70 $ liegen.
      4 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.11.14 13:15:34
      Beitrag Nr. 36 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.320.479 von Gataulin am 14.11.14 13:03:46an die Theorie glaube ich persönlich eher nicht;

      wenn überhaupt, dann könnte es m.E. nur dadurch versucht werden, dass man Saudi Arabien davon abhält, seine Förderung zu senken und so Nachfrage und Angebot ins Gleichgewicht zu bringen;

      gleichzeitig würde aber genau damit all die geschädigt, die ohne eine solche Intervention profitabel investieren wollten/würden

      wenn das also von amerikanischen Politikern betrieben würde, dann würden die in großem Umfang ihre eigenen Konstituenten schädigen...


      plausibler scheinen mir da Überlegungen, dass die Saudis ihren Marktanteil halten wollen, oder ganz schnöde einfach Geld brauchen und deswegen nicht senken;

      jedenfalls wird -wenn keiner aus anderen Gründen zurückzieht- das Gleichgewicht im Markt am Ende schön kapitalistisch dadurch hergestellt, dass alle rausfliegen die sich das Mitspielen nicht mehr leisten können; Schweinezyklus pur

      (und wenn dabei ein paar Russen oder Iraner oder Venezolaner auf der Strecke bleiben, umso besser; ist für mich persönlich ein Bonusstückchen)
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.11.14 13:29:26
      Beitrag Nr. 37 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.320.611 von R-BgO am 14.11.14 13:15:34
      Rein politisch motivierter Angriff
      M.E spielen hier wirtschaftliche Interessen eine untergeordnete Rolle.
      Russland soll ganz einfach die Einnahmeseite gekappt werden.
      Als zusätzliche Sanktion.
      Putin kann nur von der eigenen Bevölkerung aus dem Wege geräumt werden.
      Und die reagiert nur, wenn sich die Lebensverhältnisse verschlechtern.
      Solange das strukturelle russische Staatsdefizit mit Öl-und Gaseinnahmen ausgeglichen wird, finden die Russen ihren großmannssüchtigen Cheffe klasse.
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.11.14 13:33:10
      Beitrag Nr. 38 ()
      re #33, #34:
      interessante Links, leider aber auch immer nur mit Informationen zu Gesamtkosten

      mittelfristig sind die auch entscheidend, aber kurzfristig zählen cash-costs


      Was für mich aber auf den Infos aufbauend neu auf den Zettel kommt, sind
      -die Transportkosten (wer hätte gedacht, dass Brasilien-offshore 6x "näher" an den Endmärkten liegt, als Dakota oder Texas?
      -hedging Einflüsse
      Avatar
      schrieb am 17.11.14 18:00:20
      Beitrag Nr. 39 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.220.186 von DJHLS am 04.11.14 18:40:59
      zum Genießen...
      ;)
      Avatar
      schrieb am 18.11.14 01:32:01
      Beitrag Nr. 40 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.320.479 von Gataulin am 14.11.14 13:03:46
      Zitat von Gataulin: Hat schon jemand die Möglichkeit aufgezeigt, dass es sich hier um eine politisch gesteuerte Preisbildung handeln könnte...


      Glaube ich weniger, aber es könnte ein gern gesehener Nebeneffekt sein. Denn als erstes denkt jede Öl fördernde Nation an sich selbst und seine eigene Wirtschaft.

      Und handelt danach...

      Der jetzige Ölpreis bringt Nachteile für alle Förderer, die hauptsächlich ihr Produkt verkaufen, keine Frage.

      Aber diejenigen Nationen, die ihr zu diesen Preisen gefördertes Öl selbst verbrauchen, für die wirkt dieser niedrige Preis sich quasi als ein Konjunktur Programm aus. Dieser Fakt wird m.M. eigentlich sehr selten in den vielen Presse Artikeln erwähnt.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.11.14 07:35:10
      Beitrag Nr. 41 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.320.764 von Gataulin am 14.11.14 13:29:26
      Zitat von Gataulin: M.E spielen hier wirtschaftliche Interessen eine untergeordnete Rolle.
      Russland soll ganz einfach die Einnahmeseite gekappt werden.
      Als zusätzliche Sanktion.
      Putin kann nur von der eigenen Bevölkerung aus dem Wege geräumt werden.
      Und die reagiert nur, wenn sich die Lebensverhältnisse verschlechtern.
      Solange das strukturelle russische Staatsdefizit mit Öl-und Gaseinnahmen ausgeglichen wird, finden die Russen ihren großmannssüchtigen Cheffe klasse.


      ...und was kommt NACH Putin......ultra konservative bzw. ultra linke Parteien ...die nur ein Ziel haben ....dem Westen das Maul stopfen und den USA die Großmacht demonstrieren ....in Kombi mit einem neuen russischen Großmachtstreben unter Einbeziehung der ehmaligen Sowjetstaaten ...

      Tolle Aussichten ..echt ...also weg mit Putin ...back to Historie ...

      Ich muss wieder kotzen wenn ich sehe wie der Westen auch Russland zwangsdemokratisieren will ....:cry:
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.11.14 12:52:09
      Beitrag Nr. 42 ()
      Stimmt
      Man weiß, was man hat, nicht aber was kommt.
      Ich will Putin auch gar nicht verteufeln.
      Platzek hat schon recht, wenn er sagt, man kann die Schuld für den Ukraine-konflikt nicht nur bei Putin suchen.
      Fakt ist aber, dass EU und USA genau das tun.
      Daher bin ich auch mehr und mehr überzeugt, dass alle zur Verfügung stehenden Mittel genutzt werden.
      Allem voran die Ölpreiswaffe, weil man so die Russen schwächen und gleichzeitig die Konjunktur der G7 anfeuern kann.
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.11.14 13:40:59
      Beitrag Nr. 43 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.369.098 von Gataulin am 20.11.14 12:52:09
      Vorschlag/Bitte
      könnten die politischen Diskussionen vielleicht anderswo geführt werden?

      Hier fände ich eine Beschränkung auf direkt ölbezogene Themen besser.

      Wer sich politisch austauschen will, findet z.B.

      hier Thread: Peak Oil und die Folgen oder
      hier Thread: Ukraine-Konflikt und die EU oder
      hier http://www.wallstreet-online.de/community/letzte-antworten.h…

      eine große Spielwiese...

      Vielen Dank im voraus.
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.11.14 13:46:04
      Beitrag Nr. 44 ()
      und wieder zum Thema:
      http://www.rystadenergy.com/AboutUs/NewsCenter/PressReleases…

      US SHALE BOOM CONFIRMED DESPITE FALLING OIL PRICES

      November 17, 2014

      Underestimation of future oil supply from North America may have large implications for global markets and policy makers. Opinions differ between leading government agencies and independent data providers. Rystad Energy reaffirms its medium-term outlook for North American (NAm) shale oil output of ~8 MMbbld in 2020, or ~12 MMbbld when including NGL. These NAm shale numbers for 2020 are 2-4 MMbbld higher than most other industry forecasts. Rystad Energy also differs from leading agencies in their supply projections for other large producing regions such as Russia, Kazakhstan, Mexico, non-OPEC Africa and OECD Europe.

      However, Rystad Energy’s view on forward-looking oil market imbalances does not differ too much from other agencies. “Our call-on-OPEC crude, for example, bottoms at 28.3 MMbbld in 2017 before rising towards the 2014-levels in 2020,“ says Bjornar Tonhaugen, VP Oil and Gas Markets. “We share the view that the oil market is structurally over-supplied in at least the coming three years, barring any major and lasting supply disruptions.”

      The composition of medium term oil supply differs widely between Rystad Energy and prevailing industry references. “If we are right on NAm shale, as we have been until now, and simultaneously underestimate supply growth outside of the US, the oil market would become even more over-supplied towards 2020 than we currently believe,” says Tonhaugen. “The oil market cannot rely solely on OPEC decisions to rebalance in the medium term. In addition, we will see reduced supply growth from many sources as marginal activities become unprofitable across the board, which again lays the foundation for the next up-cycle down the road.”

      Avatar
      schrieb am 21.11.14 09:49:05
      Beitrag Nr. 45 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.369.584 von R-BgO am 20.11.14 13:40:59
      Die Thread-Überschrift
      lautet "Gründe für den Absturz des Ölpreises".
      Aber gut, wer glaubt, dass der Ölpreis von Angebot und Nachfrage abhängt, dem ist nicht zu helfen.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 23.11.14 11:08:26
      Beitrag Nr. 46 ()
      Schon ein bisschen älter, aber mit ein paar Datenpunkten zu Bohrkosten
      http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-10/u-dot-s-d…


      Auszug:
      Global Sustainability’s Hughes estimates the U.S. needs to drill 6,000 new wells per year at a cost of $35 billion to maintain current production. His research also shows that the newest wells aren’t as productive as those drilled in the first years of the boom, a sign that oil companies have already tapped the best spots, making it that much harder to keep breaking records. Hughes has predicted that production will peak in 2017 and fall to 2012 levels within two years.

      “The hype about U.S. energy independence and ‘Saudi America’ is deafening if you look at the mainstream media,” Hughes says. “We need to have a much more in-depth and intelligent discussion about this.” On Oct. 7, Abdalla Salem el-Badri, OPEC’s secretary general, said at a conference in Kuwait that U.S. shale producers are “running out of sweet spots” and that output will peak in 2018.

      If the boom goes bust, it will profoundly affect the fortunes of states such as Oklahoma, which from 1907 to 1923 was the biggest oil-producing state in the U.S. Its production has increased more than 80 percent since Chesapeake drilled the Serenity well near the Kansas border, propelled by oil prices that have averaged more than $85 a barrel since the start of 2009. Drills are targeting the Woodford shale, the Mississippi Chat, and the Mississippi lime, hardened deposits left by a shallow sea that covered Oklahoma 350 million years ago.

      The cost of drilling a horizontal shale well ranges from $3.5 million in the Mississippi lime to $9 million or more in the Bakken. That’s far more than the cost of a similar vertical well, which goes from $400,000 to $600,000, according to Drillinginfo.

      In September, Steve Slawson, vice president for Slawson Exploration, sat in a trailer about 35 miles north of Oklahoma City, watching monitors as his crew shattered the Mississippi lime thousands of feet below. The well, known as Begonia 1-30H, will cost about $3.7 million.

      One-third of that is the cost of fracking: First, thin pipes loaded with explosives are threaded into the hole to blast the ancient reef. Then, at a cost of about $80,000, the Begonia will consume 50,000 gallons of hydrochloric acid to dissolve the limestone; another $68,000 will pay for 1,000 gallons of antibacterial solution to kill microorganisms that chew up the pipes; $110,000 goes for a soapy surfactant to reduce friction; $10,000 covers a scale inhibitor to prevent lime buildup; and $230,000 purchases 2 million pounds of sand to prop the fractures open so the oil and gas can flow into the well. Then there’s $300,000 in pumping charges, plus the cost of equipment rental, pipe, and water, which brings the price tag for fracking the well to $1.2 million. A host of other things, from cement to Porta Potty rentals, accounts for the rest of the cost.

      There’s little doubt Begonia will produce oil, Slawson says. The question is whether it will be enough to cover the cost of drilling and how quickly. Slawson Exploration’s first Mississippi lime horizontal well, the nearby Wolf 1-29H, produced the equivalent of almost 1,185 barrels a day when it started flowing last year and has paid for itself twice over, Slawson says. After the Wolf, a third of his wells were “dogs,” and only a third have come even close to it.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 25.11.14 13:47:32
      Beitrag Nr. 47 ()
      mal etwas aus einer ganz anderen Perspektive gesehen
      Ben Hunt zur "over-determination" der Ölpreise: http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilontheory/post/2014/11/24…


      macht (mich) echt nachdenklich - und demütig-
      Avatar
      schrieb am 26.11.14 14:20:33
      Beitrag Nr. 48 ()
      The 2014 Oil Price Crash Explained
      ganzer Artikel zu finden unter: http://euanmearns.com/the-2014-oil-price-crash-explained/



      Auszüge:

      Posted on November 24, 2014 by Euan Mearns

      In February 2009 Phil Hart published on The Oil Drum a simple supply demand model that explained then the action in the oil price. In this post I update Phil’s model to July 2014 using monthly oil supply (crude+condensate) and price data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA).

      This model explains how a drop in demand for oil of only 1 million barrels per day can account for the fall in price from $110 to below $80 per barrel.

      The future price will be determined by demand, production capacity and OPEC production constraint. A further fall in demand of the order 1 Mbpd may see the price fall below $60. Conversely, at current demand, an OPEC production cut of the order 1 Mbpd may send the oil price back up towards $100. It seems that volatility has returned to the oil market.



      ...



      ...

      The Recent Past and the Future

      Old hands will know that it is virtually impossible to forecast the oil price. The anomalous recent price stability of $110±10 I believe reflects great skill on the part of Saudi Arabia balancing the market at a price high enough to keep Saudi Arabia solvent and low enough to keep the world economy afloat. The reason Saudi Arabia has not cut production now, when faced with weak global demand for oil, probably comes down to their desire to maintain market share which means hobbling the N American LTO bonanza. Alternatively, they could be conspiring with the USA to wreck the Russian economy? But Saudi Arabia is not the only member of OPEC and the economies of many of the member countries will be suffering badly at these prices and that ultimately leads to elevated risk of civil unrest. It is not possible to predict the actions of the main players but it is easier to predict what the outcome may be of certain actions.

      1) If demand for oil weakens by about a further 1 Mbpd this may send the price down below $60 / bbl.

      2) If OPEC cuts supply by about 1 Mbpd at constant demand this may send the price back up towards $100 / bbl.

      3) Prolonged low price may see LTO production fall in N America and other non-OPEC projects shelved resulting in attrition of non-OPEC capacity. This may take one to two years to work through but with constant demand, this will inevitably send prices higher again.

      4) Prolonged low price may see many specialist LTO producers default on loans, risking a new credit crunch and reduced LTO production. This would likely lead to a major consolidation of operators in the LTO patch where the larger companies (the IOCs) pick up the best assets at knock down prices. That is the way it has always been.

      5) Black Swans and elephants in the room – with conflict escalation in Ukraine and / or Syria-Iraq and a new credit crunch, all bets will be off.
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 27.11.14 09:38:53
      Beitrag Nr. 49 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.419.814 von R-BgO am 26.11.14 14:20:33He ihr Öl Junkies, euer Thema live aus Wien ...

      http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/multimedia/349.htm
      Avatar
      schrieb am 27.11.14 17:30:52
      Beitrag Nr. 50 ()
      OPEC 166th Meeting concludes No 7/2014
      (in Auszügen)

      Vienna, Austria
      27 Nov 2014

      The 166th Meeting of the Conference of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was held in Vienna, Austria, on Thursday, 27th November 2014 ...

      ...

      The Conference reviewed the oil market outlook, as presented by the Secretary General, in particular supply/demand projections for the first, second, third and fourth quarters of 2015, with emphasis on the first half of the year.

      The Conference also considered forecasts for the world economic outlook and noted that the global economic recovery was continuing, albeit very slowly and unevenly spread, with growth forecast at 3.2% for 2014 and 3.6% for 2015.

      The Conference also noted, importantly, that, although world oil demand is forecast to increase during the year 2015, this will, yet again, be offset by the projected increase of 1.36 mb/d in non-OPEC supply.

      The increase in oil and product stock levels in OECD countries, where days of forward cover are comfortably above the five-year average, coupled with the on-going rise in non-OECD inventories, are indications of an extremely well-supplied market.

      Recording its concern over the rapid decline in oil prices in recent months, the Conference concurred that stable oil prices – at a level which did not affect global economic growth but which, at the same time, allowed producers to receive a decent income and to invest to meet future demand – were vital for world economic wellbeing.

      Accordingly, in the interest of restoring market equilibrium, the Conference decided to maintain the production level of 30.0 mb/d, as was agreed in December 2011. As always, in taking this decision, Member Countries confirmed their readiness to respond to developments which could have an adverse impact on the maintenance of an orderly and balanced oil market.

      Agreeing on the need to be vigilant given the uncertainties and risks associated with future developments in the world economy, the Conference directed the Secretariat to continue its close monitoring of developments in supply and demand, as well as non-fundamental factors such as speculative activity, keeping Member Countries fully briefed on developments.

      ...

      The Conference resolved that its next Ordinary Meeting will convene in Vienna, Austria, on Friday, 5th June 2015, immediately after the OPEC International Seminar on “Petroleum: An Engine for Development” which will take place at the Vienna Hofburg Palace on 3rd and 4th June 2015.



      wie man durch "maintain" etwas "restored" wird wohl ihr Geheimnis bleiben...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.11.14 11:32:07
      Beitrag Nr. 51 ()
      allgemein und politisch zu Brent - Öl gehts in dem Forum weiter.......hier könnt ihr euch die Köpfe heiß reden..Brent Politik..Weltuntergang und all das.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 29.11.14 11:25:34
      Beitrag Nr. 52 ()
      Ein Blogeintrag von Finite World
      http://ourfiniteworld.com/2014/11/05/oil-price-slide-no-good…


      Auszüge daraus:

      A large share of oil sellers need the revenue from oil sales. They have to continue producing, regardless of how low oil prices go unless they are stopped by bankruptcy, revolution, or something else that gives them a very clear signal to stop. Producers of oil from US shale are in this category, as are most oil exporters, including many of the OPEC countries and Russia.

      Some large oil companies, such as Shell and ExxonMobil, decided even before the recent drop in prices that they couldn’t make money by developing available producible resources at then-available prices, likely around $100 barrel. See my post, Beginning of the End? Oil Companies Cut Back on Spending. These large companies are in the process of trying to sell off acreage, if they can find someone to buy it. Their actions will eventually lead to a drop in oil production, but not very quickly–maybe in a couple of years.

      ...



      ...

      If oil prices are too low, subsidies for food and oil will need to be cut, as will spending on programs to provide jobs and new infrastructure such as desalination plants. If the cuts are too great, there is the possibility of revolution and rapid decline of oil production. Virtually none of the OPEC countries can get along with oil prices in the $80 per barrel range (Figure 7).
      Avatar
      schrieb am 29.11.14 11:52:06
      Beitrag Nr. 53 ()
      Eine Grafik von Goldman Sachs



      gefunden bei: http://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/energy/… auf Seite 45

      ist vermutlich schon von 2013...
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 29.11.14 13:32:47
      Beitrag Nr. 54 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.450.168 von R-BgO am 29.11.14 11:52:06
      aus der gleichen Quelle:



      die gelbe Fläche soll ein Investitionsvolumen von 2,5 Billionen Dollars erfordert haben...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 01.12.14 10:28:20
      Beitrag Nr. 55 ()
      Stray Reflections von Jawad Mian
      (http://www.mauldineconomics.com/outsidethebox/stray-reflecti…) Login erforderlich

      in Auszügen und für die Lesbarkeit editiert:


      Investment Observations
      The precipitous decline in the price of oil is perhaps one of the most bearish macro developments this year. We believe we are entering a “new oil normal,” where oil prices stay lower for longer.
      ...
      The reason oil prices started sliding in June can be explained by record growth in US production, sputtering demand from Europe and China, and an unwind of the Middle East geopolitical risk premium. The world oil market, which consumes 92 million barrels a day, currently has one million barrels more than it needs.

      US pumped 8.97 million barrels a day by the end of October (the highest since 1985) thanks partly to increases in shale-oil output which accounts for 5 million barrels per day. Libya’s production has recovered from 200,000 barrels a day in April to 900,000 barrels a day, while war hasn’t stopped production in Iraq and output there has risen to an all-time high level of 3.3 million barrels per day. The IMF, meanwhile, has cut its projection for global growth in 2014 for the third time this year to 3.3%. Next year, it still expects growth to pick up again, but only slightly.

      Everyone believes that the oil-price decline is temporary.
      It is assumed that once oil prices plummet, the process is much more likely to be self-stabilizing than destabilizing. As the theory goes, once demand drops, price follows, and leveraged high-cost producers shut production. Eventually, supply falls to match demand and price stabilizes. When demand recovers, so does price, and marginal production returns to meet rising demand. Prices then stabilize at a higher level as supply and demand become more balanced. It has been well-said that: “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.” For the classic model to hold true in oil’s case, the market must correctly anticipate the equilibrating role of price in the presence of supply/demand imbalances.

      By 2020, we see oil demand realistically rising to no more than 96 million barrels a day. North American oil consumption has been in a structural decline, whereas the European economy is expected to remain lacklustre. Risks to the Chinese economy are tilted to the downside and we find no reason to anticipate a positive growth surprise. This limits the potential for growth in oil demand and leads us to believe global oil prices will struggle to rebound to their previous levels. The International Energy Agency says we could soon hit “peak oil demand”, due to cheaper fuel alternatives, environmental concerns, and improving oil efficiency.

      The oil market will remain well supplied, even at lower prices. We believe incremental oil demand through 2020 can be met with rising output in Libya, Iraq and Iran. We expect production in


      -Libya to return to the level prior to the civil war, adding at least 600,000 barrels a day to world supply. Big investments in

      -Iraq’s oil industry should pay-off too with production rising an extra 1.5-2 million barrels a day over the next five years. We also believe the American-Iranian détente is serious, and that sooner or later both parties will agree to terms and reach a definitive agreement. This will eventually lead to more oil supply coming to the market from Iran, further depressing prices in the “new oil normal”.

      -Iranian oil production has fallen from 4 million barrels a day in 2008 to 2.8 million today, which we would expect to fully recover once international relations normalize.


      In sum, we see the potential for supply to increase by nearly 4 million barrels a day at the lowest marginal cost, which should be enough to offset output cuts from marginal players in a sluggish world economy.



      Our analysis leads us to conclude that the price of oil is unlikely to average $100 again for the remaining decade. We will use an oil rebound to gradually adjust our portfolio to reflect this new reality.

      From 1976 to 2000, oil consolidated in a wide price range between $12 and $40. We think the next five years will see a similar trading range develop in oil with prices oscillating between $55 and $85. If the US dollar embarks on a mega uptrend (not our central view), then we can even see oil sustain a drop below $60 eventually.

      ...

      The consumer windfall from lower oil prices is more than offset by the loss to oil producers in our view. Even though the price of oil has plummeted, the cost of finding it has certainly not. The oil industry has moved into a higher-cost paradigm and continues to spend significantly more money every year without any meaningful growth in total production. Global crude-only output seems to have plateaud in the mid-70 million barrels a day range. The production capacity of 75% of the world’s oilfields is declining by around 6% per year, so the industry requires up to 4 million barrels per day of new capacity just to hold production steady. This has proven to be very difficult. Analysts at consulting firm EY estimate that out of the 163 upstream megaprojects currently being bankrolled (worth a combined $1.1 trillion), a majority are over budget and behind schedule.

      ... important to keep in mind, however, that most big oil projects have been planned around the notion that oil would stay above $100,

      ...About 1/3rd of the S&P500 capex is done by the energy sector. Based on analysis by Steven Kopits of Douglas-Westwood: “The vast majority of public oil and gas companies require oil prices of over $100 to achieve positive free cash flow under current capex and dividend programs. Nearly half of the industry needs more than $120. The 4th quartile, where most US E&Ps cluster, needs $130 or more.”

      As energy companies have gotten used to Brent averaging $110 for the last three years, we believe management teams will be very slow to adjust to the “new oil normal”. They will start by cutting capital spending (the quickest and easiest decision to take), then divesting non-core assets (as access to cheap financing becomes more difficult), and eventually, be forced to take write-downs on assets and projects that are no longer feasible. The whole adjustment process could take two years or longer, and will accelerate only once CEOs stop thinking the price of oil is going to go back up. A similar phenomenon happened in North America’s natural gas market a couple of years ago.

      ... As much as 50% of shale oil is uneconomic at current prices, and the big unknown factor is the amount of debt that has been incurred by cashflow negative companies to develop resources which will soon become unprofitable at much lower prices (or once their hedges run out). Energy bonds make up nearly 16% of the $1.3 trillion junk bond market and the total debt of the US independent E&P sector is estimated at over $200 billion.

      ...In the current cycle, though, prices will have to decline much further from current levels to curb new investment and discourage US production of shale oil. Most of the growth in shale is in lower-cost plays (Eagle Ford, Permian and the Bakken) and the breakeven point has been falling as productivity per well is improving and companies have refined their fracking techniques. The median North American shale development needs an oil price of $57 to breakeven today, compared to $70 last year according to research firm IHS


      Source: WoodMackenzie, Barclays Research


      While we don’t believe Saudi Arabia engineered the latest swoon in oil prices, it would be foolish not to expect them to take advantage of the new market reality.

      ... wouldn’t you want to maximise your profits today, when prices are still elevated?

      ...]only members with enough flexibility to reduce oil output voluntarily are the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

      ...most OPEC countries require oil above $100 to balance their budgets.
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 01.12.14 10:35:16
      Beitrag Nr. 56 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.459.668 von R-BgO am 01.12.14 10:28:20Finde den Artikel definitiv lesenswert, nicht zuletzt wegen der politischen Implikationen, die ich weggelassen habe (Die Registrrierung bei Mauldin ist kostenlos).


      Habe aber spontan einen wesentlichen Einwand:

      Die beiden roten Aussagen widersprechen sich meiner Ansicht nach. Wenn die legacy-Förderung mit rund 4 MBOEd im Jahr zurückgeht, wo soll der Ausgleich herkommen? Und zu welchen Kosten?

      Die prognostizierte Fördererhöhung in ME reicht doch nur als offset für ein einziges Jahr...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 01.12.14 10:58:38
      Beitrag Nr. 57 ()
      Produktionskosten eines Frackers (Pioneer Resources)


      fortgeschriebene Version findet sich auf: Seite 32 von http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9N…
      Avatar
      schrieb am 01.12.14 13:53:02
      Beitrag Nr. 58 ()
      OPEC DECISION SCENARIOS AND OIL MARKET REALITIES
      http://www.rystadenergy.com/AboutUs/NewsCenter/PressReleases…

      November 27, 2014

      Author: Bjørnar Tonhaugen, VP Oil & Gas Markets, Rystad Energy

      The response from OPEC today is about more than stemming a decline in oil prices. It’s about OPEC’s role as the stabilizing factor in the oil market and future relevance as an organization. Surging US shale oil supply and weak global demand prospects will cause an increasingly severe over-supply situation ahead. Global stock builds average more than 2.2 million barrels per day in the first half of 2015 and a tremendous 1.6 million barrels per day for 2015 as a whole. The supply-demand imbalance is structural and could persist. Without any adjustments to supply, oil inventories would implicitly build by an average 1.8 million barrels per day until 2020, which in reality is impossible. Markets must adjust. US shale oil production will grow by 1.1 MMbbld next year, even at current oil prices and no assumed growth in horizontal rig count. Additions from the US outpace global demand in the next two years and other non-OPEC projects under development will add to the supply over-hang.

      OPEC faces a dilemma. A voluntary cut in supply will support oil prices and likely improve member countries’ revenue. However, it will also ensure strong growth from US shale drillers and other competing producers while reducing OPEC’s market share in the medium term.

      ...


      Auch hier: keine Angaben zu declines; bzw. implizit die Annahme, dass legacy-Produktion stabil gehalten wird
      Avatar
      schrieb am 01.12.14 18:49:16
      Beitrag Nr. 59 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.01.15 14:35:56
      Beitrag Nr. 60 ()
      Oil, Markets, Volatility
      Quelle: http://www.cumber.com/commentary.aspx?file=010615.asp

      January 06, 2015 David R. Kotok, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer


      Sharply lower oil prices have occasioned a huge discussion about their impact. We see it play out daily in newspapers, on TV and radio, at websites, on blogs, and in market letters. The range of forecasts runs from one extreme to another.

      On one side, pundits predict a recession resulting from a US energy sector meltdown that leads to credit defaults in energy-related high-yield debt. They predict trouble in those states which have had high growth from the US energy renaissance. These bearish views also note the failures of Russian businesses to pay foreign-denominated debt held by European banks. And they point to sovereign debt risks like Venezuela. These experts then envision the geopolitical risk to extend to cross-border wars and other ugly outcomes.

      Geopolitical high-oil-price risk has morphed to geopolitical low-oil-price risk. That’s the negative extreme case.

      The positive forecasts regarding oil are also abundant. American’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) drops robustly due to energy-price ripple effects of $50 oil. We are still in the early stages of seeing these results in US inflation indicators. There is a lot more to come as the lower energy price impacts a broad array of products and service-sector costs.

      A big change in the US trade balance reflects the reduced imported oil price. We are also seeing that appear in the current account deficit plunge. In fact, both of those formerly strongly negative indicators are reaching new lows. They are the smallest deficits we have seen in 15 years. Action Economics expects that the current account deficit in the first quarter of 2015 will be below $80 billion. That is an incredible number when we think about gross flows history.

      Remember that the current account deficit is an accounting identity with the capital account surplus. Net $80 billion goes out of the US and turns around and comes back. These are very small numbers in an economy of $18 trillion in size.

      Think about what it means to have a capital account surplus of $80 billion, driven by a current account deficit of $80 billion. That means that the neutral balancing flows into the United States because of transactional and investment activity are now small. Therefore the momentum of US financial markets is driven by the foreign choices that are directing additional money flows into the US.

      In the end the equations must balance. When there is an imbalance, it affects asset prices. In the present case, those asset prices are denominated in US dollars. They are desired by the rest of the world. They are real estate, bonds, stocks, or any other asset that is priced in dollars and that the world wants to accumulate. In the US, where the size of our economy is approaching $18 trillion, the once-feared current account deficit has become a rounding error.

      How bad can the energy-price hit be to the United States? There are all kinds of estimates. Capital Economics says that the decline in the oil price (they used a $40 price change, from $110 to $70 per barrel) will “reduce overall spending on petroleum-related liquids by non-oil-producing businesses and households by a total of $280 billion per year (from $770 billion to $490 billion).” Note that the present oil price is $20 a barrel lower than their estimated run rate.

      That is a massive change and very stimulative to the US non-energy sector. The amount involved is more than double the 2% payroll-tax-cut amount of recent years. In fact it adds up to about 3/4 of the revised US federal budget deficit estimate in the fiscal year ending in 2015.

      Let me repeat. That estimate from Capital Economics is based on an average price of $70 a barrel in the US for all of 2015. The current price of oil is lower. Some forecasts estimate that the oil price is going much lower. We doubt that but the level of the oil price is no longer the key issue. It is the duration of the lower price level that matters. We do not know how long the price will fall, but there is some thought developing that it will hover around $55 to $60 for a while (average for 2015).

      There is certainly a negative impact to the oil sector. Capital spending slows when the oil price falls. We already see that process unfolding. It is apparent in the anecdotes as a drilling rig gets canceled or postponed, a project gets delayed, or something else goes on hold.

      How big is the negative number? Capital Economics says, “The impact on the wider economy will be modest. Investment in mining structures is $146 billion, with investment in mining equipment an additional $26 billion. Altogether investment in mining accounts for 7.7% of total business investment, but only 1% of GDP."

      At Cumberland we agree. The projections are obvious: energy capital expenditures will decline; the US renaissance in oil will slow, and development and exploration will be curtailed. But the scale of the negative is far outweighed by the scale of the positive.

      Let's go farther. Fundstrat Global Advisors, a global advisory source with good data, suggests that lower oil will add about $350 billion in developing-nation purchasing power. That estimate was based on a 28% oil price decline starting with a $110 base. The final number is unknown. But today’s numbers reveal declines of almost 50%. Think about a $350 billion to $500 billion boost to the developing countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. Note these are not emerging-market estimates but developing-country estimates.

      It seems to us that another focal point is what is happening to the oil-producing countries. In this case Wells Fargo Securities has developed some fiscal breakeven oil prices for countries that are prominent oil producers. Essentially, Kuwait is the only one with a positive fiscal breakeven if the oil price is under $60 per barrel. Let's take a look at Wells Fargo’s list. The most damaged country in fiscal breakeven is Iran. They need a price well over $100 in order to get to some budgetary stability. Next is Nigeria. Venezuela is next. Under $100 but over $60 are Algeria, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

      Let’s think about this oil battle in a geopolitical context. BCA Research defines it as a “regional proxy war." They identify the antagonists as Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is that simple when it comes to oil. Saudis use oil as a weapon, and they intend to weaken their most significant enemy on the other side of the water in their neighborhood. But the outcome also pressures a bunch of other bad guys, including Russia, to achieve some resolution of the situation in Ukraine.

      There are victims in the oil patch: energy stocks, exploration and production, and related energy construction and engineering. Anything that is tied to oil price in the energy patch is subject to economic weakness because of the downward price pressure. On the other hand, volumes are enhanced and remain intact. If anything, one can expect consumption to rise because the prices have fallen. Favoring volume-oriented energy consumption investment rather than price-sensitive energy investment is a transition that investing agents need to consider. At Cumberland, we are underweight energy stock ETFs. We sold last autumn and have not bought back. We favor volume oriented exposures, including certain MLPs.

      We believe that the US economic growth rate is going to improve. In 2015, it will record GDP rate of change levels above 3.5%. Evidence suggests that the US economy will finally resume classic longer term trend rates above 3%. It will do so in the context of very low interest and inflation rates, a gradual but ongoing improvement in labor markets, and the powerful influences of a strengthening US dollar and a tightening US budget deficit. The American fiscal condition is good and improving rapidly. The American monetary condition is stabilizing. The American banking system has already been through a crisis and now seems to be adequately protected and reserved.

      Our view is bullish for the US economy and stock market. We have held to that position through volatility, and we expect more volatility. When interest rates, growth rates, and trends are normalized, volatilities are normalized. They are now more normal than those that were distorted and dampened by the ongoing zero interest rate policy of the last six years.

      Volatility restoration is not a negative market item. It is a normalizing item. We may wind up seeing the VIX and the stock market rise at the same time. Volatility is bidirectional.

      We remain nearly fully invested in our US ETF portfolios. We expect more volatility in conjunction with an upward trend in the US stock market.

      High volatility means adjustments must be made, and sometimes they require fast action. This positive outlook could change at any time. So Cumberland clients can expect to see changes in their accounts when information and analysis suggest that we move quickly.
      David R. Kotok, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.01.15 22:41:25
      Beitrag Nr. 61 ()
      Ich habe heute zum ersten Mal ein Geschäft auf Basis eines Rohstoffzertifikates gemacht:

      www.nyse.com/quote/ARCX:USO/fund

      ist ein Oil-ETF, welcher die Preisbewegung von WTI Light Sweet 1:1 mitmachen soll; der Kurs ist leider nicht identisch, so dass man immer ein bisschen umrechnen muss, um zu wissen, wo man gerade steht;


      anyway, der aktuelle Kurs liegt nach dem heutigen weiteren Dip noch bei $17,43 und ich habe ein paar short-puts per Jan 2016 mit Strike $17 drauf verkauft;

      brachte $2,29 so dass mein Einstand im Fall der Ausübung gut 15% unter dem aktuellen Preisniveau liegt => also rund 40$


      lassen wir uns überraschen...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.01.15 11:50:23
      Beitrag Nr. 62 ()
      Auszug aus (http://seekingalpha.com/article/2812825-a-crude-oil-bottom-w…):


      "Oil prices will stay under pressure in 2015 however, current prices are not sustainable longer term. The interplay between extreme weakness in the short term and the potential for supply shortfalls in the medium term should create attractive trading opportunities over the course of the coming 12 months."

      Hall went on to write that Saudi Arabia and some other low-cost OPEC producers are seeking to drive high-cost producers from the market. He pointed out that while many assumed this is the U.S. shale drillers, many can still operate at lower prices. The most vulnerable producers operate in Canada's oil sands and deep-water production. Finally, Hall opined that $40 is an "absolute price floor" for crude oil."
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.01.15 23:03:15
      Beitrag Nr. 63 ()
      Endlich sagt mal jemand was zu den cash-Kosten
      http://www.worldoil.com/Wood-Mackenzies-analysis-suggests-if…


      Auszüge:

      -unter 40$ sollen 1,6% der Weltförderung cash-negativ werden
      -unter den ersten Aussteigern sehen sie: "stripper wells"; soll 1 mmbpd sein!!!
      -bei 50$ sehen sie 190mbpd cash-negativ, bei 45$ 400mbpd und bei 40$ 1,5 mmbpd (da dann hauptsächlich kanadische Ölsande)
      -tight oil soll erst bei 30$ anfangen, cash-negativ zu werden

      es gibt aber mitigation strategies wie
      -speichern
      -Verluste schlucken, weil runter- und hochfahren teurer wäre
      -royalty-Verzichte von Regierungen


      In Summe scheint es aber schon so zu sein, dass bei 40$ vermehrt Aussteiger auftauchen sollten
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.01.15 23:26:21
      Beitrag Nr. 64 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.768.419 von R-BgO am 13.01.15 23:03:15Es gibt auch ein Chart dazu, leider nicht übermäßig erhellend:


      Quelle: http://www.woodmac.com/public/views/low-oil-prices-halt-prod…

      lese aber zumindest heraus, dass es so gut wie kein Volumen oberhalb von ca. 44$ cash-Kosten gibt

      (die zu geringe Gesamtfördermenge kommt daher, dass Mackenzie nur 2222 Ölfelder mit zusammen rund 75mmbpd ausgewertet hat)
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.01.15 10:41:21
      Beitrag Nr. 65 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 23.01.15 10:52:59
      Beitrag Nr. 66 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 23.01.15 20:19:04
      Beitrag Nr. 67 ()
      weitere cash-Kosten Datenpunkte
      von BG Group, 9M-2014 (VJ):

      -lifting costs $8,36 ($6,93)
      -royalties & other $7,38 ($4,96)


      also weiter VIEL Platz nach unten...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 25.01.15 18:51:47
      Beitrag Nr. 68 ()
      Interessanter Artikel von Marin Katusa:
      http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/the-truth-behind-the-bakken…

      er nimmt sich die economics einzelner wells "in the Bakken" vor:

      -bei $45 sollen nur noch 7,5% (400 von 5.400) der wells eine IRR von 20% schaffen
      -er rechnet mit sehr großen Abschreibungen auf assets, beginnend mit Q4
      -und die wiederum lösen Verletzungen von covenants aus, was das ganze dann noch schlimmer macht



      Außerdem stelle ich noch mal seine Grafik zu den average breakeven costs der diversen plays rein:

      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 25.01.15 18:54:53
      Beitrag Nr. 69 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.879.245 von R-BgO am 25.01.15 18:51:47
      zum Vergleich re-post #26
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.01.15 19:56:43
      Beitrag Nr. 70 ()
      Schöne Übersicht zu den angeblich so unwirtschaftlichen Frackern
      im Vergleich zu Supermajors:

      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.01.15 19:58:02
      Beitrag Nr. 71 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.915.389 von R-BgO am 28.01.15 19:56:43Quelle und Erläuterungen: http://seekingalpha.com/article/2853376-are-exxon-chevron-an…
      Avatar
      schrieb am 30.01.15 13:01:16
      Beitrag Nr. 72 ()
      ...aus dem Core Lab report für Q4-2014
      ist interessant, weil sie einen enorm breiten Einblick in produzierende wells haben:


      "Nevertheless, due to significantly and sharply lower commodity prices, Core anticipates that North American land rig counts will continue to fall sharply into the second quarter of 2015, while deepwater GOM activities continue at, or near, fourth quarter 2014 levels.

      International activity levels will decrease slightly, with the Middle East region continuing at a relatively higher level of activity. Therefore, Core's Production Enhancement segment will be most affected by the sharp North American downturn as it was in 2009. Reservoir Description and Reservoir Management operations are expected to be affected, but to a lesser degree.

      Core Lab believes crude-oil supply and demand markets are imbalanced with crude production exceeding worldwide demand by approximately 1.0 to 1.5 million barrels per day (MMbopd). This imbalance is not only due to increased supply, mainly from North American unconventional developments, but also to significant decreases in demand, primarily from Asia Pacific markets, and to lesser demand from Europe. Core Lab believes these market imbalances will be transitory in nature, as was the case in 2009.

      Using a worldwide net annual decline curve rate of 2.5% on current IEA reported production rates approaching 89 MMbopd, coupled with increased demand in response to lower crude prices (US gasoline demand up 10% year-over-year so far in 2015) suggests that markets will balance in late 2015, possibly sooner.

      A critical factor in the balancing of markets in late 2015 will come from lower crude oil supply growth from North America, perhaps adding as little as 300,000 bopd in 2015 versus supply growth of over 1,000,000 bopd in both 2014 and 2013. First-year decline curve rates of 60% to 70%, and second-year decline rates of 30% to 40%, in unconventional reservoirs are common."
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 30.01.15 17:47:45
      Beitrag Nr. 73 ()
      Es geht an den Start.

      Jetzt, aktuell gibt es 45 USD für das Barrel WTI Rohöl.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 31.01.15 10:22:28
      Beitrag Nr. 74 ()
      bot 200 COP @ 63,27
      bot 100 SU @ 30,13
      bot 100 SLCA @ 25,62
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.02.15 11:44:56
      Beitrag Nr. 75 ()
      Rystad hat bei der norwegischen Regierung präsentiert:
      http://www.rystadenergy.com/AboutUs/NewsCenter/PressReleases…


      auszugsweise bullet points:

      The oil price has collapsed due to three “shocks”
      ...
      OPEC shock: Saudi-Arabia has many good reasons not to react to a lower oil price: To effect Iran, Russia and other OPEC countries; to stop the growth in US shale oil; to delay offshore and oil sand projects; to stimulate the world economy


      The oil price is likely to stay low for another year if Saudi-Arabia continues its current politics
      Massive market imbalance - it takes time to slow down oil production
      Thousands of shale wells drilled and yet to be set into production
      Saudi-Arabia may “want” a crisis and has heavily raised the numbers of rigs
      ...
      Strong stock build-up, including oil tankers


      The oil price will increase some in 2016 and 2017, but shale oil defines a ceiling
      Large spare capacity in shale at 70-80 USD/barrel - will reduce growth rate


      The oil price will rise significantly from 2018
      OPEC and shale oil will not provide enough oil from 2018 given the supply erosion from today’s oil prices
      Prices above hundred dollar per barrel required to stimulate sufficient developments
      Large offshore projects will provide extra, needed volumes – but uncertainty on Brazil’s capabilities
      Further price increase required to balance the market into the 2020s
      New slowdown may arise in 2020s due to shale oil production


      ...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.02.15 13:18:34
      Beitrag Nr. 76 ()
      Seit einer Woche geht es hoch und runter !!!!



      Die Unsicherheit ist perfekt !!!!




      :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
      4 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.02.15 13:51:32
      Beitrag Nr. 77 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.999.107 von Boersenbommel am 06.02.15 13:18:34Ist doch ideal um zu traden. Scharf rauf und wieder runter, was kann besseres passieren?
      3 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.02.15 13:20:17
      Beitrag Nr. 78 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.933.491 von R-BgO am 30.01.15 13:01:16
      noch ein Infobit aus dem gleichen Report:
      "Moreover, at current prices when one looks at the NPV of a well compared to the company’s or the operators’ cost of
      capitals, additional wells will not be completed with current pricing, as over 60% of the well costs are tied to completion
      and stimulation cost
      .

      Wells might be drilled but they might be extended for their completion times. Just look at a recent
      report from Continental as an example. They have some of the best acreage in the Bakken and they’re going to go
      from 50 to 31 rigs and they’re going to weigh completion and stimulation events on every well drilled.

      So this presents
      the backdrop from what we see as a significant supply destruction coming from North America and it maybe as little as
      300,000 barrels in additional production from the U.S. this year."



      mir war nicht klar, welcher Anteil der well costs nach dem Bohren anfällt...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.02.15 13:41:14
      Beitrag Nr. 79 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.999.440 von kainza am 06.02.15 13:51:32Wenn die Boersen konsolidieren sollten (wäre mal fällig) dann dürfte das dem Ölpreis auch nicht allzugut tun :confused::confused::confused:




      :cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.02.15 14:08:47
      Beitrag Nr. 80 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.018.805 von Boersenbommel am 09.02.15 13:41:14...können wir uns hier bitte auf fundamentale Themen beschränken?

      Möchte den Thread gerne frei von dem Rauschen der anderen Diskussionen halten;


      Thread: Ölpreis - Erdöl - Öl - Rohöl: Infos, Fakten, Analysen, Charts und Ausblick passt doch viel besser dafür...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.02.15 15:14:28
      Beitrag Nr. 81 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.018.805 von Boersenbommel am 09.02.15 13:41:14Die Börsen werden korrigieren. Die Relation zwischen Aktienkursen und Ölpreisen war noch nie so hoch wie zur Zeit.
      China hustet, Amerika wird stottern wegen den Frackern. das wird noch lustig.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 18.02.15 13:08:12
      Beitrag Nr. 82 ()
      Hier gibt es einen sehr guten Übersichtsartikel
      von Jeremy Grantham "Why were we so surprised?": https://www.gmo.com/Europe/CMSAttachmentDownload.aspx?target…


      ausgewählte bullet points:
      ...
      ■■The Saudis declined to pull back their production and the oil market entered into glut mode,
      in which storage is full and production continues above demand.

      ■■ Under glut conditions, oil (and natural gas) is uniquely sensitive to declines toward marginal
      cost (ignoring sunk costs), which can approach a few dollars a barrel – the cost of just
      pumping the oil.

      ■■Oil demand is notoriously insensitive to price in the short term but cumulatively and
      substantially sensitive as a few years pass.

      ■■The Saudis are obviously expecting that these low prices will turn off U.S. fracking, and I’m
      sure they are right. Almost no new drilling programs will be initiated at current prices except
      by the financially desperate and the irrationally impatient, and in three years over 80% of all
      production from current wells will be gone!

      ■■Thus, in a few months (six to nine?) I believe oil supply is likely to drop to a new
      equilibrium, probably in the $30 to $50 per barrel range.

      ■■ For the following few years, U.S. fracking costs will determine the global oil balance. At each
      level, as prices rise more, fracking production will gear up. U.S. fracking is unique in oil
      industry history in the speed with which it can turn on and off.

      ■■ In five to eight years, depending on global GDP growth and how quickly prices recover,
      U.S. fracking production will start to peak out and the full cost of an incremental barrel of
      traditional oil will become, once again, the main input into price. This is believed to be about
      $80 today and rising. In five to eight years it is likely to be $100 to $150 in my opinion.

      ■■ U.S. fracking reserves that are available up to $120 a barrel are probably only equal to about
      one year of current global demand
      . This is absolutely not another Saudi Arabia.

      ■■ Saudi Arabia has probably made the wrong decision for two reasons:
      First, unintended consequences: a price decline of this magnitude has generated a real
      increase in global risk. For example, an oil producing country under extreme financial pressure
      may make some rash move. Oil company bankruptcy might also destabilize the financial
      world. Perversely, the Saudis particularly value stability.
      Second, the Saudis could probably have absorbed all U.S. fracking increases in output (from
      today’s four million barrels a day to seven or eight) and never have been worse off than
      producing half of their current production for twice the current price … not a bad deal.

      ■■Only if U.S. fracking reserves are cheaper to produce and much larger than generally thought
      would the Saudis be right. It is a possibility, but I believe it is not probable.

      ■■The arguments that this is a demand-driven bust do not seem to tally with the data, although
      longer term the lack of cheap oil will be a real threat if we have not pushed ahead with
      renewables.

      ■■Most likely though, beyond 10 years electric cars and alternative energy will begin to eat into
      potential oil demand, threatening longer-term oil prices.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 23.02.15 09:49:59
      Beitrag Nr. 83 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 25.02.15 09:40:51
      Beitrag Nr. 84 ()
      von Marin Katusa
      -
      - The New Normal for Oil, Part 2
      -

      A recent US Energy Information Administration (EIA) came out with the Weekly Petroleum Status Report for the first week of February 2015 and highlighted the record levels of commercial storage filling US onshore tanks. Commercial storage reached 425 million barrels of crude oil, which accounts for 70% of total commercial storage capacity. Total storage came in at 1.1 billion barrels of crude, including the 695 million barrels of Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPRs) held by the US Department of Energy.

      The SPRs held by the US government are for emergency fuel requirements in the event of an unforeseen disaster, such as the polar vortex that chilled most of the East Coast in 2013-2014. With 691 million barrels of reserves, the US government has filled 95% of total SPR capacity, which is much lower than in January 2010 when SPR storage reached 99.9% of capacity.


      US Storage: The Biggest and Best

      Interestingly enough, total storage capacity in the US has reached record levels. Since 2010, 100 million barrels of commercial crude oil has been added to commercial storage units onshore. At the same time, 200 million barrels of commercial storage capacity has been added to storage infrastructure in the US. This increase comes as more storage tanks are built at transfer points, alongside refining operations, and along pipeline infrastructure. The added capacity since 2010 is the equivalent of 67% of China’s total commercial storage capacity.

      The shale revolution in the US has created an onslaught of crude oil buildup within its borders, and infrastructure has been put in place to take on more crude storage. This has allowed the US to continue to store crude onshore while Asian markets are running close to full capacity.

      Chinese commercial storage is almost 85% full, and similar Asian markets are looking for alternative ways to store their crude oil. Although most of this stored oil is for the use of refiners, there’s a fundamental change occurring in the market that has led to such a rush into storage: the contango market.


      Contango Sends Storage Out of Whack

      Unfortunate for the oil price, the current contango has made any hopes of a near-term return to previous highs in oil prices a pipe dream for the day traders. As crude oil floods a global market without enough demand to absorb additional oil production, the price of oil has plummeted to less than 50% of its value from a year ago. This flood of crude has created an interesting phenomenon in the crude oil futures market that was last seen in 2009.

      In today’s market, the spot price of crude oil is lower than the future price, which is referred to as a market in contango. This can come from expectations of future growth in demand, a supply shortage, or a potential lack of storage capacity. In the current oil market, contango is developing due to a lack of storage capacity around the world. The future price of crude increases the further out you go in the future, because more value is placed on the ability for consumers to store that oil and use it in the future.



      In terms of total days of crude oil supply, which is the amount of days it would take to deplete all commercial and SPR oil reserves, there continues to be record levels of crude stored even as prices plummet to levels last seen in May 2009.

      The continued strength in oil storage comes as the steep drop in oil prices has led to a global contango market where traders try to cash in on buying cheaper near-term crude, storing the product, and reselling the crude at a later date. If the cost to store the crude is lower than the profit made selling the crude at a later date, then traders are able to make an arbitrage profit off the futures curve in the oil market.


      How Contango Works

      In the current onshore storage market in the US, a trader can lease out 500,000 barrels of tank capacity for an extended period of time… for example, let’s say a year. It costs the trader $0.50 per barrel per month to store the product onshore or $6 per barrel for a year. The current futures curve has an $11 spread between the March 2015 and March 2016 contracts. If we deduct the $6-per-barrel cost from the futures spread, the trader can generate a gross profit margin of 45%.



      The black circle shows the current one-year profit from an onshore contango trade at a cost of $0.50 per barrel per month. If the profitability of the contango trade exists in US onshore oil markets, it’s likely profitable in other areas around the world as well, such as Asia.

      Coming back to the storage capacity in Asian markets, the largest oil consumer is China, and its storage capacity is filling up. In 2015, the Chinese are hoping to relieve some capacity issues by building 30 million barrels of storage capacity by the end of the year. Netherlands’ Vopak will be adding 8.8 million barrels of storage; CEFC China Energy will be adding another 18 million barrels; and the Zhejiang Tianlu Energy Group will add the final 3.5 million barrels. For now, this isn’t enough to relieve the short-term squeeze on commercial crude storage capacity, and traders are finding unique ways to benefit from the widened contango spread in the futures curve.


      Floating Storage

      Storing crude on ships is becoming more popular with traders in Asian markets as storage continues to deplete. There are 30-50 million barrels of crude oil being stored at sea in Asian markets in order to profit from the seaborne contango trade. Although floating storage is more expensive than onshore storage, last month the futures curve was in such a steep contango that many floating storage ships were turning an impressive profit while at sea. However, the volatility of floating storage has become most apparent in the contract month of April 2015, as the six-month contango spread has dwindled to under $5 per barrel from over $6.50 in contract month of March 2015.

      Although we may not see as much floating storage activity this month, if oil prices fall further and suddenly, the offshore contango storage trade could become reinvigorated. At this stage in floating storage, most ships that store crude oil are very large crude carriers (VLCCs) with 1.5-2 million barrels of storage capacity. Traders booking VLCCs for storage usually book the vessels on a time-charter basis, where the trader takes control of the boat while the company that owns the boat manages the day-to-day operations. The trader will pay the time-charter rate to use the boat, which is $34,000 per day, and pays all operating costs involved with operating the boat, including fuel,

      insurance, financing, and docking costs. Currently it costs just over $6 per barrel to book a VLCC on a time-charter basis for six months. The six-month spread on the futures curve is $4.85, which gives the trader a $1.00-$1.15 loss per barrel, represented by the black circle in this chart. If oil prices fall sharply, we may see the spread turn a profit like it did a month ago.


      Only Storage Wins

      The floating storage contango trade has started in areas that have a lack of onshore storage. China’s rush to increase onshore storage capacity is one indicator as to why the floating storage contango trade has become profitable in the East. As supplies from Russia, the US, Iraq, Iran, and Libya continue to increase, the futures curve is likely to steepen further and accentuate the immediate importance of storage on a global scale. To get ahead of this realization, investing in companies whose sole business is storage in the US market would allow investors to benefit from the global steepening of the futures curve in contango.

      Around 90% of oil storage is held by oil and gas majors like Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Total, and others. These majors usually use or, in some cases, lease out storage to traders who are looking to profit from the steep contango curve in the futures market. Most of the pure US storage plays are master limited partnerships (MLPs), which have two partners invested in the company. There is the general partner (GP) that manages and provides capital to the limited partner (LP), which then distributes a portion of before-tax earnings to unitholders of the LP to be taxed at their respective rates. For managing the LP, the GP is given a portion of the company's operating revenue in the form of an incentive distribution right (IDR). The IDR received is usually 2%-3% of unitholder distributions, and that rate usually increases as the amount distributed by the LP increases.

      You can take the risk and directly invest in floating storage through VLCC carriers like Frontline Ltd., DHT Holdings, and Asian players like Vopak. However, the high debt levels of shipping companies and the weak spot market into Q2 may put these companies at a higher risk of underperforming. The safest way to play the potential global storage deficit for crude oil is in the MLP storage space. This will benefit US investors over Canadian investors, as Canadians will have to pay a 35% withholding tax when receiving unit distributions from MLPs in any Canadian trading account.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.03.15 15:34:57
      Beitrag Nr. 85 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 01.04.15 17:56:05
      Beitrag Nr. 86 ()
      US OIL PRODUCTION ON TRACK TO REACH ALL TIME HIGH IN 2015
      March 31, 2015

      Rystad Energy estimates US annual oil production (crude oil plus lease condensate) to peak at 9.7 million barrels per day by September 2015, assuming WTI stays at 55 USD/bbl on average for the year. The average production for 2015 estimated at 9.65 million barrels per day could be an all-time high after its peak in 1970 with 9.64 million barrels per day as yearly average.

      “The monthly peak is estimated at 9.7 million bbl/d by September 2015, assuming horizontal oil rig count for Bakken, Eagle Ford and Permian will stabilize at 400 rigs, which is 43% below peak,” says Per Magnus Nysveen, Senior Partner and Head of Analysis at Rystad Energy. “Production could be even higher depending on assumptions like (1) lower drilling costs, thus more barrels per dollar spent, (2) narrowing price differentials in North Dakota, and (3) reduced backlog of completed wells.”


      By accounting for 400 thousand bbl/d of plant condensates produced from natural gas processing plants, Rystad Energy estimates that US oil production reaches an absolute all-time high already during April 2015, and further growth could be expected throughout the year. For overall liquids production, including biofuels, NGL and processing gains, the all-time-high was already passed during 2013. In 2012 US total liquids production surpassed both Saudi Arabia and Russia.

      Last week US domestic oil production reached 9.42 million barrels per day. Production in March was 0.124 million bbl/d higher than in February, and a staggering 1.2 million bbl/d higher than in March a year ago. The current growth rate for US oil production is thus the highest since October 2014, and on an increasing trend for the first three months of this year.

      Growth is also supported by year-over-year additions of 0.17 million bbl/d from new deep water fields in the Gulf of Mexico, including Tubular Bells, Jack, St Malo, Mars, Cardamom Deep, Cascade and others.

      The all-time-high to date for US oil production was achieved almost 50 years ago, when production reached 10.044 million barrels per day in November 1970. The lowest point was reached at 3.839 million barrels per day in late September 2008, just a few weeks after oil prices reached an all-time-high of 145 USD per barrel. At that point US oil production had not been so low since the Second World War. The outlook for US energy security and trade balance appeared dramatic. Driven by the shale oil revolution, the situation is now the exact opposite.


      Quelle: http://www.rystadenergy.com/AboutUs/NewsCenter/PressReleases…
      Avatar
      schrieb am 01.04.15 18:12:09
      Beitrag Nr. 87 ()
      Auch von Rystad: marginal cost Oil Sands
      Avatar
      schrieb am 02.04.15 16:32:15
      Beitrag Nr. 88 ()
      Oil rig count continues slide as debate grows on uncompleted well backlog
      Houston (Platts)--20Mar2015/628 pm EDT/2228 GMT


      The US oil rig count continued to fall this week in response to lower crude prices, although output continues to climb and debate rises on the impact of a backlog of uncompleted wells.

      On Friday, 825 oil rigs were working domestically, down 41 from last week and down 784 from October 10, according to the Baker Hughes weekly rig count. The number of rigs in the Bakken Shale of North Dakota and Montana fell to double-digit levels for the first time in at least four years. Just 99 rigs were drilling in the play, down from 104 the week before and the most-recent high of 198 October 3.

      Operators have quickly reined in activity there, because of the high cost of wells and transportation to markets from the stranded basin.

      Likewise, oil rigs drilling the Permian Basin of West Texas and New Mexico dropped by 20 to 285 this week, down from 562 November 14.

      Meanwhile, analysts debated the impact of a current phenomenon known as "fracklogging" on production later this year -- the recent backlog of drilled, but uncompleted, industry wells that operators do not want to produce at current low oil prices. NYMEX front-month crude settled at $45.72/barrel Friday, up $1.76 day on day, but down from $107.26/b from June 20.

      As rig counts continued in free fall, one analyst claimed a "fracklog" exists of over 1,400 wells.

      The phenomenon of hoarding wells in the current low-oil-price period "seems real," FBR analyst Thomas Curran, said in an investor note earlier this week. The investment bank's exploration and production team did the fracking backlog count, he said, adding that other analysts have calculated even higher numbers.

      Curran credited oilfield service consultants Spears & Associates with an estimate of a 2,000 wells fracklogged over the first quarter.

      Well backlogs have sparked some concern that holding back completions until oil prices rise would simply cause a production surge in the future, causing crude prices to plunge once again.

      The US Energy Information Administration reported this week that US output averaged 9.419 million b/d for the week ending March 13, up 544,000 b/d since the beginning of October, before rig counts began dropping.

      Curran and other analysts acknowledged the difficulty of sorting out just how many wells have been deliberately banked and delayed because of low oil prices, and how many constitute a normal backlog of jobs stemming from a lag in the unconventional drilling and completion process.

      EOG Resources, Anadarko Petroleum, Continental Resources and Chesapeake Energy are some of the most prominent operators that frankly signaled their intention in recent quarterly conference calls to deliberately build a bank of uncompleted wells that would be brought online when oil prices rise.

      For example, EOG sees a backlog of about 350 wells this year and Anadarko sees one o f 125 wells. Continental said it had deferred completions in the Bakken by 25% in Q1, while Chesapeake will have about 100 wells in its Eagle Ford Shale inventory.

      Several other companies, large and small, gave less-definite numbers but also said they were prepared to bank wells.

      On the other hand, investment research firm Bernstein Energy's Bob Brackett believes the incremental number of strategically uncompleted wells represent "a small portion of the total," he said.

      Brackett's research concluded that of 22 large E&Ps surveyed that account for 40% of US liquids production, wells listed as "in progress" totaled about 30% of wells typically completed in a year. But that number was only slightly higher -- perhaps only 3% collectively -- in 2014 than in the prior year.

      Brackett also noted that completions account for around 70% of the total cost of a shale well, suggesting that operators would be disciplined even when bringing them online.

      "Even though there is an inventory of wells, it is not clear that they would all come online at a moment's notice as 'bears' fear, as they would still cost several million dollars each," he said.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 02.04.15 22:28:24
      Beitrag Nr. 89 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 48.173.002 von R-BgO am 30.10.14 13:02:12
      Gute Grafiken, gute Links
      wie ist deine Einschätzung: wann bricht der U.S. Energiesektor wegen Überschuldung zusammen?
      Die Anleihen sind auf Rekordniveau und der Ölpreis auf absehbare Zeit im Keller. Das muss doch zwangsläufig zum Zusammenbruch der Anleihen führen.
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.04.15 11:55:36
      Beitrag Nr. 90 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.490.264 von kainza am 02.04.15 22:28:24
      meine Einschätzung:
      .
      .
      "wann bricht der U.S. Energiesektor wegen Überschuldung zusammen?"

      Gar nicht, der Sektor wird weiterbestehen und -gemessen am Output- weiter florieren


      "Die Anleihen sind auf Rekordniveau und der Ölpreis auf absehbare Zeit im Keller."

      Nehme an, Du meinst Energieanleihen? Die sind alles andere als auf Rekordniveau.

      Bloomberg meint:
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2015/02/05/high-yield-e…

      "As falling oil prices have taken their toll on high yield energy-sector bonds, the financial media, by extension, has singled out the whole high-yield market as one that investors should avoid. But the MacKay Shields High Yield Corporate team, led by Andrew Susser, believes the panic is overdone. One reason is that not all energy bonds are created equal: some are likely to be more resilient than others.

      The selloff in energy has been severe and, as a result, the market is currently pricing in a prolonged period of low oil and gas prices. By the end of December, about one-third of exploration and production (E&P) high yield bonds trade at distressed levels (at spreads of more than 10% over Treasurys).

      The media has focused on the size of the energy sector in the high-yield market: as a result of active issuance over the past few years, energy represents roughly 15% of the Credit Suisse High Yield Index. But the energy sector is comprised of several subsectors (see table below,) each with different sensitivity to energy prices.

      For example, the fee-based cash flows of midstream and pipeline companies have a lower correlation to energy prices than E&P firms do.

      Likewise, refiners can actually benefit from declining oil prices given lower input prices. “While the profitability of E&P companies is directly linked to oil and gas prices, there is vast dispersion in the strength of the credit profiles within the subsector.

      E&P high-yield issuers range from large public companies with strong asset coverage to highly levered companies that need $100 oil to maintain their capital structures. Service and equipment companies, which represent 2.5% of the index, seem most vulnerable given the outlook for capital spending from E&P companies,” says the team.

      Despite the portion of the E&P companies that trade at distressed levels, the team does not expect a material number of E&P defaults in 2015, simply due to the significant financial flexibility that most issuers have.


      “On average, E&P companies have hedged 40% to 50% of oil production in 2015,” says Dohyun Cha, the team’s energy specialist. “The majority are public companies with healthy liquidity that have already extended their debt maturities. Most E&P capital structures also have low levels of priority debt, which gives companies the ability to issue secured capital. Finally, companies can slash capital spending. Several have already announced significant spending cuts. We expect a 30%-35% aggregate reduction in 2015.”"


      "Das muss doch zwangsläufig zum Zusammenbruch der Anleihen führen."

      wie immer: falsche Prämissen führen zu falschen Schlußfolgerungen
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.04.15 14:10:37
      Beitrag Nr. 91 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.498.064 von R-BgO am 05.04.15 11:55:36
      Danke für die Erklärung!
      ich meinte das Volumen, die Anzahl an Anleihen sind auf Rekordniveau. Nicht der momentane Wert.

      Das der momentane Wert niedrig ist, ist doch klar, wenn der Ölpreis im Keller ist.

      Viele haben also gehedged. Aber der Rest?
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.04.15 09:53:42
      Beitrag Nr. 92 ()
      Energy Stocks
      April 9, 2015


      “If a deal is reached with Iran, the global oil glut could swell significantly within a year.” Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2015 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-strategic-petroleum-revers…

      Cumberland Advisors remains at maximum underweight in the Energy sector in its US exchange-traded fund (ETF) strategy. We believe the risk of oil pricing is to the downside. We believe the risk to the stocks that represent the oil patch is also to the downside. That is not true of certain of the master limited partnership (MLP) space. Our rationale follows.

      · The Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index contains 41 energy stocks, which constitute approximately 8% of the S&P 500 weight. Strategas Research Partners notes that 8% is the “average” weight over the last 25 years. The lowest weight, also noted by Strategas, occurred during the 1999-2000 stock bubble. At that time Energy sector weight was down to 3% of the S&P 500.

      · In the S&P 600 Small-Cap Index, Strategas estimates there are 36 issues tied to the Energy sector. Strategas notes that both the large-cap and small-cap percentages of publicly traded issues in each index are near record highs.

      · The highest percentage weight in the Energy sector occurred in 1980. We were in the business then, and we watched the unfolding of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the two-stage rise in the oil price that followed. Preceding the war, the oil price was about $3 per barrel. Following the war, it was $12 per barrel. The oil price subsequently reached a high of about $30 per barrel when the Shah of Iran fell and the new, religious regime took power in Iran.

      At that time, President Jimmy Carter faced daily media reports about American hostages held in Iran by the new regime. The change in geopolitical risk premia and the rise in the oil price from the pre-war $3 level to the regime-change $30 level caused a remarkable economic shock in the US and abroad. Central banks responded with very high interest rates in the late 1970s. Inflation reached double digits by the end of the decade.

      · Political winds cost President Carter reelection. Former California Governor Ronald Reagan won that election in 1980. As Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker quashed the inflationary forces with the highest interest rates in the history of the US. At some point during this period, America’s commercial interest rates were in excess of 20% annualized. Residential mortgage interest rates were well into the double digits.

      Thus was huge, negative shock to the world economy caused by a violent upward movement in the oil price. It had drastic effects on interest rates, inflation rates, and the securities markets throughout the globe.

      We are now in the midst of what appears to be a large downward price shock. It has the making of a reverse effect of that which we saw for an 8 year period in the 1970s-1980s. Even with the activities in the Middle East and North Africa that are raising geopolitical risk premia, the current direction of the oil price seems to be down. At the same time, the US still has controls in place that limit its ability to export oil. Those controls have their origins in the memories of the previous negative oil shock four decades ago. Pressures continue to build in favor of relaxing those controls.

      We think market forces will continue to pressure changes in the Oil sector. We expect one result of those changes to be greater production volumes of oil. Greater volumes benefit those who process them. That is why we like sections of the MLP space that are tied to rising volume. That is also why we dislike sections of the MLP space that are tied to price. If your business model depends on a rising oil price, you have a problem. If your business model depends on rising volume, it is a different story entirely.

      So we look forward to a decline in the oil price. We think there is a second leg down ahead of us. We may be wrong here but we see the risk as high enough to cause us to avoid the sector exposure. Offsetting that trend are the rising geopolitical risks of Saudi Arabia’s being involved in a shooting war in Yemen, the violence in Nigeria, and instability and the possibility of governmental overthrow in several other oil-producing places in the world. The result is a tug-of-war in pricing between geopolitical risk premia on one side and expanding volumes and downward price pressure through market forces on the other side. Additional factors are China and India. In China there may be expanded acquisition of oil to satisfy an additional enlargement of their strategic petroleum reserves. In India we have a growing import economy. Both large importers may add to global oil demand. At the same time, there are crosscurrents around the issue of the US becoming an oil exporter. We witness those crosscurrents daily in the Washington political struggle. And we watch the outcome of the Iran sanction negotiations that the Wall Street Journal discusses today.

      Add to those factors the question of the transportation of oil and how much of it moves by pipeline or by rail. The controversy over rail carriage continues in the US as it does in Canada, where new rules are being written for rail safety. The Canadians are simultaneously developing their own pipeline system because they cannot wait for the US to go through its political wrangling. So we expect to see the creation of a pipeline running east-west in Canada, as well as improved rail safety. That will mean some shift in the carriage of oil from rail to pipeline. The rail stocks already reflect some of this transition in their pricing models, and the transportation stocks that include the rail stocks reflect today’s lower energy costs. We think that repricing of rail carriage expectation is complete.

      At Cumberland Advisors, we maintain our position in the transportation ETFs because we like the domestic character of the sector and its strong dollar benefits that flow to the stocks and companies within the sector. On the other hand, we note that within the sector there are companies that will have to manage shifts in the energy distribution mechanism.

      In sum, we remain underweight the Energy sector in the extreme. We think the risk is to the downside. We do not know the final price of oil, but we note that some forecasts are that a price as low as $10 or $20 per barrel will be needed to trigger a full capitulation of market agents who seem to be complacent about their exposure in the Energy sector. We do not anticipate changing our weighting structure; however, it is clear that geopolitical forces could explode at any time, driving oil prices higher. Saudi Arabia is the largest producer, and it is now engaged in a military conflict in coalition with other Sunni Arab countries. Its adversary is Iran, which lies directly across the Persian Gulf and is the leader of the Shiite sector of the Muslim world. The next-largest oil-producing nation engaged in military conflict is Iraq. And so the complexities of the Middle East create geopolitical risk premia that can swing high or low and quickly affect oil pricing, based on news flows.

      In such circumstances, one has to be nimble. So Cumberland could be at its maximum underweight in the Energy sector right now and could quickly shift based upon events.

      As for those who are pundits and making claims of perfect foresight, we invoke the sage words of Will Rogers. “There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves.”

      David R. Kotok, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.04.15 09:56:02
      Beitrag Nr. 93 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.533.413 von R-BgO am 10.04.15 09:53:42der Post ist von cumberland Advisors;

      sehe inhaltlich die Dinge etwas anders, aber finde dass dies eben auch eine mögliche Perspektive ist (auch wenn sie bemerkenswert "low-on-data" ist;

      solche Leute sind die Käufer von morgen, wenn sich der Wind drehen sollte...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.04.15 10:35:15
      Beitrag Nr. 94 ()
      Casey-Research
      http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/betting-on-a-quick-oil…

      Texas and North Dakota produce more oil than any other state. So with oil prices in the toilet, their governments are using tax breaks to encourage oil and gas companies to continue producing. Chief Energy Strategist Marin Katusa warns that this will only exacerbate the underlying problem of too much oil.

      For now, many producers are leaving wells uncompleted. That way they can store the oil in the ground and hope that prices recover. But here’s the catch: much of this “fracklog” could be forced into production later this year. Under abandonment laws, any well that’s inactive for more than a year must be plugged—and in North Dakota, it must be reclaimed.

      These abandoned wells can be put into production in a matter of days, and the most effective tax incentives kick in if oil stays below $55.09/bbl for five consecutive months… which could happen as soon as May.

      Bet on a short-term oil rebound at your own peril.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 17.04.15 10:43:23
      Beitrag Nr. 95 ()
      inzwischen sogar ein Thema für SPIEGEL-online
      http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/service/oelpreis-forscher-w…


      Verunsicherte Investoren: Forscher warnen vor globaler Ölpreiskrise
      Von Stefan Schultz

      Der Kollaps des Ölpreises hat die Gesetze des Marktes laut einer Studie auf Dauer verändert. Investoren sind demnach tief verunsichert, die Finanzierung teurer Projekte ist gefährdet. Den Verbrauchern droht mittelfristig eine Kostenexplosion.


      Das Risiko einer globalen Ölpreiskrise ist laut einer Studie gestiegen. Der aktuell sehr niedrige Preis verursache "drastische Investitionskürzungen bei langfristig angelegten Ölprojekten", heißt es in einer Analyse des Hamburger Forschungsbüros Energycomment im Auftrag der Grünen, die SPIEGEL ONLINE vorliegt.

      Das gelte für die Erschließung der Arktis, brasilianischer Tiefwasser, kanadischer Ölsande, aber auch für die Herstellung synthetischer oder biologischer Kraftstoffe. Das Öl dieser Projekte werde im kommenden Jahrzehnt fehlen. "Daraus entstehen erhebliche Preisrisiken."

      Die Ölpreise haben sich seit dem Sommer 2014 fast halbiert und liegen derzeit knapp unter der Marke von 60 Dollar pro Barrel (159 Liter). Erstmals seit Jahrzehnten sei der Absturz nicht durch eine Wirtschaftskrise ausgelöst worden, schreibt Steffen Bukold, Chef von Energycomment und Autor des Standardwerks "Öl im 21. Jahrhundert". Er sei durch einen Verdrängungswettbewerb ausgelöst worden - was für den Weltölmarkt ein Novum ist.

      Einerseits ist die Förderung in den USA stark gestiegen; andererseits hat das Kartell der Erdöl produzierenden Länder (Opec), anders als gewöhnlich, nicht seine Förderung gekürzt, um einem Überangebot entgegenzuwirken. Die Ölpolitik der Opec dürfte sich auf Dauer geändert haben, schreibt Bukold. Denn vor allem Saudi-Arabien, die mit Abstand größte Opec-Fördernation, nutzt den niedrigen Verkaufspreis neuerdings als Hebel, um Wettbewerber in die Pleite zu treiben und neue Marktanteile zu gewinnen.

      Die Verbraucher sparen in diesem vergleichsweise freien Ölmarkt viel Geld. Für Investoren indes ist er gleich doppelt schädlich:

      Wenn die Ölpreise auf dem aktuellen Niveau bleiben, würden die Gewinne im laufenden Jahr um bis zu 1000 Milliarden Dollar schrumpfen. Sie hätten dann weit weniger Kapital für neue Förderprojekte.
      Auf dem Ölmarkt herrscht zudem ein Klima der Angst. "Investoren können sich nicht mehr auf einen Mechanismus verlassen, der über Jahrzehnte den Markt prägte", schreibt Bukold. "Ölpreise konnten demnach steigen, aber sie konnten nicht dauerhaft fallen."
      Beides zusammen habe am Weltölmarkt die "größte strukturelle Veränderung seit den Achtzigerjahren" ausgelöst - und bei den Investoren eine tiefe Verunsicherung. Kapitalintensive und langfristig angelegte Ölprojekte dürften in den Vorstandsetagen der Konzerne und Banken bis auf Weiteres kaum Chancen haben, schreibt Bukold.

      Die Einschätzungen von Energycomment decken sich mit denen anderer Analysten. So hatte etwa auch die US-Bank Goldman Sachs Chart zeigen im Dezember vor einer Investitionskrise auf dem globalen Ölmarkt gewarnt. Viele Fördervorhaben hätten sich nach dem Absturz des Ölpreises in "Zombie-Projekte" verwandelt, hieß es damals in einer Analyse des in der Branche stark engagierten Geldhauses. Schon wenn der Durchschnittspreis langfristig bei 70 Dollar pro Barrel läge, wären Projekte bedroht, deren Volumen fast einem Viertel des derzeitigen globalen Bedarfs entspreche.



      Die Folgen der Investitionskrise zeigen sich schon jetzt. In der amerikanischen Schieferölbranche hat sich die Zahl der aktiven Bohrplattformen nach Angaben des US-Amts für Energiestatistik (EIA) inzwischen halbiert. Ab dem Frühsommer dürften die Produktionsmengen sinken.

      Eine chronische Investitionskrise hätte verheerende Konsequenzen. Denn die globale Nachfrage dürfte bis Ende des kommenden Jahrzehnts von derzeit rund 90 auf gut 103 Millionen Barrel pro Tag steigen. Sollten zu viele Investoren abspringen, könnten 2025 bis zu 7,5 Millionen Barrel pro Tag fehlen, warnt Goldman Sachs. Schon bei einer deutlich geringeren Deckungslücke würde der Ölpreis in bedenkliche Höhen schnellen.

      Die Grünen dringen deshalb auf ein rasches Ende des fossilen Zeitalters. "Die Studie belegt, dass der Ölpreis trotz einer Verschnaufpause bald wieder steigen wird", sagt Fraktionsvize Oliver Krischer. "Die Bundesregierung muss jetzt Maßnahmen für mehr erneuerbare Energien und mehr Energieeffizienz ergreifen, damit nicht in naher Zukunft die Geldbeutel der Bürger geschröpft werden."
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 17.04.15 17:27:10
      Beitrag Nr. 96 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.586.483 von R-BgO am 17.04.15 10:43:23:D:D



      Die Investroen lesen den Artikel auch !!!!



      Und die wissen das auch, wann sie wieder investieren müssen !!!!!:laugh::laugh::laugh:



      Also solch ein Artikel ist nur eine Extremvariante, sollte tatsächlich niemand damit rechnen !!!!



      :cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.04.15 10:15:38
      Beitrag Nr. 97 ()
      interessanter Blickwinkel
      http://www.artberman.com/saudi-arabias-oil-price-war-is-with…


      Zitate daraus:

      "Saudi Arabia is not trying to crush U.S. shale plays. Its oil-price war is with the investment banks and the stupid money they directed to fund the plays. It is also with the zero-interest rate economic conditions that made this possible."

      ...

      "The quest for yield led investment banks to direct capital to U.S. E&P companies to fund tight oil plays. Capital flowed in unprecedented volumes with no performance expectation other than payment of the coupon attached to that investment.

      This is stupid money. These capital providers are indifferent to the fundamentals of the companies they invest in or in the profitability of the plays. All that matters is yield."
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.05.15 11:16:36
      Beitrag Nr. 98 ()
      5 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.05.15 14:25:30
      Beitrag Nr. 99 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.729.635 von R-BgO am 07.05.15 11:16:36
      und Rystad sieht's wieder anders:


      http://www.ogfj.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-4/feature…
      4 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.05.15 21:57:14
      Beitrag Nr. 100 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.740.825 von R-BgO am 08.05.15 14:25:30
      Warum sind im Ultra Deepwater
      so geringe Kosten angesetzt?
      Das ist doch nicht logisch.
      3 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.05.15 10:53:42
      Beitrag Nr. 101 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.748.162 von kainza am 09.05.15 21:57:14
      ich weiß es natürlich nicht,
      aber könnte mir vorstellen dass ein so geringer Unterschied durchaus an den Charakteristika einiger weniger Projekte hängen kann;

      Meine mich zu erinnern, dass die ultra-deepwater-Projekte vor Brasilien einen erklecklichen Anteil am Gesamt-Welt-Volumen haben. Wenn die nun besonders günstig sind -oder eher so prognostiziert werden-, dann führen sie vielleicht zu so einer Verschiebung.
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.05.15 12:12:58
      Beitrag Nr. 102 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.748.985 von R-BgO am 10.05.15 10:53:42
      Richtig !!!
      Zitat von R-BgO: aber könnte mir vorstellen dass ein so geringer Unterschied durchaus an den Charakteristika einiger weniger Projekte hängen kann;

      Meine mich zu erinnern, dass die ultra-deepwater-Projekte vor Brasilien einen erklecklichen Anteil am Gesamt-Welt-Volumen haben. Wenn die nun besonders günstig sind -oder eher so prognostiziert werden-, dann führen sie vielleicht zu so einer Verschiebung.


      Habe vor kurzen eine Beitrag über Petrobras reingestellt (Quelle: SZ).
      War ein Beitrag über Misswirtschaft und Korruption. Petrobras gewinnt aus ca. 7 km Öl und durchstösst dabei 4 km Salzmeeresböden.
      Vielleicht stimmen die Zahlen nicht. Petrobras schätzte den Bau einer neuen Raffinerie auf ca. 6 Mrd USD. Bislang sind ca. 21 Mrd USD verbaut und die Anlage ist angeblich zu 86% fertig. Über 2 Mrd USD wurden mindestens veruntreut. Daher eventuell Vorsicht bei Zahlen aus Brasilien.
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 19.05.15 17:03:50
      Beitrag Nr. 103 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.749.234 von kainza am 10.05.15 12:12:58
      Ergänzung zu Brasilien
      Baubeginn war in der Boomphase Brasiliens 2006 noch unter Lula.
      Dass nach fast 10 Jahren noch kein Ende erreicht wurde ist beschämend.
      Noch ist kein Tropfen Öl durch die Anlage geflossen.

      Wen die Tiefseebohrungen zu den teuersten Verfahren zählen, dann wird eine weitere Erschließung brasilianischer Ölfelder immer unwahrscheinlicher.
      Die Anlage wurde vermutlich am Bedarf vorbei gebaut.

      Was wäre wenn brasilianisches Öl künftig nicht mehr wettbewerbsfähig wäre.
      Subventioniert man dann den Goldesel der vergangenen Dekade?

      Vielleicht ist PERTROBRAS ein großer Looser im Ölkasino.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 19.05.15 17:15:57
      Beitrag Nr. 104 ()
      GREENPEACE hat ihr Ziel von 300.000 Unterstützerschreiben
      fast erreicht.
      Dear Mr. President, wenn du schon nicht auf die Stimme der Naturschützer gehört hast, wird die Wirtschaftlichkeit hoffentlich verhndern, dassin der Arlktis nach Öl gebohrt wird.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 19.05.15 17:23:31
      Beitrag Nr. 105 ()
      MAKABERES Stellenangebot aus Saudi-Arabien:
      Gut im Köpfen? Acht neue Henker gesucht
      Ein Stellengesuch der saudi-arabischen Regierung ist wirklich mörderisch. In ihrem Jobportal sucht sie acht neue Mitarbeiter, die ganz besondere Qualifikationen mitbringen sollen: Sie sollen Menschen köpfen und Hände amputieren können

      Tipp: IS ist multimedial gut vernetzt. Die Idologie orientiert sich am Wahabismus und die nötige Anzahl findet man da auch.

      Mich wundert, dass die einen Grenzzaun errichten zum Irak bei so viel Gemeisamkeiten.
      5 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 19.05.15 17:59:18
      Beitrag Nr. 106 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.807.572 von kainza am 19.05.15 17:23:31
      Wenn das der Grund für eine Verwarnung war
      dann ist das nur der Spiegel der Realität.
      Ich kann die Saudis nicht ändern und mein Kommentar war erkennbar sarkastisch.
      Wenn es gewünscht wird, dann löscht den Eintrag.
      4 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.05.15 12:59:49
      Beitrag Nr. 107 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.807.956 von kainza am 19.05.15 17:59:18
      Können wir uns bitte wieder aufs Öl beschränken?

      es gibt doch genug Blubber-Threads...
      3 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.05.15 14:51:19
      Beitrag Nr. 108 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.814.088 von R-BgO am 20.05.15 12:59:49
      Gerne...
      war keine Absicht. Bin in den falschen Thread geraten.

      Zurück zum Thema Brasilien.
      Kennst dich bei den aus?Erschlßn die wieder was vor der Küste, bzw. wie lange reichen ihre bestehenden Bohrungen noch

      Hast du einen Meinung was passiert, wenn der Ölpreis unter die Breakevenschwelle der bras. Ölindustrie rutscht?
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.05.15 14:59:31
      Beitrag Nr. 109 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.815.255 von kainza am 20.05.15 14:51:19Brasilien mag zwar wichtig für das Segment ultra-deepwater sein, aber m.E. nicht wichtig genug dass es den ganzen Ölmarkt treibt;

      deswegen interessieren mich die Details dort nicht übermäßig.


      Wenn Dich Brasilien so umtreibt, dann würde ich mich mehr hier tummeln: Thread: PETROBRAS
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.05.15 15:19:33
      Beitrag Nr. 110 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 49.815.366 von R-BgO am 20.05.15 14:59:31
      Ich suche Short-Kandidaten:
      Im andern Thread habe ich aus der SZ von letzter Woche einen Beitrag zitiert, der über ein internes Stategiepapier der OPEC ging.

      Die OPEC dementierte, aber im Vorfeld der Sitzung im Juni, war die Lancierug wohl ungelegen.

      Im Papier wurde für 10 Jahre Ölpreise um die 75 USD pro Barrel für wahrscheinlich gehalten. Grund: Wirtschaftlichkeitserbesserungen beim fracking. Fracking stet für mich die neue Herausvorderung für Offshoreanlagen dar. Am Anfang der Krise dachte ich, dass fracking liquidiert wird. Mittleweile glaube ich, dass fracking überlebt und alle teureren Verfahren die Looser sind.

      Danke für den Hinweis PETROBAS. Aber bei denen ist der Staatseinfluss stark.
      Denen würde ich zutrauen de Witschaftlchkeit ihrer Anlagen schön zu rechnen (Abschreibungs- und Steuertricks.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 03.06.15 10:29:18
      Beitrag Nr. 111 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 18.06.15 08:25:20
      Beitrag Nr. 112 ()
      The impact of the fracklog on the US short-term liquids supply
      http://www.rystadenergy.com/AboutUs/NewsCenter/Newsletters/U…


      In the first months of 2015, the US shale industry faced a rapid decline in drilling activity, yet oil supply has not been showing any signs of entering into a consistent decline phase. This opposite movement is mainly due to drilled uncompleted wells, namely fracklog. The following examines how drilling and fracking activity in the US shale evolved in 2014-2015 and to what extent accumulated fracklog can affect light tight oil (LTO) supply in 2015-2016.

      Figure 1 provides a full insight into the fracklog evolution in the largest LTO plays “The Big Three” Bakken, Eagle Ford and Permian Basin, which together accounted for 80% of LTO production growth in 2014. Last year, driven by expansion of tight formations in the Permian Basin, drillers outperformed completion crews by three horizontal wells per day on average. This has led to a significant accumulation of the fracklog with an annual increase of 1,100 wells as of year-end. When drilling had started falling with almost 35% decline from October 2014 to February 2015, fracking activity showed a delayed response, declining by less than 25% in the same period. However, the decline accelerated in March and April 2015. As a result, the fracklog decreased by 200 wells in the first five months of 2015.

      Figure 1 also demonstrates a strong correlation between the number of fracked and started wells, as 80% of the wells come online within three weeks after completion. Thus, massive well completion delays prevented aggressive fracklog reduction, but the number of fracked wells has been sufficient to balance base production decline to date.



      ...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 19.06.15 10:52:45
      Beitrag Nr. 113 ()
      Rystad Energy’s latest outlook
      for the global oil market indicates non-OPEC supply growth will slow down significantly in H2 2015 and grind to a halt in 2016. Global oil demand growth is expected at 1.3 million barrels per day this year.

      “The oil market will tighten in this cycle as supply and demand rebalance from a Q2 2015 imbalance peak by mid-2016. Global stock draws will commence from H2 2016,” says Bjørnar Tonhaugen, VP Oil & Gas Markets at Rystad Energy. “We have lowered our breakeven oil price curve, owing to cost compression and efficiency gains observed in the North American shale industry. Nevertheless, to meet the demand for oil, our field-by-field research continues to support oil prices higher than where current crude futures are trading post-2016.”

      We are bullish on oil prices from 2017, even with OPEC continuing to focus on market share with respect to production levels.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 02.08.15 09:58:31
      Beitrag Nr. 114 ()
      4 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 03.08.15 12:20:33
      Beitrag Nr. 115 ()
      http://www.rystadenergy.com/AboutUs/NewsCenter/PressReleases…

      Auszug:

      "Due to the lower oil prices and reduced earnings, oil companies will

      -this year invest 180 BUSD less than last year, or -21% down year over year. Spending
      -next year is expected further down by 5-15% depending on the oil price trend during the coming budgeting season.

      Production lags investments with a minimum of

      -six months for onshore drilling and up to
      -ten years to develop oil sands mega projects and deep-water large fields.

      So we will not observe any significant shortfall of production before next year, and then even more in 2017. From then we find the industry would experience a new strong up-cycle from the second half of 2017 to maintain supply/demand balances at an adjusted new level. "
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.08.15 17:27:13
      Beitrag Nr. 116 ()
      aus einem Artikel von Gary Shilling
      (via John Mauldin)


      The Chicken-Out Price

      What is the price at which major producers chicken out and slash output? It isn’t the price needed to balance oil-producer budgets, which run from $47 per barrel in Kuwait to $215 per barrel in Libya (Chart 6). Furthermore, the chicken-out price isn’t the “full-cycle” or average cost of production, which for 80% of new U.S. shale oil production is around $69 per barrel.




      Fracker EOG Resources believes that at $40 per barrel, it can still make a 10% profit in North Dakota as well as South and West Texas. Conoco Phillips estimates full-cycle fracking costs at $40 per barrel. Long-run costs in the Middle East are about $10 per barrel or less (Chart 7).





      In a price war, the chicken-out point is the marginal cost of production – the additional costs after the wells are drilled and the pipelines laid – it’s the price at which the cash flow for an additional barrel falls to zero. Wood Mackenzie’s survey of 2,222 oil fields globally found that at $40 per barrel, only 1.6% had negative cash flow. Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi said even $20 per barrel is “irrelevant.”

      We understand the marginal cost for efficient U.S. shale oil producers is about $10 to $20 per barrel in the Permian Basin in Texas and about the same on average for oil produced in the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, financially troubled countries like Russia that desperately need the revenue from oil exports to service foreign debts and fund imports may well produce and export oil at prices below marginal costs – the same as we explained earlier for copper producers. And, as with copper, the lower the price, the more physical oil they need to produce and export to earn the same number of dollars.

      Falling Costs

      Elsewhere, oil output will no doubt rise in the next several years, adding to downward pressure on prices. U.S. crude oil output is estimated to rise over the next year from the current 9.6 million level. Sure, the drilling rig count fell until recently, but it’s the inefficient rigs – not the new horizontal rigs that are the backbone of fracking – that are being sidelined. Furthermore, the efficiency of drilling continues to leap. Texas Eagle Ford Shale now yields 719 barrels a day per well compared to 215 barrels daily in 2011. Also, Iraq’s recent deal with the Kurds means that 550,000 more barrels per day are entering the market. OPEC sees non-OPEC output rising by 3.4 million barrels a day by 2020.

      Even if we’re wrong in predicting further big drops in oil prices, the upside potential is small. With all the leaping efficiency in fracking, the full-cycle cost of new wells continues to drop. Costs have already dropped 30% and are expected to fall another 20% in the next five years. Some new wells are being drilled but hydraulic fracturing is curtailed due to current prices. In effect, oil is being stored underground that can be recovered quickly later on if prices rise Closely regulated banks worry about sour energy loans, but private equity firms and other shadow banks are pouring money into energy development in hopes of higher prices later. Private equity outfits are likely to invest a record $21 billion in oil and gas start-ups this year.

      Earlier this year, many investors figured that the drop in oil prices to about $45 per barrel for West Texas Intermediate was the end of the selloff so they piled into new equity offerings (Chart 8), especially as oil prices rebounded to around $60. But with the subsequent price decline, the $15.87 billion investors paid for 47 follow-on offerings by U.S. and Canadian exploration and production companies this year were worth $1.41 billion less as of mid-July.


      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.08.15 18:48:05
      Beitrag Nr. 117 ()
      Gute Zusammenstellung!
      Der Preisdruck wird weiter bestehen.
      Was denkst du passiert mit den Offshoredrillern?
      Die Offshoreerschließungen müssten doch in dieser
      Phase zurückgestellt werden.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.08.15 07:15:46
      Beitrag Nr. 118 ()
      "Opec sees non-Opec output rising"
      Ich lach mich schlapp
      jeder Ölpreiscrash der vergangenen 30 Jahre hatte daselbe Ergebnis,die Schrumpfungsraten zogen um 2-3 Prozentpunkte an,also von 3% auf dann 5% oder mehr
      warum sollte es diesmal anders sein?
      möglicherweise dauert es diesmal etwas länger,das Ergebnis wird das gleiche bleiben
      und das betrifft mehr als die Hälfte der derzeitigen Förderung,konventionelle Felder ausserhalb der OPEC
      bei z.B. 5% Prozent Schrumpfung sind das täglich ca. 2,5 Mill. Barrel,die ersetzt werden müssen
      wenn der Verbrauch um 1 Mill. Barrel zunimmt,sind es schon 3,5 Mill. Barrel,die JEDES Jahr zusätzlich produziert werden müssen.
      nach 5 Jahren 17,5 Mill. Barrel
      da müsste die Opec um 50% zulegen
      völliger Humbug
      die Kurse machen die Nachrichten
      je weiter der Spotpreis fällt,desto mehr dummes Zeugs wird geschrieben
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.08.15 11:46:43
      Beitrag Nr. 119 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 50.407.101 von bernieschach am 15.08.15 07:15:46Bin gleicher Meinung.
      Vor allem wegen China: Weil der BIP nicht so steigt wie erwartet, hat man gleich das Gefühl, China braucht für die nächsten Jahren keine Rohstoffe mehr. Alle dort werden ab jetzt Däumchen drehen und den ganzen Tag nichts produzieren geschweige denn konsumieren.:laugh::laugh::laugh:
      Völliger quatsch.

      Ich gehe davon aus, dass der Ölpreis weiter fallen wird. Dafür wird gesorgt, weil immer dümmere und negativere Schlagzeilen erscheinen werden.

      Aber dann irgend eines Tages kommt die Wende.....garantiert. Wann weiß ich nicht genau, aber die kommt ganz sicher wie das Amen in der Kirche :lick::laugh:
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.08.15 19:45:00
      Beitrag Nr. 120 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 50.396.136 von R-BgO am 13.08.15 17:27:13Der Break Even von 7$ bei den Saudis bezieht sich auf die Ölgewinnung und nicht auf das benötigte Geld für den gesamten Staatshaushalt, Sozialhaushalt und Militär. Da wird wesentlich mehr benötigt.

      Saudi hat allein im letzten Halbjahr 58 Mrd. US $ von den Reserven von ca. 700 Mrd. US $ verbrannt. Und das war beim Brentpreis von über 55$.

      Jetzt kann sich jeder ausrechnen wie lange das Geld reicht.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.09.15 11:38:58
      Beitrag Nr. 121 ()
      A BRENT PRICE AS LOW AS 50 USD/BBL IS NOT SUSTAINABLE BEYOND 2016
      August 27, 2015

      Due to a lack of growth in North American shale production and increased decline in mature fields, a Brent price as low as 50 USD/bbl is not sustainable beyond 2016, shows recent oil market research undertaken by Rystad Energy.

      Around ten thousand shale wells would need to be drilled each year in order to keep North American shale production flat. Assuming balanced cash flows, costs would need to be decreased by 20% in 2015 vs 2014 at a price of 50 USD/bbl to drill those wells according to conducted well-by-well breakeven modelling.

      While 70 USD/bbl is likely too high an average price for 2016, it is too low an average price beyond 2017 as the additional effect of non-sanctioning of projects reduces the global supply potential longer term.

      “Our current market view is neutral to bearish in the short-term as we see a production floor at 30 USD/bbl. At such a low price, the supply response in US shale production coupled with already visible drops in infill drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and North Sea will be so severe that the price cannot remain that low for long,” says Nadia Martin, Senior Analyst at Rystad Energy.

      Although the oil market is currently well-supplied and oil stocks remain high, Rystad Energy remains bullish in the longer term, with foreseeable price spikes for Brent already in 2016. The current futures curve is trading too low for marginal producers to hedge their future production.

      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.09.15 09:55:12
      Beitrag Nr. 122 ()
      ma 'ne ganz andere Perspektive, frei von ökonomischen Überlegungen...
      von David Kotok, Cumberland Advisors


      $20 Oil?
      September 14, 2015

      One major investment house made news on Friday afternoon by lowering their forecast for the oil price to $20. Lots of arguments go into this forecast, and most of them have been repeated ad nauseam: Iran is increasing production; Saudi fears Iran and uses low price to deny Iran cash flow; fracking is still growing, so US supply is still growing; emerging markets are growing slowly, so demand is low; and natural gas is so abundant it competes with and exerts downward pressure on the price of oil. Also, geopolitical risk premia have collapsed in the global oil-pricing mechanism. Yemen, ISIL, and Russia-Ukraine are old news.

      I will stop. The list could be longer, but we all know the news flow.

      We don’t think the downward pressure on the oil price is over, so we are still underweight the Energy sector with the exception of selected MLPs that benefit from volume and not from price. All MLPs have been hurt in the selloff. Some have sold off to irrational extremes, so we see opportunity in the MLP space.

      Let’s look at this oil price collapse from a different viewpoint. There was a large run-up in the price of oil in the 1970s. The 1973 oil embargo and the Arab-Israeli War saw the price spike from $3 to about $12 a barrel. Subsequently, the Iranian revolution, the hostage crisis, and more Middle East pressure took the price to about $30. At the time of the Iranian revolution, the forecasted price was as high as $100 when the going price was $30.

      This writer remembers those turbulent days. At its peak the Energy sector was carrying a weight of nearly 25% of the US stock market. As an ironic historical note, Israel and Egypt fought bitterly in the 1973 war. Now they are both expanding large natural gas finds offshore in the Mediterranean.

      So guess what happened after oil went from $3 to $30 in eight years?

      Things changed. Prices collapsed. OPEC lost its power. Non-OPEC production rose. Substitutions for oil accelerated. Efficiencies rose. It took 20 years for OPEC to recover. During those two decades the inflation-adjusted price of oil returned to near its pre-Middle East war level. By the way, in today’s dollars a $20 barrel is again at that lowest of levels when inflation adjustments are applied.

      As the millennium turned, we heard talk of “peak oil.” Best-selling books told the Malthusian story of the world running out of energy. And then what happened? Fracking started in earnest in 2010. In just five years it has resulted in abundance. In natural gas we now measure future supply availability by the century. We will soon see the US as an exporter of LNG.

      And the forecasts of price, which were in the $100s, are now down to $20 or even lower.

      History suggests that the downward price adjustment will be in place for years. That is how such adjustments have worked in the past. And the lower prices of oil and gas and derivative products will eventually lead to increasing consumption and growing demand. Energy producers will suffer. The pressure mounts on them. Energy consumers will change their behavior as they begin to believe that the price change will be durable.


      What about stability of governments? Here is where the rubber meets the road.

      The Saudis have large reserves, and they are highly motivated to keep Iran from obtaining revenue to expand its nuclear program. It is in the Saudis’ survival interest to maintain maximum production and lower prices so as to reduce the amount Iran gets from selling oil. Various estimates center on Saudi Arabia’s needing about $70 oil to keep its current account in balance, so the shortfall means the Saudis will be tapping reserves. The Saudi government has even begun to issue debt. Nonetheless, Saudi staying power is measurable in years.

      Iran is estimated to need $45 oil or thereabouts to balance its current account; so if the Saudis can hold the price below that level, they will be able to keep Iran under economic pressure. The marginal cost of producing an extra barrel of oil is very low in both Saudi Arabia and Iran. Thus the two enemies each have a motivation to maximize production, albeit for different reasons.


      What about other places? This is where it gets complicated. Venezuela is a complete mess. Any dramatic change in government would immediately result in more oil production. Nigeria is not stable and needs revenue. Other places, like Algeria, are presently stable; but shrinking oil revenue threatens their social compact. In Algeria the worry is about instability from a second round of the “Arab Spring.” For an excellent discussion of Algeria see the September 5th edition of The Economist, page 51.



      To sum up, $20 may be a possible spike down, but we don’t think the price would be sustainable at that level. Today, $50-$60 seems high. There are many forces at work that will drive the price lower. Our guess is that the price will hover somewhere around $30 or so, but only for a while.



      Watch global geopolitics. And watch demand and emerging economies. We do. It is still too soon to raise our weight in the Energy patch. But the entry is getting closer, and external shocks could occur at any time.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 29.09.15 15:25:01
      Beitrag Nr. 123 ()
      Rystad zu Saudi-spare capacity:
      SAUDI ARABIA LEAVES WORLD OIL MARKET AT RISK OF PRICE SHOCKS DUE TO LOW SPARE CAPACITY AT ONLY 1.1 MM BBL/D

      September 23, 2015

      The world’s safety cushion to compensate for sudden disruptions of global production is historically low, as Saudi Arabia’s spare crude production capacity stands at only 1.1 mm bbl/d, Rystad Energy concluded in its latest oil markets analysis.

      “The oil market is at risk of price spikes despite the focus on oversupply. Current spare capacity is far lower than the 2.1 mm bbl/d of spare capacity the Kingdom held in 2009, when the oil market last demonstrated a significant misbalance in supply and demand”, says Nadia Martin, Senior Analyst at Rystad Energy.

      Rystad Energy forecasts that when the oil market rebalances next year, it will be with limited capacity to increase production meaningfully in the event of a sudden disruption, leaving the market vulnerable to price shocks.

      Key findings of the Rystad Energy report conclude:

      Saudi Arabia will again be the world’s largest crude oil producer in 2015, tied with Russia, at 9.9 mmbbl/d production. The US will this year be the world’s third largest crude oil producer. Saudi Arabia last held the position of world’s largest crude producer tied with Russia in 2008, when both countries produced 9.3 mmbbl/d. At that time, Saudi Arabia had implemented a strategy of providing maximum assistance to the market in a year when Brent shot up above 145 USD/bbl. Saudi Arabia’s output level dropped by 1 mmbbl/d the year after, down to 8.3 mmbbl/d.

      Saudi Arabia has held the position of holding the largest share of spare capacity in the market. As recently as 2012, Saudi Arabia increased crude exports to ease market tightness as the US embargo against Iran took effect and as EU sanctions were introduced while Libyan exports had collapsed during the Arab Spring. As a result, according to Rystad Energy’s calculations, Saudi Arabia’s spare capacity had fallen to 0.1 mmbbl/d in 2012. The Kingdom was slow to rebuild spare capacity thereafter, increasing levels to 0.4 mmbbl/d in 2013 and 0.8 mmbbl/d in 2014. For a time when there is a “historic glut” in the oil market, Saudi Arabia’s current spare capacity of 1.1 mmbbl/d is low.

      While Russia is producing crude at the same level as Saudi Arabia, Rystad Energy does not believe that Russia has production capacity it can increase in the near-term. This is despite Russia’s developing two of the top-ten largest offshore start-ups in 2015 and 2016, Arkutun-Dagi in Sakhalin 1 and Vladimir Filanovsky, respectively. Russian output levels have been surprising to the upside in recent months as the economy struggles and requires maximum USD denominated crude sales to help fight the country’s recession. This further emboldens Rystad Energy’s view that all capacity is being put online.

      Besides Saudi Arabia, the US is the remaining producer who can meaningfully increase output in the near-term. Rystad Energy forecasts US crude production of 8.2 mmbbl/d for 2015 and 8.35 mmbbl/d for 2016. In the case of a supply crisis, the US response will occur in three steps: first, within weeks, producers will connect already completed wells to increase output by 100 kbbl/d; second, within a month, producers will complete and connect already drilled wells, so called DUCs, to increase output by 0.5 mmbbl/d; third, with a response time of around a year, producers will increase rig count to increase output by 1 mmbbl/d. While the US supply response to a supply shock could be significant, the resulting oil market volatility could be far greater than expected. The US is a non-crude-exporting nation, and hundreds of companies make individual production decisions.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 02.10.15 23:57:12
      Beitrag Nr. 124 ()
      This Is What Needs To Happen For Oil Prices To Stabilize
      By Dan Doyle
      Posted on Thu, 17 September 2015 21:37 | 5


      On September 10th the EIA reported a production decline in the Lower 48—essentially shale production—of 208,000 BOPD. That is a staggeringly enormous number, approximately 10 percent of the estimated global over-supply. Additionally, it was a week-over-week number which makes it all the more impressive. Yet it received little attention through the week. Rather, Goldman Sachs was grabbing all the headlines with its $20 call on oil.

      This week, I was looking for a possible correction in that number with a zero decline or possibly even a gain (remember, the EIA numbers are estimates). But instead we got another decline of 35,000 BOPD.

      Back in June I wrote about the coming decline. Shale oil wells lose a lot of production up front, maybe 70 percent in the first year before tapering off at a 5 to 10 percent annual decline over the next few years until leveling off for the life of the well—maybe 20 years or so out. You can think of it as a slope. Once you crest it, the drop is precipitous and picks up speed before finding a bottom. We are undoubtedly now racing down that slope.

      To date, we have lost about 500,000 BOPD in the Lower 48. We will lose that again before the year is out. Pundits will claim otherwise, suggesting that oil in the 50’s or 60‘s will spur activity. But if that activity is in drilling, we won’t see any effect for a half a year or so. If it is in fracking drilled but uncompleted wells (“DUC’s”), that won’t mean much either over time. DUC’s have been the story of 2015 though they have had little effect on stopping the declines being put in.

      Back when the onslaught began, which I mark as Thanksgiving Day 2014—when OPEC declined to cut—Wall Street began talking of shale as being a switch; as in you can turn it on and off. Well, in the perspective of a remote offshore project and the 10 years that it takes to bear fruit, then the answer is yes. But shale is not a switch when it comes to controlling commodity prices, which are much more impatient. It took a full 6 to 7 months for the falling rig count to cast a shadow over production declines. And even then the initial declines were shallow, more of a cresting action really. So, going forward, we may have a new metric. That is, a sudden decline in rigs will take 6 to 9 months to show up in production in any meaningful way.

      We also still have a somewhat uneducated media that continues to shrug off its homework. We’re about a year into this bear market and oil has been covered to death on the financial news but it is still being misreported. As I mentioned above, the thought that $60 causes a switch to be thrown is wrong.

      Operators are battered and bruised. Sensible ones like EOG are holding onto their money. Others like Pioneer are thumping their chests claiming they can drill anywhere any time on their better prospects (but what company is going to claim holding mediocre acreage?). Full disclosure: I own stock in both, but should I stumble upon a few bucks (I run a frack company so these days I’m not counting on it) it would go to EOG.

      But, for the most part, very few operators are going to run headlong into a drilling program on a modest recovery. There is also the matter of their banks. They won’t let them. The shine is officially off shale in the debt markets. There are the private equity folks and other bottom feeders that are finding their way into the market but for the most part they are spending money on distressed assets, not new oil and gas wells.

      Then there are the service companies. If you imagine your worst enemy, someone that you wanted to see suffer some punishment, then let them run a service company right now.

      When the work stops so does the income. All of it. That puts you in the position of watching receivables, which you begin staring at very, very closely, waiting for the cracks to develop. Back in the good old days—2012 or so—a single stage on a shale job was being priced at $125,000 or more. The money being made was giddy. In 2014, that same stage was running around $75,000+ because of heightened competition. As of September 2015, that same stage is now down into the $30,000’s. That’s underwater. Smaller pressure pumper’s are quietly accusing the goliaths of dumping. Wall Street pundits would have you believe that there are new efficiencies being uncovered, but the fact is that those who can are jostling for (a) market share and (b) are using their weight to crush and snuff out the newbies that have come on in recent years with all that private equity money.

      When prices come back and operators are chomping at the bit to get back to work, idled service equipment will have to be brought back on-line, which is costly and time consuming. You can’t just turn a key to restart a mothballed blender or frac pump. Idled time always translates into repairs. This is when all the weak points in your equipment are suddenly and unexpectedly exposed. New crews will have to be hired and retrained because the old crews have either moved onto other industries under mass layoffs or will move on once their 6 months of unemployment benefits run out. It is time consuming to hire and re-train. And these are only some of the challenges, the biggest being the cost of ramping up without cash flow to rely on.

      Consolidations in service providers are now well underway. We’ve seen Halliburton and Baker Hughes but that was pre-downturn. There’s a few other M&A deals but for the most part it has been a story of closings and consolidations. North American frack camps are being closed at an alarming rate. Equipment that could only be bought new last year is now plentiful at Richie Brother’s auctions. Frack sand trailers are parked in front yards and lots all across American’s oil and gas plays. Service yards that are normally empty in good times are stuffed right up to the chain link fence with trucks, trailers, pickups and assorted equipment.

      So much has been made of new efficiencies in the media but there really aren’t any “new” efficiencies other than changes in frack designs, which continue to call for more sand per stage, closer spacing’s between stages (meaning more fracks per well), and some changes in additive chemistry. Sand pricing has come way down as have chemicals, but labor remains where it was. You still need the same number of crew on a well site. No one has come up with robotics to set trucks and hammer in the iron and hoses that connect them. Health insurance is going up. Vehicle, inland marine and general liability insurance are range-bound to up. Taxes don’t go away and then there’s debt. And that’s plentiful and likely increasing. There are some economies these days but the efficiency story should be ignored for the most part.

      That’s just the United States. Then there’s the rest of the world. Truthfully, I don’t know what the hell is going on in the Saudi oilfields, but I’m assuming Ed Morse at Citibank does. Morse was the analyst who called the top. A few weeks ago he stated that Saudi production could go no higher. That was big and in my mind it likely also marked the bottom. The Saudis chose not to cut last November, restated their 30mm BOPD OPEC objective, then began pumping like hell. They did announce that a 200,000 BOPD increase would be coming and maybe it has, but if they can go no higher, then global production has plateaued. Factor in the States, and other areas in decline, and I can’t see many traders and speculators lining up on the short side when the IEA is seeing oil demand going above 96 MBPD next year and the EIA is throwing out staggering week-over-week declines.

      But I’ve been wrong on this count before. I didn’t see the second leg down this summer and Goldman did. But this $20 bearish position is over-baked. It’s also too reliant on inventory numbers.

      Inventories will remain high in some parts of the world and will be drawn down in others. But overall, rising global demand and shrinking U.S. production (and other areas as well) will begin to eat away at inventory. It just requires some patience. And markets won’t wait to adjust pricing until we hit a balance. There will be some foreshadowing in oil prices here.

      Each of the 3 stages needed to move to a sustainable price have to be given time to play out. The rig count story has been told with a brutally fast 60 percent drop. Meaningful production declines are on. Next will be inventory draw downs; in that order. As to the latter, we’re just beginning to see the effects of the rig count. Cushing was down 2 million bbls this week, so no tank topping there. And non-strategic U.S. storage is off 30 million bbls from its high. That’s not even 10 percent but just wait. Large drawdowns will be here sooner than predicted.

      By Dan Doyle for Oilprice.com
      Avatar
      schrieb am 03.10.15 11:57:02
      Beitrag Nr. 125 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 03.10.15 13:52:17
      Beitrag Nr. 126 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.10.15 13:55:55
      Beitrag Nr. 127 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 19.10.15 01:04:37
      Beitrag Nr. 128 ()
      neu von Rystad:
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.10.15 11:45:37
      Beitrag Nr. 129 ()
      7 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.10.15 12:02:42
      Beitrag Nr. 130 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 50.887.209 von R-BgO am 20.10.15 11:45:37
      Die high yields schießen in die Höhe...
      stärker als im April, ob sich das noch verschärft?
      6 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.10.15 12:08:27
      Beitrag Nr. 131 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 50.887.374 von kainza am 20.10.15 12:02:42
      hast Du dazu einen Link
      oder eine Quelle?
      5 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.10.15 12:12:25
      Beitrag Nr. 132 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 50.887.431 von R-BgO am 20.10.15 12:08:27
      Deine Quelle S. 13.
      Starker Anstieg in den letzte Wochen. Auffallend auch über den Energiebereich hinaus. Sieht langsam nach kleiner Finanzkrise aus!
      Der Energiebereich ist höher als im April - klar wird zunehmend schwerer zu hedgen und der Gesamtmarkt wird zunehmehmend infiziert!
      3 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.10.15 12:29:13
      Beitrag Nr. 133 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 50.887.461 von kainza am 20.10.15 12:12:25
      Die Grafik hat Ähnlichkeit mit 2007/08
      Zuerst ein Anstieg in 2007 wie jetzt im April 2015.
      Danach eine Zwischenerholung auf erhöhtes Niveau.
      Und 2008 massive Zuspitzung der Krise, wie jetzt im Herbst. Wenn der Markt dann psychisch reagiert...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.10.15 12:54:39
      Beitrag Nr. 134 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 50.887.431 von R-BgO am 20.10.15 12:08:27http://www.wsj.com/articles/investors-pull-back-from-junk-bo…
      Avatar
      schrieb am 21.10.15 19:02:27
      Beitrag Nr. 135 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 50.887.461 von kainza am 20.10.15 12:12:25
      Danke für den Hinweis,
      was "in die Höhe schießt" sind die Spreads;

      ich weiß jetzt nicht, wie sich die dieser Grafik zugrundeliegenden Daten im Einzelnen zusammensetzen, würde aber anmerken, dass es sich m.E. definitiv um ein weit über den in diesem Thread diskutierten Ölbereich hinausgehendes Phänomen handelt.

      So habe ich in den letzten Wochen teils dramatische Renditeanstiege gesehen bei:

      Abengoa, Sunedison, Peabody, Noble Ltd., Glencore, Vedanta (jeweils nachzulesen im entsprechenden Thread)

      Keiner von denen hat direkt mit Öl zu tun, alle haben Finanzierungsthemen bekommen, weil die Märkte risikoaverser geworden sind.


      Meine holzschnittartige Interpretation: commodities sind generell schon lange unter Druck, verschärft hat sich die Lage durch die jüngste China-Rhetorik UND auch dadurch, dass wohl viele Emerging market borrowers sich in Dollar verschuldet haben.

      In Summe hat dieser Cocktail zu einer Neubepreisung von Bondrisiken geführt.


      DAZU kommen dann die oilpatch-spezifischen Probleme, insbesondere die ungesunde Finanzierungsstruktur vieler Fracker.

      Ich denke, Einigen wird tatsächlich noch die Luft ausgehen, bis sich das Preisblatt wieder wendet, sehe aber keine allzu großen daraus ableitbaren systemischen Folgen. Es gucken dann halt die jeweiligen Aktionäre ganz und die Gläubiger teilweise in die Röhre, wobei Vieles schon durch die bisherigen Preisstürze eskomptiert ist. So what?


      Und was den Ölpreis selbst angehet, so kribbelt mein Bauch inzwischen Richtung "bald könnte er drehen". Dazu passt, dass sich einige Aktien inzwischen etwas weiter erholt haben, als man bei intaktem Abwärtstrend erwarten dürfte (EOG, Flotek, Devon,...)

      We'll see
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 22.10.15 09:38:31
      Beitrag Nr. 136 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 50.900.850 von R-BgO am 21.10.15 19:02:27
      Ich denke es wird erst einmal
      Ende 2015 eine "harte Landung" geben für U.S. Shale.
      Ihr Output wird bis dahin um ca. 25% zurück gegangen sein.
      Der Preis ist ohnehin wieder über 10 USD niedriger als in der Zwischenerhohlung. Beides dürfte die Firmen in die Enge treiben.
      Dazu die Finanzierungsproblematik.
      Schätze vor diesem Knall kann man beim WTI einsteigen.
      Es bleibt spannend.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 27.10.15 23:45:43
      Beitrag Nr. 137 ()
      Wenn Chanos spricht, lohnt sich meistens das Zuhören:
      http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/10/jim-chanos-energy-investmen…

      Rundumschlag zu Energy; u.a. auch



      4 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.10.15 09:27:28
      Beitrag Nr. 138 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 50.947.401 von R-BgO am 27.10.15 23:45:43
      FRAGE:
      DVN (Devon Energies), EOG und PXD (Pioneer Natural Res.) stehen sehr hoch im Kurs - trotz Ölpreis 2015 und hohen Schulden und der Tatsache, dass der economic return of money und der Reservenzuwachs sehr niedrig sind...

      O.K. fracking wurde effizienter, aber...

      CHK (Chesapeake) wohl nicht mehr zu retten und CLR (Continental Res.)kann ich nicht recht beurteilen...

      Kann man da auf fallende Kurse setzen? Deine Einschätzung?
      3 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.10.15 10:01:26
      Beitrag Nr. 139 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 50.948.925 von kainza am 28.10.15 09:27:28habe keine fundierte Meinung dazu, da ich außer EOG keinen von denen je näher angesehen habe;

      EOG kommt mir tatsächlich eher teuer vor, allerdings gilt das schon sehr lange (auch in den guten Zeiten) und ich weiß nicht, welche Erwartungen da schon eingepreist sind
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.10.15 10:11:17
      Beitrag Nr. 140 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 50.949.420 von R-BgO am 28.10.15 10:01:26
      Operating Cost
      haben nicht mal die Aufwendungen gedeckt selbst in den Boomjahren.

      Das ist eigentlich vernichtend. Außerdem haben die keinen Zuwachs an neuen
      Reserven. Auch ein Nogo für Unternehmen, die auf ständige Erweiterung angewiesen sind. Aber woher soll das Geld kommen, um neue Reserven zu erwerben, wenn ich nicht die Betriebskosten reinspiele. Da beißt sich die Katze in den Schwanz...
      Chesapeak gibt es gute "sicher" Optionsscheine, schon im Geld, Außblick weiter negativ, ca. 50% Rendite bis nächstes Jahr möglich. Suche eigentlcih noch höhere Renditen.
      Beobachte Seadrill verstärkt..
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.10.15 11:03:15
      Beitrag Nr. 141 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 50.949.549 von kainza am 28.10.15 10:11:17
      eine Bitte:
      bisher war dieser Thread schön frei von Einzeltitel-Gequarke;

      laß' es bitte dabei.

      Wenn Du Dich unbedingt zu den Dingern äußern musst: es gibt jeweils Einzelthreads, in denen so was gut aufgehoben ist
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.10.15 14:04:44
      Beitrag Nr. 142 ()
      Leute,verabschiedet Euch von der Wahnvorstellung eines steigenden Ölpreises!Die mächtigste Frau des Planeten,die Klimakanzlerin,hat schliesslich die Dekarbonisierung "demnächst"versprochen!Und ,aus der Vergangenheit wisst ihr:Nichts ist richtiger,als "Muttis Visionen"!Sie hat schliesslich von der Pike auf gelernt:Die Alternativlosigkeit in ihrem Lauf,hält weder Ochs noch Esel auf!
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.10.15 14:29:18
      Beitrag Nr. 143 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 50.951.790 von unnerfrangge am 28.10.15 14:04:44
      für Dich gilt das Gleiche!
      such' Dir bitte einen anderen Platz zum Pöbeln...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.10.15 14:53:18
      Beitrag Nr. 144 ()
      Leute,verabschiedet Euch von der Wahnvorstellung eines steigenden Ölpreises!Die mächtigste Frau des Planeten,die Klimakanzlerin,hat schliesslich die Dekarbonisierung "demnächst"versprochen!Und ,aus der Vergangenheit wisst ihr:Nichts ist richtiger,als "Muttis Visionen"!Sie hat schliesslich von der Pike auf gelernt:Die Alternativlosigkeit in ihrem Lauf,hält weder Ochs noch Esel auf!
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.10.15 15:35:16
      Beitrag Nr. 145 ()
      DoE Ölmarktbericht: Rohöl-Lagerhaltung steigt um 3,4 Mio Barrel, erwartet wurde ein Anstieg um 3,5 Mio Barrel.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.10.15 15:37:38
      Beitrag Nr. 146 ()
      vor 4 Min (15:31) - Echtzeitnachricht
      DoE Ölmarktbericht: Destillat-Lagerhaltung fällt um 2,95 Mio Barrel, erwartet wurde ein Rückgang um 2,0 Mio Barrel.

      DoE Ölmarktbericht: Benzin-Lagerhaltung fällt um 1,14 Mio Barrel, erwartet wurde ein Rückgang um 1,0 Mio Barrel.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.11.15 12:24:03
      Beitrag Nr. 147 ()
      Neues von Rystad:
      http://www.rystadenergy.com/AboutUs/NewsCenter/Newsletters/U…

      "In light of the oil price drop in 2015, shale production proved to be resilient in two ways. First, operators were able to benefit from lower unit costs and higher efficiency. Second, each well’s performance increased because of high grading and better completion techniques.

      Using the Eagle Ford Shale play as an example, Figure 1 shows the evolution of the average wellhead breakeven prices* from 2012 to 2015. The values are derived by studying every single well in terms of well performance, hydrocarbon content and drilling and completion cost. Back in 2012 and 2013, the average breakeven was ~$70/bbl. In 2014, the wellhead breakeven price dropped by ~10% reaching ~ $63/bbl. For 2015, the reduction is estimated to be around 25%.

      ..."


      Avatar
      schrieb am 29.11.15 14:50:54
      Beitrag Nr. 148 ()
      Aufteilung Förderkosten CapEx/OpEx
      http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/the-cost-to-produce…;

      danach steigen UK und Brasilien bei um die 30$ Grenzkosten als Erste aus...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 29.12.15 15:46:36
      Beitrag Nr. 149 ()
      http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/12/oil-andy-hall/

      By Rupert Hargreaves on December 9, 2015 10:14 am in Top Stories


      Andrew J. Hall, the commodity hedge fund manager and oil trader whose pay package of about $100 million ensnared him in the fight over compensation at bailed-out banks in 2009, believes that oil prices are almost certain to head higher over the long-term.

      In a letter to clients of Astenbeck Capital reviewed by ValueWalk, Andy Hall’s commodity-focused hedge fund, Hall writes that current oil prices “are unsustainably low on any reasonable assessment and global spare capacity is wafer thin.” However, Hall believes that “there is certainly still a chance of lower prices in the next month or so,” although “weighing that possibility against the virtual inevitability of higher prices down the road leads to a simple conclusion: now is not the time to exit the market.”

      The hedge fund manager sometimes called “the oil G-d” is having a rough year, but is not backing down from his thesis. According to Christian Berthelsen of The Wall Street Journal, who first reviewed the letter, Hall’s fund lost 9.7% in November, bringing YTD losses to $26%. This would make 2015 the worst year for Hall since 2008 when the hedge fund was founded.





      Oil: Demand remains robust

      Hall has been bullish on the price of oil for some time and lays out why his position hasn’t changed over the past few months within Astenbeck’s December letter to investors. Hall’s analysis shows that while it’s broadly believed that the oil market is oversupplied, the gap between supply and demand isn’t as wide as the media is reporting.

      “The weak physical crude oil market can largely be attributed to lingering refinery turnarounds. Accounting and fiscal effects exacerbated the situation as refiners postponed purchases to minimize onshore stocks at year’s end. This, in turn provoked press reports of queues of oil tankers waiting to discharge, adding to the gloom and resurrecting fears of the industry running out of storage,” he wrote.

      In fact, Hall’s research shows that the crude oil the market is much closer to being balanced and “for gasoline, the market is almost certainly in deficit given phenomenal demand growth in the U.S. and Asia.”

      EIA data for September shows gasoline demand in the U.S. grew 4.5% compared to a year earlier. Vehicle Miles Traveled grew at a similar rate, while fleet efficiency fell for the first time in eight years as buyers switched to trucks and SUVs. In India, gasoline demand increased by over 14% percent in October with auto sales up by almost 22%. Apparent demand for gasoline in China grew by nearly 11% in October: SUV sales were up 60% year-on-year. Analysts from Credit Suisse estimate that burgeoning car sales in China will result in gasoline demand there growing by around 300,000 bpd during 2016.

      On the storage front, Hall points out that there has been a significant decline in total oil inventories during the past few months. Combined data for commercial inventories in the U.S. and Japan, in leased storage in Rotterdam and Singapore plus oil in floating storage, showed a decline of over 1.5 million bpd in November – the first monthly decline this year. Commercial oil inventories in China fell by over 600,000 bpd in October and now stand at the same level as a year ago. All in all, based on oil inventory data, Hall concludes that:

      “It seems extremely unlikely to us that the industry will run out of places to store oil even if inventories resume growth during the lower demand months in the first half of 2016.”


      The price of oil: Capitulation


      Long-term thesis remains intact

      “Despite all the short-term negativity, the longer term story regarding oil remains very much intact. Indeed the longer prices remain at current levels the more powerful the ultimate recovery will likely be. The oil industry simply cannot function with oil prices stuck at current levels. This was demonstrated with the publication of third quarter 2015 E&P company earnings which were a sea of red ink,” he added.

      According to Andy Hall, the effect of the rout in oil prices should really start to show through on the supply side during 2016. For example, as they enter 2016, the U.S. E&P complex will lose much of the protection afforded to it in 2015 by hedges.

      State oil companies Pemex and Petrobras are also feeling the pressure. Pemex is reportedly nine months in arrears in paying its service providers, and Petrobras, reeling under a mountain of debt, is trying to sell assets — a strategy workers are opposing. Striking workers cost the company as much as 200,000 bpd of lost production in November.

      Meanwhile, in China, production is expected to decline significantly next year as investment in new offshore projects tails off and aging onshore fields are starved of capex. Even within OPEC, low prices are taking their toll. The Iraqi government has instructed oil companies there to curtail investment to reduce the drain on government revenues. The Saudi policy of trying to drive higher-cost shale producers out of business is taking longer than anyone expected to play out:

      “Global oil supply has therefore continued to grow — albeit at a much lower rate. As the excess has lingered and low prices have prevailed for longer, producers outside the shale arena and whose investment lead times are longer are increasingly being impacted. Rystad Energy, in a recent report, estimated that because of reduced maintenance investment in mature offshore sources of production, decline rates there will double in the coming 12 months, from 750,000 bpd to 1.5 million bpd,” said Hall.

      Additionally:

      “Platts reported that oil analysts, Tudor Pickering Holt (TPH), had identified some 150 oil and gas projects that have been delayed or cancelled globally in response to lower oil prices, “jeopardizing a combined 19 million boe/d of future production”. These deferred and cancelled projects hold some 125 billion boe of resources, 60 percent of which are liquids according to the analysis,” he wrote


      US E&P bankruptcy filings: Chart via S&P Capital IQ


      Oil prices are likely to remain volatile for the time being

      Andy Hall concludes his December letter to Astenbeck investors by stating that, “with short term and long term factors pulling in opposite directions, prices are likely to remain volatile for the time being.” Although demand is rising, inventories and production will take time to readjust. However, global spare production capacity is wafer-thin, and as the oil sector slashes jobs to cut costs, there is a question of how well the industry can respond to any upturn in demand. As a result, “the virtual inevitability of higher prices down the road leads to a simple conclusion: now is not the time to exit the market,” he said.
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 29.12.15 15:55:24
      Beitrag Nr. 150 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.380.598 von R-BgO am 29.12.15 15:46:36
      den Q2-letter gibt's sogar als pdf:
      http://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/27375875…
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.01.16 18:18:01
      Beitrag Nr. 151 ()
      http://econintersect.com/pages/investing/investing.php?post=…

      posted on 01 January 2016


      The Oil Market

      from EconMatters, EconMatters.com


      Prediction Game

      Anybody who tells you they know where the oil market is headed for 2016 is inexperienced, too stupid to realize there are far too many variables in play that are unknowable to predict with any accuracy their effects on other variables in the oil equation, talking their own respective books, just piling in with the recent herd mentality on the street, giving an opinion about as valid as the best paint color for a room, or like to see themselves on television talking about the hot market moving topic du jour.





      If Experts were paid for Accuracy

      We have written extensively on the topic, have a lot of experience in the industry, were right regarding the direction, but frankly wrong about the timing of the inevitable market correction. I remember reading all the comments at the time of our analysis with reactions such as

      "Shale requires $80 a barrel oil prices", or "OPEC needs $85 a barrel oil prices so oil can never go lower than $85 a barrel", "Shale wells depletion rates mean...", and "China is going to use so much oil that...".

      I have to sit back now and smile when IHS, Goldman Sachs, and the IMF or any other oil analyst gives their predictions for the price of oil for the end of 2016.

      Just look at all the predictions at the start of 2015 for oil prices by year`s end? Most analysts saw oil prices being weaker the first half of 2015, only to rise by the third, and be even higher by the 4th quarter of this year. I would say most analysts had the price of oil much higher than $55 a barrel by year end if we made them commit to a price at the beginning of 2015. Well we aren`t even going to end the year above $40 a barrel.


      Futures Curve

      And similarly don`t look for the oil futures curve to be any better predicting future price points in the commodity as just look at where it was priced right before the turn in oil markets in 2014. The futures curve has basically become a lagging indicator of a lagging indicator, basically mimicking the current sentiment in the market and extrapolating out the curve. It is about as useful as a personal psychic reading is in predicting one`s future course in life.


      Dependent Variables

      There are just too many variables that effect other variables within the oil market dynamic to determine with any accuracy where the price of oil will be by the end of 2016. If two variables go one way instead of another, they affect other dependent variables, causing a whole cascading effect which leads to an entirely different outcome. And the problem with the oil market is there are in excess of 10 extremely important variables that if any one of them goes offline or different than the consensus forecast this throws the entire oil market equation analysis game completely off course.


      Unknowable Assumption

      Consequently if one starts with the premise that the price of oil is unpredictable for 2016, then what do we know? Where can we at least have a foothold for pretty reliable assumptions? Well let's start with this, we know at some price oil operations will shut down. What price does oil need to go to before oil operations shut down? Moreover, that such money is lost that banks will not finance operations even if oil prices rise because they realize that this would just bring new production online only to have oil prices fall again, and they lose money all over again.


      The Real Pain Threshold

      Thus it isn`t can an outfit make money for six months or a year, but can they make money for 10 years, can they withstand a downturn in prices? There will be a much higher bar for lending just like the end of the no down payment loans in the real estate sector. This probably means there needs to be a whole lot more pain in the credit markets where even if oil rises to $55 a barrel it doesn`t mean one is getting a loan to start pumping again only to have oil fall due to more shale production going back online.


      I would surmise that around $20 a barrel major money is lost, and lost fast with major credit events bringing about so much destruction and pain that lending decisions aren`t based on where the price of oil is for six months but can it average such an such a price for 5 years without an over glut in supply happening all over again. Therefore I am latching onto the $20 a barrel floor because of the idea that production goes out of business at this price, and stays out of business the longer duration oil hovers around this level.


      Long-term Project Evaluation Metrics

      At this price it doesn`t matter whether oil will rise back to $55, if enough money is lost at $20 a barrel, this is a major deterrent for future projects going back online without an outright raging bull market in oil. The way oil projects were viewed after the oil collapse in the 1980s, conservative lending environments with 10 year time horizons required and supported by a consistent cash stream of average oil prices well above production costs for the project on a 10-year going forward basis. Just because an oil operation can make money for 6 months isn`t a reason to provide lending for said oil operations, and banks are going to start getting this principle.



      Unknown Variables: US Production

      An example of an unknowable variable in the oil market is what happens to Shale oil if oil gets down to $20 a barrel? Does US Production drop off a cliff to 6.5 - 7 Million barrels a day? Does it go even lower, say 5 million barrels a day? And how fast does this happen? You see how one variable is dependent upon another variable. These two concepts of speed and depth of the fall in price are inextricably linked in the equation; and they are completely unknowable in my opinion.


      Saudi Arabia

      Another unknowable variable is how do the budget changes in Saudi Arabia just two years after the Arab Spring, and cutbacks in government subsidies to the general populous affect political stability in Saudi Arabia? This hasn`t occurred in the modern era of Saudi Wealth and this generation of always having ample resources and strong pricing power for their main funding source as a country. Just imagine all the London shops, hotels and medical facilities all courting and setup up around Middle East Oil money built upon an $80 a barrel price model. Saudi women are going to be put on major budgets, i.e., they cannot leave the country to spend or shop!

      But on a serious note, what happens to the price of oil with a political instability event in Saudi Arabia causing major oil production in the country to go offline in the process of a political uprising? If this variable goes different than the current status quo this changes the entire oil market at the drop of a hat! If Saudi citizens were unhappy with $120 Brent oil easing their existential pain, how about $40 Brent prices? Is the real Arab spring in the cards for 2016?


      The Event Variable, and Reaction Variable

      I can make a case for oil being below $30 a barrel for the majority of 2016, and I can make a case for oil being above $60 a barrel sometime in 2016, and a bunch of places in between. It all depends on how certain variables play out, and how other variables react to each other, and off of the "played out" variables. The event is one thing, how a certain variable plays out; but the reaction to this event, is an entirely different event that needs to play out. For example, oil prices dropped and instead of OPEC curtailing production they started pumping more to try and make up for lower revenue coming in by raising production as a reflexive coping mechanism.


      Oil Exports Ban

      I bet OPEC never factored into their analysis the lifting of the US Oil Exporting Ban in 2015 after being a non-starter for so many decades. This is a prime example of an unknowable variable, and wasn`t even part of OPEC`s analysis in 2014 when they decided to not cut production at their initial OPEC meeting after prices broke $80 a barrel. And I can make an argument for this lifting of the export ban as being bullish and bearish as a catalyst in the oil market over the longer term. It depends upon how other variables and market dynamics play out and off of this change going forward as to whether this lifting of the exports ban ultimately becomes a bullish or bearish variable for oil prices.


      2016 Market Considerations

      Obviously the oil market is down a lot from its five and ten year averages, and market participants are trying to figure out if this represents an opportunity to make money going forward. It really comes down to timing, and most market participants are paid for performance. The next quarter, the next 6 months, the next year is all that matters for most market participants. Can I make money in oil from the long side in 2016? How do I best position myself to make money in the oil market for 2016? What does the timing look like?


      Potential Long Scenario Setup

      I don`t know where the oil market is going, and I sure cannot predict the bottom. However, I think one can make money at the $33 a barrel level sometime in 2016. If you held me to a prediction scenario, here is one such of many scenarios I could envision. We start 2016 and new money comes into the oil market from the short side pushing it lower. This plays out in seasonal builds as the refining industry slows down capacity for maintenance with some large weekly inventory builds similar to last year. Then buttressed by production cuts in US domestic production and an anticipation of the ramp up to the summer driving season the dip buyers are rewarded with a nice run from the bull side supported by gasoline demand. This is probably the most likely scenario for making money from the long side of the equation in the oil market for 2016.


      Economist Answer: It all depends...if X then possibly Y

      But this could all change as early as the next inventory report if we have back to back to back large drops in US Production and suddenly we are at 8.6 million barrels per day and a rather large short squeeze has ensued in the oil market by late January. You see how fast variables can change? And trust me there is a good $15 dollars of "shorts covering" in the current price of oil that can happen faster than a contract rollover period! Therefore, when you want to know where the price of oil is going? Well it all depends on variables - and many of these are unknowable. Sometimes the wiser analysis is taking note of the shortcomings of the prediction business.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 05.01.16 10:22:38
      Beitrag Nr. 152 ()
      Shale efficiencies reached record high in 2015, what about 2016?
      http://www.rystadenergy.com/AboutUs/NewsCenter/Newsletters/U…

      The average well performance across the US shale plays has improved significantly over time, specifically during 2015 with low oil prices. All key metrics for drilling, completion and well cost have improved across the main shale oil plays this year. Nonetheless, one important question to raise is how much more can these efficiencies increase in the coming years, as companies drill up their core areas i.e. sweet spots.



      All main shale oil plays increased drilling efficiency in 2015 and on average, one rig currently drills up to 16 horizontal wells per year with a total measured depth of 15,000 ft. In the Niobrara shale play one rig drills up to 27 of these type of wells, the largest among the main shale oil plays. Wells in Niobrara are drilled with an average lateral length of 7,000 ft and 93% pad drilling. A key reason of improved drilling efficiency is the deferral of older rigs, leaving mostly the newly build and more efficient rigs still drilling in the shale plays. Towards 2016, pad drilling in Niobrara is expected to continue at current 2015 levels, similar to what is expected for Bakken. Further drilling efficiency can be expected in the Permian Basin.



      All main shale oil plays have increased the average lateral length of the wells in 2015. Niobrara has been the play with the largest increase in lateral length per well during this year, mainly due to longer laterals drilled by Anadarko, Bill Barret and Noble Energy. These longer lateral wells have required larger amounts of proppant, which gives an indication of bigger stages, hence more reservoir contact that ultimately results in higher oil recovery. This case is more prominent in Permian Delaware wells, which have had a slight increase in lateral length but a significant increase in proppant use.




      Permian Delaware wells now recover just 85 thousand bbl less of oil EUR than Bakken wells, 22% above average in US shale plays. Further improvements in well performance can be expected among all shale plays except Eagle Ford, which has shown a similar 90-day initial production rate since 2012 at nearly 600 boe/d and marginal increases in Oil EUR, even though proppant use in this play has increased consistently every year. Such trends in the Eagle Ford play affect the drilling and completion (D&C) well cost per EUR, which over the last four years has decreased the least in comparison to other main shale oil plays, as shown in Figure 4.



      Eagle Ford wells have marginally decreased the well cost per EUR in 2015, only 3% yearly and still above 10 $/bbl. The Permian Midland shale play, on the other hand, has decreased the yearly well cost per EUR by 15% in 2015 and 61% since 2011. A decreasing well cost per EUR indicates that companies are able to recover more volumes for every dollar spent. During 2015, most operators improved in this metric mainly due to drilling only their best acreage i.e. high grading, but the size of such areas or sweet spots is limited. At the current well spacing, companies will drill up their core areas in about eight years, by assuming a drilling level similar to that one in 2014.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.01.16 15:10:58
      Beitrag Nr. 153 ()
      so langsam wird's spannend:
      http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/12/oil-goldman/

      Auszüge:

      Goldman Report Mentions $20 Oil Amid Forced Selling
      By Mark Melin on December 18, 2015 12:20 pm in Business

      With oil trading near $34.68 in the early morning hours, below Goldman Sachs’ $38 per barrel three month West Texas Intermediate price target, the salient question is: is oil just mean reverting from Goldman’s price average or are more fundamental issues at play? Looking at storage capacity, a report out Thursday titled “The New Oil Order: Crunch Time” has a nuanced take on where oil is headed as it looks forward to a point when forced selling might take place. To a value investor, the concept of “forced selling” is akin to Pavlov’s dinner bell.




      Goldman’s $20 oil price thesis and inventory storage capacity, an infrequently occuring but powerful performance driver

      ...

      Goldman Sachs looks at the oil situation and does so with nuance, not only noting that traditional production-related issues – rig count, production quotas and related items — are most often discussed alongside economic demand as primary oil price performance drivers. Thursday’s Goldman report was notable for several reasons. First, it dared mention the shocking notion of a $20 Brent crude handle.

      “We reiterate our concern that ‘financial stress’ may prove too little too late to prevent the market from having to clear through ‘operational stress’ with prices near cash costs to force production cuts, likely around $20/bbl,” said the report.

      ...

      Such a result is not unique in the history of oil trading, Goldman analysts Damien Courvalin, Abhisek Banerjee and Requel Ohana observe. The past precedent results from a “feedback mechanism,” which means that “the lack of storage capacity for one product can lead to a sharp weakness in crude oil prices.” It is not out of the question, as such an economic event took place in late winter in 1998 and 2009.

      “As a result, while oil prices needing to fall to cash costs is not our base case going forward, we view distillate nearing storage capacity as an important signal that such an outcome is probable,” the Goldman team wrote

      ...

      “In the event that storage fills faster than we forecast or capacity is lower than we model, the potential downside to our oil price forecast from hitting storage capacity is significant as it requires forcing production lower and back in line with demand, as occurred in 1998. From a level perspective, we estimate high-cost producers have operating breakevens in the $30/bbl Brent prices. However, these producers, typically Canadian oil sands producers, have also low leverage and elevated fixed costs to shutting down production. As a result, a fall to cash costs could likely take prices instead to the highly levered high-cost US shale producers, whose cash breakevens are closer to $20/bbl (Brent equivalent).”
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.01.16 16:26:16
      Beitrag Nr. 154 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.481.671 von R-BgO am 13.01.16 15:10:58
      Der Originalreport scheint schon älter zu sein (Sep '15):
      https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd…

      auf Seite 10 findet sich

      "From a level perspective, we estimate high cost producers have operating breakevens in
      the $30/bbl Brent prices. However these producers, typically Canadian oil sands producers,
      have also limited leverage and elevated fixed costs to shutting down production. As a
      result, a fall to cash costs could likely take prices instead to the highly levered high-cost US
      shale producers, whose cash breakevens are closer to $20/bbl, on our estimates (Brent
      equivalent)."

      und 2 gute Charts, die ich aber nicht kopiert bekomme...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.01.16 16:37:12
      Beitrag Nr. 155 ()
      und dann haben wir noch das hier:
      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-12/forget-20-oil-stanc…


      Forget $20 Oil: StanChart Says "Prices Could Fall As Low As $10 A Barrel"
      Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/12/2016 08:16 -0500

      A little over a year ago, Paul Hodges was roundly mocked when in December 2014 he made a drastic call that "Oil May Drop To $25 On Chinese Demand Plunge, Supply Glut, Ageing Boomers." After oil got as close as 40 cents away from the dreaded 2-handle, Paul had the last laugh.

      But the bigger point is that not only is $20 oil not a shocker any more, it is largely expected and could be indeed welcomed, as first Goldman, then practically everyone else has now admitted it is just a matter of time before oil trades to levels not seen since the 20th century.

      So, perhaps to make a name for himself, the head of commodity research at Standard Chartered, Paul Horsnell decided to lower the bar into even more dramatic territory, and overnight suggested that oil prices could drop as low as $10 a barrel.

      "Given that no fundamental relationship is currently driving the oil market towards any equilibrium, prices are being moved almost entirely by financial flows caused by fluctuations in other asset prices, including the USD and equity markets,” Horsnell said. "We think prices could fall as low as $10/bbl before most of the money managers in the market conceded that matters had gone too far."

      When does he see oil bottoming? "in extreme case, price floor may be set when entire market believes oil has undershot."

      So with a new, and even lower bogey, that means that an upper, or even lower $20-print in oil will be the shocker so many bottom hunters are looking for, but instead after this expectations reset, oil may have to indeed drop another $10 before the BTFD algos can finally make some money.

      So with a $10 oil bogey now in the books, here is what others are predicting, courtesy of Bloomberg. Spoiler alert: everyone is bearish.

      Energy Aspects

      *Even oil in $20s won’t speed market rebalancing
      *Cost of halting and then restarting production makes output curbs unlikely, even at prices below $30/bbl
      *Risk of further price declines “still on the cards”

      ADIA head of research Christof Ruhl

      *Conventional oil producers “can’t win” in battle to drive U.S. shale producers out of market
      *U.S. oil shale showing relentless efficiency gains

      Natixis

      *Natixis cuts 2016 Brent forecast by $8.30 to $39.50/bbl
      *“We expect a very slow recovery in oil prices, thanks to the continued resilience of U.S. oil output”

      Barclays

      *Strong demand may lead to gasoline shortage in summer
      *Cites new refinery additions less tailored toward light products, increasing demand for petrol in Asia
      *Cut Brent, WTI 2016 fcasts to $37/bbl on “marked deterioration” of mkt fundamentals
      *Represents $23 cut to Brent fcast, $19 reduction on WTI


      In short, peak pessimism is here. The only missing link is one major high-cost oil producer (like Venezuela for example) blowing up. It shouldn't be too long.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.01.16 11:25:02
      Beitrag Nr. 156 ()
      Interview mit Kyle Bass, der denkt "Energy is the place to be"
      auf Sicht von 3-5 Jahren;

      http://wallstreetweek.com/watch/?video=episode-35-kyle-bass&…

      ungefähr 20:00-24:00
      Avatar
      schrieb am 14.01.16 14:20:50
      Beitrag Nr. 157 ()
      Lesenswert: zu den Details in der Wirkungskette bis Default
      http://oilpro.com/post/21427/solving-2016-dilemma-part-two-c…
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.01.16 07:45:34
      Beitrag Nr. 158 ()
      WoodMacKenzie zu FID-Verschiebungen:
      http://oilpro.com/post/21543/started-haircut-now-full-surgic…

      Auszüge:

      *Since the start of this downturn, 68 major projects and 27 billion boe of commercial reserves have been deferred, consultancy Wood Mackenzie said in a Thursday report. 22 of these projects and 7 billion boe have been deferred since last summer alone. Deepwater projects have been impacted the most, representing over half of this total, accounting for more than half of new project deferrals- up from 17 to 29; 62% of total reserves; and 56% of total Capex.

      *"The biggest jump in pre-FID delayed projects over the last six months was in the deepwater, rising from 17 to 29, where costs have only fallen by around 10% despite the global crash in rig day-rates. Despite the size of these fields, the combination of insufficient cost deflation and significant upfront capital spend has discouraged companies from greenfield investment in the sector.”

      *"We believe that most companies will now be looking for these developments to hit economic hurdle rates at around US$60/bbl," he said.

      *Wood Mackenzie said that by 2021 deferred volumes will reach 1.5 M/bpd, increasing sharply to 2.9 M/bpd by 2025.
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.01.16 09:11:52
      Beitrag Nr. 159 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.496.977 von R-BgO am 15.01.16 07:45:34
      Die Driller
      verlieren massiv an Wert. Schau Seadrill an: seit Anfang 2015 ging es noch einmal deutlich nach unten.
      Der andere große Player, Transocean verlor deutlich weniger und könnte der große Gewinner in dieser
      Marktbereinigung sein.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 19.01.16 09:44:01
      Beitrag Nr. 160 ()
      kaum zu fassen:
      http://oilpro.com/post/21619/negative-crude-oil-price-happen…

      es gibt tatsächlich negative Ölpreise (wenn auch sehr punktuell)!
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 19.01.16 11:09:53
      Beitrag Nr. 161 ()
      Hallo R-BgO,

      ich kann leider nichts zu "Deinem" Thread beitragen, da ich vorwiegend trendorientiert technisch trade, aber ich will mich bei Dir bedanken, dass Du diesen Thread so kontinuierlich weiterführst.

      Es ist sehr toll zu sehen, wie sich der Ölmarkt seit Sommer 2014 entwickelt hat und es ist im Nachgang interessant zu lesen, wie sich die Analysen bzw. Annahmen bestätigt oder eben halt aufgehoben haben.

      Für mich ist deine "Sammlung" ein Paradebeispiel wie schwierig es ist sich bei "intransparenten" Märkten (schon alleine die Diskussion um die Förderkosten oder Cashkosten, zeigt wie schwierig es ist an zuverlässige Daten heran zukommen.) fundamental zu orientieren.

      Ich bin gesapnnt wie das Ganze sich weiter entwickeln wird und entsprechend kannst Du Dich über einen Follower mehr freuen. :)
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 19.01.16 12:13:40
      Beitrag Nr. 162 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.526.188 von indexhunter am 19.01.16 11:09:53
      Danke, das geht runter wie Ö L !
      und danke an die Spammer, die sich in den anderen Threads tummeln und die Lesbarkeit hier nicht zerstören.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 19.01.16 12:24:39
      Beitrag Nr. 163 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.525.327 von R-BgO am 19.01.16 09:44:01
      Kommando zurück:
      lt. Spiegel Online http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/oelpreis-preis-…

      waren die -50c ein Fehler, der richtige Preis betrug $1,50.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 19.01.16 15:02:19
      Beitrag Nr. 164 ()
      Ein negativer Wert
      wäre auch dekadent gewesen...

      Das Phänom gibt es aber, nur umgekehrt. Bestimmte Abfälle zu entsorgen kostete früher Geld.
      Mit dem Siegeszug von Biogasanlagen und der Cofermentation auf Kläranlagen wurde aus Abfällen
      Wertstoff.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.01.16 11:06:57
      Beitrag Nr. 165 ()
      finde es verrückt, dass bei dieser Sachlage:


      Quelle: http://oilpro.com/post/21653/oil-market-could-drown-oversupp…

      -Leute behaupten, "demand" würde fallen
      -Leute von "drowning in Oil" sprechen


      ICH sehe,
      -einen Markt, der um etwas mehr als ein halbes Prozent(!) aus dem Gleichgewicht ist
      -und darauf mit Preissignalen wie Preisviertelung reagiert

      Frage mich,
      was wohl passiert, wenn es das nächste Mal in die andere Richtung geht...
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.01.16 11:54:10
      Beitrag Nr. 166 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.536.154 von R-BgO am 20.01.16 11:06:57
      Zitat von R-BgO: Frage mich, was wohl passiert, wenn es das nächste Mal in die andere Richtung geht...


      Das frage ich mich auch seit längerem.

      Tatsächlich besorgt es mich etwas, was wohl passiert, wenn nach vielleicht zwei bis drei Jahren niedrigem Ölpreis und immer noch nahezu keinen Zinskosten auf einmal der Ölpreis und die Zinsen steigen....

      Wobei ich beim Ölpreisverfall tatsächlich das Gefühl habe, dass das seit langer Zeit mal wieder die Chance sein könnte, richtig viel Geld zu verdienen! Oder einigermaßen viel Geld und dafür mit gemäßigtem Risiko... ich warte jetzt im Grunde seit ca. einem Jahr auf einen sinnvollen Einstiegszeitpunkt bei den Ölmajors.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.01.16 16:20:03
      Beitrag Nr. 167 ()
      interessant:
      http://seekingalpha.com/article/3820886-crude-oil-supply-wil…

      Paulo Santos meint, dass Canadian Oil Sands zum unerwarteten Swing producer werden könnten:

      sie produzieren 2,3 mboed und haben -zumindest Suncor- cash-Kosten von 27$ pro barrel


      das wird dann im Moment richtig wehtun...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 21.01.16 20:02:03
      Beitrag Nr. 168 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 21.01.16 20:39:31
      Beitrag Nr. 169 ()
      vom Economist:
      http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21688919-plunging-pri…


      Auszüge:

      Oil and the economy - The oil conundrum

      Plunging prices have neither halted oil production nor stimulated a surge in global growth
      Jan 23rd 2016

      ...

      Now the fear for producers is of an excess of oil, rather than a shortage. The addition to global supply over the past five years of 4.2m barrels a day (b/d) from America’s shale producers, although only 5% of global production, has had an outsized impact on the market by raising the prospects of recovering vast amounts of resources formerly considered too hard to extract. On January 19th the International Energy Agency (IEA), a prominent energy forecaster, issued a stark warning: “The oil market could drown in oversupply.”

      Last year the world produced 96.3m b/d of oil, of which it consumed only 94.5m b/d. So each day about 1.8m barrels went into storage tanks—which are filling up fast. Though new storage is being built, too much oil would cause the tanks to overflow. The only place to put the spare barrels would be in tankers out to sea, like the Iranian oil sitting off Kharg, waiting for demand to recover.

      ...

      Though oil firms have since collectively suspended investment in $380 billion of new projects, as yet there is no sign of a bottom. Projections for a meaningful recovery in the oil price have been pushed back until at least 2017.

      ...

      Yet there is also a reason for keeping the pumps working that is not as suicidal as it sounds. One of the remarkable features of last year’s oil market was the resilience of American shale producers in the face of falling prices. Since mid-2015 shale firms have cut more than 400,000 b/d from output in response to lower prices. Nevertheless, America still increased oil production more than any other country in the year as a whole, producing an additional 900,000 b/d, according to the IEA.

      During the year the number of drilling rigs used in America fell by over 60%. Normally that would be considered a strong indicator of lower output. Yet it is one thing to drill wells, another to conduct the hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) that gets the shale oil flowing out. Rystad Energy, a Norwegian consultancy, noted late last year that the “frack-count”, ie, the number of wells fracked, was still rising, explaining the resilience of oil production.

      The roughnecks used other innovations to keep the oil gushing, such as injecting more sand into their wells to improve flow, using better data-gathering techniques and employing a skeleton staff to keep costs down. The money is no longer flowing in. America’s once-rowdy oil towns, where three years ago strippers could make hundreds of dollars a night from itinerant oilmen, are now full of abandoned trailer parks and boarded-up businesses. But the oil is still flowing out. Even some of the oldest shale fields, such as the Bakken in North Dakota, were still producing at the same level in November as more than a year before.

      The shale industry also benefited from financial engineering. Last year at least half of the firms involved had hedged the oil price to protect revenues. Some went bankrupt, but most have managed to sweet-talk bankers into keeping the credit flowing—at least until the latest crisis.

      It is not just the shale industry that managed to keep its head above water longer than expected. Those extracting in more expensive places, such as Canada’s oil sands and Brazilian pre-salt, have too. Canada, whose low-quality benchmark oil, West Canada Select, is trading below $15 a barrel, giving it the ignominious title of the world’s lowest-value crude, is one of the non-OPEC countries expected to add most to global supply this year. So is Brazil, despite debt and corruption at its state oil company, Petrobras.

      ...

      In the industry at large, the incentive is to keep producing “as flat out as you can”, once investment costs have been sunk into the ground, says Simon Henry, Shell’s chief financial officer. He says it is sometimes more expensive to stop production than to keep pumping at low prices, because of the high cost of mothballing wells.



      Simon Flowers of Wood Mackenzie, an industry consultancy, says that even at $30 a barrel, only 6% of global production fails to cover its operating costs. It may be uneconomic to drill new deepwater wells at prices under $60 a barrel, he says, but once they are built it may still make economic sense to keep them running at prices well below that (see chart 2). Such resilience is used by some to justify why they expect prices to remain “lower for longer”.

      ...

      Perhaps more worrying is the way the oil-price drop is compounding the effect of financial fragility worldwide. Low interest rates in America and Europe after 2009 drew rich-world investors into emerging markets, creating a lending boom. Corporate debt in emerging markets rose from 50% of GDP in 2008 to 75% in 2014. The lesson of recent history is that a rapid build-up in debt leads to trouble. Along with construction, the oil and gas industry saw a big increase in corporate debt, according to the IMF’s latest Global Financial Stability Report. Lower oil revenues make it harder to service this burden.

      ...


      Ready for a shock

      Investors appear to be rethinking how risky assets should be priced in rich countries, too. This is as much a response to concerns about the strength of China’s economy as to the damage a sharp fall in oil prices might wreak. Worries about delinquent borrowers in the oil industry triggered a sharp rise in their yields in America’s junk-bond market at the end of last year. The yields on junk bonds issued by other sorts of borrowers rose in apparent sympathy. Even yields on investment-grade bonds are edging up.

      Stockmarket bears are quick to point out that higher real interest rates on corporate bonds make it harder to justify elevated share prices. Central bankers in rich countries say they worry that a long period of near-zero inflation is entrenching beliefs that prices will remain endlessly flat. The real rate of interest rises when expectations of inflation fall and it is hard for policymakers to respond to this as rates are already close to zero.

      ...
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 22.01.16 19:20:45
      Beitrag Nr. 170 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.551.952 von R-BgO am 21.01.16 20:39:31
      irgendwann vor langer Zeit hatte der Economist schon mal ein Titelbild mit "World drowning in Oil",
      das war damals fast genau am Wendepunkt.

      Ob sie das diesmal wieder geschafft haben?


      =================================

      Schönes Bild zur Veranschaulichung des depletion-effects bei Shale:



      und der Artikel drumrum ist auch lesenswert: http://oilpro.com/links/27874/price-oil-looking-ahead-withou…

      Auszug:

      "What IS different is that the cost of capital in the US has gotten much higher. That won’t be changing soon. Banks and other lenders have already started changing the cost of capital. Warrants are being demanded at closings. Even when oil recovers, this will not change rapidly. Watch the industry get a lot better, because their breakeven for cost of capital will have gotten worse. The oilfield service sector has suffered more than a glancing blow. It will not be able to ramp up as quickly as it was laid down. A lot of its equipment is shot for lack of proper maintenance.

      The Fed is reported to be advising banks to push for asset liquidation in lieu of bankruptcy. This is actually a good idea if the point is to preserve value for lenders and equity holders. There is nothing more damaging to producing oil and gas assets as a bankruptcy trustee. Great for the eventual acquirer, bankruptcy trustees know how to make sows ears from silk purses by their reluctance to fund what Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners (TIPRO) chairman Raymond Welder calls the “recurring, non-recurring” expenses such as workovers necessary and common in the oilfield."
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 25.01.16 12:06:44
      Beitrag Nr. 171 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 50.314.425 von R-BgO am 02.08.15 09:58:31
      Fortschreibung Tabelle und Vergleich mit Juli 2015:
      http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/01/2016-energy-sector/

      OCF - Januar 2016


      OCF - Juli 2015


      ------

      CapEx - Januar 2016


      CapEx - Juli 2015
      3 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 25.01.16 12:19:53
      Beitrag Nr. 172 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.571.716 von R-BgO am 25.01.16 12:06:44
      Was bedeutet es, wenn große Unternehmen
      Zitat von R-BgO: http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/01/2016-energy-sector/

      OCF - Januar 2016


      OCF - Juli 2015


      ------

      CapEx - Januar 2016


      CapEx - Juli 2015


      wie Conoco, Noble, etc. kaum Änderungen im Cashflow aufweisen und mittlere Player wie Chesapeak
      über 90% Verringerung haben?

      haben die großen alles gehedged und dadurch ihren Cashflow stabil gehalten, während die kleineren der Ölpreis übel zusetzt?
      Devon und EOG liegen in der Mitte.
      Die mit 90% Rückgang sind der Insolvenz wohl nahe?
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 25.01.16 13:18:22
      Beitrag Nr. 173 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.571.803 von kainza am 25.01.16 12:19:53
      wie schon des öfteren gesagt, würde ich es vorziehen, hier keine Einzelwert-Diskussionen zu führen,
      es sei denn, daraus wäre was für Öl insgesamt ableitbar.

      Aber laß' uns mal Deine Thesen anschauen:

      Oppenheimer prognostiziert cash-flow Änderungsraten (15/14 und 16/15) für
      Conoco -52/-2
      Noble -26/-13
      Chesapeake -58/-90
      Devon -19/-68
      EOG -59/-48

      Ich kann da nicht mehr rauslesen, als dass es große Unterschiede gibt und ich vor Schlussfolgerungen deutlich tiefer graben müsste.

      Anfangen würde ich wahrscheinlich mit Conocos -2%.


      Der Grund, warum ich die Tabellen überhaupt geprostet habe, war das Delta in den Erwartungen zu illustrieren und insbesondere die andauernde Unvereinbarkeit von cash-flow und CapEx-Prognosen:
      *wenn die LC E&P nur knapp 30 Mrd. einnehmen, wie wollen sie dann 45 Mrd. finanzieren?
      *selbst bei den Majors steht es 99 zu 96

      Und zuletzt kann man aus den eingedampften Investitionsbudgets noch eine "sea-of-hurt" für die Supplier ableiten...
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 25.01.16 13:35:54
      Beitrag Nr. 174 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.572.226 von R-BgO am 25.01.16 13:18:22
      Ich will ja auch eine Erkenntnis über den Ölmarkt herausziehen..
      Es gab bereits einige Konkurse von kleineren Produzenten.
      Wenn jetzt Produzenten aufgeführt sind, die mehr als 90% des Cashflows verlieren und auch im letzten Jahr bereits starke Rückgänge verzeichnen mussten ist das eine alarmierende Aussage.
      Wenn man sich die Werte anschaut, stellt man fest, dass der Kurs schon erheblich unter Druck ist.

      Es gab im anderen Thread eine Diskussion bezüglich Grad des Hedging. Es wurde deutlich, dass bei zwei ausgewählten Firmen u.a. Anadarko zum einen nicht die gesamte Ölproduktion gehegded ist und das Preisniveau bei niedrigen 55 USD liegt. Beim derzeitigen Preisniveau ist es wahrscheinlich, dass die Insolvenzrate wohl weiter steigen wird. Die großen Player können sich trotz der extrem niedrigen Preise aber offenbar gut aus der Lage befreien. Bei denen kann ich aber nicht sagen, wie die hedging betreiben.

      Denke die Haupterkenntnis ist, dass die kleinen wohl auf der Strecke bleiben und die großen Player
      als Sieger übrig bleiben.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 26.01.16 08:34:46
      Beitrag Nr. 175 ()
      “South Sudan pays between $9.1 and $11/bbl to use Sudan’s facilities and an additional $15/bbl as compensation for the country’s lost oil revenue after independence. “

      http://www.worldoil.com/news/2015/7/08/conflict-continues-to…
      Avatar
      schrieb am 26.01.16 10:43:53
      Beitrag Nr. 176 ()
      lesenswert:
      http://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/energy/…


      Auszüge:

      Last but not least, the advent of the shale oil industry has been challenging the very business model of the oil industry. Oil companies have traditionally been large, deep-pocketed and professionally conservative, and have usually operated under a price umbrella of one kind or another: Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Seven Sisters, OPEC. Shale oil companies – small, nimble, highly leveraged, intensely adaptable – break that mold.

      Whereas conventional oil production requires large upfront investment and lead times measured in years if not decades, the shale business cycle is shorter: upfront shale costs are relatively low; decline rates are steep; lead times and payback times are measured in months rather than years. This shift to a two-speed industry – contrasting long-cycle conventional projects and short-cycle shale production – makes OPEC production cuts an impractical and inefficient way to support prices, as shale producers can swiftly respond to upward price movements by boosting investment and ramping up output in short order, thus defeating the purpose of the cuts.

      As long as shale production capacity is not durably degraded, any attempt by OPEC to retrench and lift prices runs the risk of effectively subsidizing shale producers and abandoning market share to them.

      ...

      The flip side of today’s high production

      While many factors on both the current supply and demand situation conspire to create the market’s massive imbalance and a consequent build up of global inventories, the resulting bearish pressures on oil prices are unsustainable. The flip side of the revenue maximization policies that helped exacerbate today’s oversupply is the industry’s new drive to minimize spending and cut costs. (Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Cooperation Council neighbors buck the trend here and have maintained relatively high spending despite the price decline.) This will inevitably lead to lower production tomorrow and may result into a supply shortfall.

      The effects of project delays on future supply is well documented and broadly understood. Oversupply today is in part the result of short-cycle shale production as well as higher-cost, larger-scale projects for which investment was deployed years ago and which are only now coming to fruition. But the incremental impact of those legacy large scale or lagged projects is on the wane, and a lack of follow-up projects will soon cause production growth to flatten out and shift into reverse.

      Less well understood is the impact of delayed field maintenance – another form of current cost savings – on decline rates and future production. Decline rates are, generally speaking, poorly measured, but it is virtually certain that costs savings achieved by companies by pushing back work on oil fields will cause production decline rates to steepen appreciably. The lack of new major projects will exacerbate the challenge of making up for that shortfall.

      Steeper decline rates, spending cuts resulting in project delays and capital constraints in the shale oil industry due to low prices will likely more than make up for an expected increase in Iranian oil exports following the lifting of some US and European sanctions, and will likely lead to inventory draws – thus supporting oil prices – potentially as soon as the end of this year.

      ...

      Shale oil as swing producer?

      Shale oil’s response to the rebalancing is a wild card. Due to its shorter cycle and low initial fixed costs, the shale oil industry has in theory the capacity to respond quickly to price signals and to ramp up production early in a rebound. After a period of resilience, shale oil has been the first respondent to the price decline, with production losses projected for 2016 estimated at around 700,000 barrels per day year-on-year. It may again be the first respondent on the way up. Certainly that prospect has the potential to act as a deterrent against longer-cycle investments into conventional high-cost production.

      Whether the shale oil industry will in fact retain its full capacity to rebound through the downturn is highly uncertain, however. Shale oil companies face two major constraints: access to capital – which may be degraded, especially in the event of interest-rate hikes – and access to labor markets – which will suffer from the current round of layoffs. Restructuring and consolidation in the shale oil patch may also lead to changes in the management of shale oil assets if they are acquired by larger companies with more diversified portfolios and different interests than the current owners. Finally, while the industry has achieved impressive costs savings since the beginning of the price drop, some of these costs reductions may be cyclical and subject to reverse as soon as rising prices rekindle demand for oil services.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 26.01.16 10:50:29
      Beitrag Nr. 177 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 27.01.16 10:01:13
      Beitrag Nr. 178 ()
      Die Quelle ist vielleicht nicht jedermans Geschmack, aber man bezieht sich auf Reuters, deswegen stelle ich es mal rein:

      Der katastrophale Einbruch der Ölweltpreise hat Venezuela, Kolumbien und Ecuador zur Notwendigkeit geführt, ihr Erdöl unter dem Selbstkostenpreis seiner Förderung zu verkaufen, meldet die Agentur Reuters unter Berufung auf Quellen in den Erdölgesellschaften dieser Länder.

      http://de.sputniknews.com/wirtschaft/20160122/307285523/vene…
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 27.01.16 10:40:45
      Beitrag Nr. 179 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.588.723 von indexhunter am 27.01.16 10:01:13Ich denke mal das hier ist die zugehörige Reuters Meldung.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/oil-latam-prices-idUSL2N14Z2Z…
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 27.01.16 11:03:44
      Beitrag Nr. 180 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.589.233 von detriment am 27.01.16 10:40:45
      vielen Dank für die Quelle,
      schade, dass nicht glasklar zwischen cash- und Vollkosten unterschieden wird;


      kann mir nämlich kaum vorstellen, dass sie tatsächlich unter cash-Kosten verkaufen würden, denn das hieße ja, dauernd Geld aus dem Fenster zu werfen....


      Andererseits kommt durch die Blendung-Stufen zusätzliche Komplexität, die das cash-Bild verändern mag.

      Ist auf jeden Fall gut, solche zusätzliche Granularität zu bekommen und zu sehen, dass der Markt sehr komplex ist.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.02.16 09:59:47
      Beitrag Nr. 181 ()
      von vergangenem Donnerstag:
      Good Morning Oilpro Readers.

      O&G industry capacity overshoots commodity price cycles. This is a time-tested truth, but it is all too easy to forget in times like these. Supply in the oil industry tends to fluctuate aggressively around the more stable demand trendline. Put another way, the industry repeatedly drills itself out of a job, but only temporarily.

      In good times, every upstream segment overbuilds. This has been a consistent narrative since the early-twentieth century. In downcycles, overcapacity is rendered uneconomic and supply-side exits re-balance the market. While painful, that capitulation combines with the decline characteristics of oil reservoirs to set up the next shortage and upcycle - both for oil prices and for producers and contractors.

      This cyclical certainty has not been deterred by structural changes (i.e. technology advancements) for centuries. The only differences from cycle to cycle are the key players involved, the degree of overshoot, and the cyclical duration.

      Over the past 10 years, consistently high oil prices conspired with easy access to capital to allow an envelope of high cost production to emerge. For example, US unconventional oil production is now about 7% of global production and deepwater is over 10%. We estimate a little over a quarter of global oil supply is sourced from areas where E&P economics would be strained even at oil prices more than 50% above current levels. Even in the mid-range production cost envelope, the E&P model breaks down at $30 oil.

      Saudi can keep its low cost production machine churning at these oil price levels; however, Saudi only has the capacity to supply about 12% of the world's oil demand. Meanwhile, significant production declines further up the cost curve are not only certain, but they are also unlikely to be offset by new activity.

      Producers have already deferred some 68 projects worth 3 mmbpd of future production according to NOV. And the production they are now pulling forward to buffer cash flow will only accelerate the pace of reservoir declines.

      From 2010 to 2015, the upstream industry spent $3.5 trillion, an average of $600bn/year, in order to increase global production capacity by a mere 5 mmbpd (growth was mostly the advent of US unconventional oil). In 2016, we expect the industry to spend $420bn, down about 40% from the 2014 peak. Just this week, Anadarko introduced a 2016 budget of $2.8bn, which is down 70% from 2014, a bigger drop than average crude oil prices over the same period. Deep cuts like this will eat away at the supply glut. In fact, guidance issued by US independents in recent weeks suggests 2016 tight oil production exit rates could be down more than 10% year-over-year.

      In our view, flat global liquids production volumes are not sustainable at the spending levels operators are gravitating towards now. We aren't sure exactly how long production capitulation will take, but we are sure that it will happen. And when it does, the stage will be set for the next rise. Wash, rinse, repeat. -- Joseph Triepke, Oilpro Managing Director
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.02.16 10:51:51
      Beitrag Nr. 182 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 09.02.16 14:47:42
      Beitrag Nr. 183 ()
      IEA releases Oil Market Report for February
      As signs of a demand slowdown surface, higher OPEC output only partly offsets non-OPEC decline

      9 February 2016


      Having peaked, at a five-year high of 1.6 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2015, global oil demand growth is forecast to ease back considerably in 2016, to 1.2 mb/d, pulled down by notable slowdowns in Europe, China and the United States, the newly released IEA Oil Market Report (OMR) for February informs subscribers. Early elements of the projected slowdown surfaced in the last quarter of 2015.

      Global oil supply dropped 0.2 mb/d to 96.5 mb/d in January, as higher OPEC output only partly offset lower non-OPEC production. Non-OPEC supplies slipped 0.5 mb/d from a month earlier to stand close to levels of a year ago. For 2016 as a whole, non-OPEC output is expected to decline by 0.6 mb/d, to 57.1 mb/d.

      OPEC crude oil output rose by 280 000 barrels per day in January to 32.63 mb/d as Saudi Arabia, Iraq and a sanctions-free Iran all turned up the taps. Supplies from the group during January stood nearly 1.7 mb/d higher year-on-year.

      OECD commercial stocks built counterseasonally by 7.6 mb in December to stand at 3 012 mb at month end, 350 mb above average. Refined products covered 32.3 days of forward demand, 0.1 day above the level at end-November. Preliminary information indicates that inventories have continued building into January.

      Global refinery runs fell by 1.3 mb/d in January to 79.8 mb/d, as the onset of seasonal maintenance in the United States and weakening refinery margins curbed runs. Global throughputs nevertheless stood more than 1.7 mb/d above a year earlier, with gains particularly strong in the United States and the Middle East.


      => Schade, dass nix über "demand" drinsteht; aber wenn ich die 7,6 mb Lagerzuwachs im Dez auf 30 Tage verteile, dann komme ich auf rund 250kbpd Überschuss; wahrlich gewaltig mit 2,5 Promille vom Angebot
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.02.16 10:15:30
      Beitrag Nr. 184 ()
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.02.16 10:18:29
      Beitrag Nr. 185 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.706.009 von R-BgO am 10.02.16 10:15:30
      Echt informativ!
      Wo du immer deine Beiträge findest.
      Respekt...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.02.16 10:29:13
      Beitrag Nr. 186 ()
      nur zur Info:
      parallel zu diesem Thread beposte ich regelmäßig auch einen zu Gas (=LNG, LPG, etc.)Thread: LNG, LPG etc. - Übersichtsthread

      die Themen sind zwar aus meiner Sicht verschieden -deswegen ja auch die 2 Threads- haben andererseits aber auch Berührungspunkte;

      wer sich hierfür interessiert, könnte auch an dem anderen was finden
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.02.16 10:38:02
      Beitrag Nr. 187 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.706.009 von R-BgO am 10.02.16 10:15:30
      Rystad ist ein norwegisches Unternehmen..
      Bin etwas überrascht. Die rechnen 2016 mit einer konstant hohen U.S. Shale Ölförderung.
      und dann wieder einen deutlichen Anstieg.

      Fundamental erwarte ich eher einen deutlichen Einbruch, da letztes Jahr viel weniger gefracked wurde
      und die Fördermenge nach kurzer Zeit deutlich zurückgehen. Zusätzlich stehen Insolvenzgerüchte im Raum vom Schwergewicht Chesapeake gerade.

      Ob die Branche danach wieder so viel Kapital bekommt bin ich mir auch nicht sicher.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.02.16 13:59:52
      Beitrag Nr. 188 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.560.133 von R-BgO am 22.01.16 19:20:45
      Zitat von R-BgO: das war damals fast genau am Wendepunkt.

      Ob sie das diesmal wieder geschafft haben?


      =================================

      Schönes Bild zur Veranschaulichung des depletion-effects bei Shale:



      und der Artikel drumrum ist auch lesenswert: http://oilpro.com/links/27874/price-oil-looking-ahead-withou…

      "


      ____________________________________________________________________
      Wenn ich mir diese Grafik anschaue würde ich abschätzen, dass der Output um ca. 50% reduziert.
      Was ich nicht sagen kann, ob dort bereits Effizienzverbesserungen eingearbeitet sind.
      Neue Erschließungen werden kaum noch dazu kommen.
      Das widerspricht sich mit den Äußerungen von Rystad.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 17.02.16 16:57:43
      Beitrag Nr. 189 ()
      gestern hat Devon Energy gemeldet,
      einer der größeren Independents;

      solange solche Buden es schaffen, dick positiven cash-flow (http://s2.q4cdn.com/462548525/files/doc_financials/quarterly…; "field-level operating costs" von $8,82/bbl) zu erzielen,

      ist die Talsohle nicht erreicht
      Avatar
      schrieb am 18.02.16 12:13:57
      Beitrag Nr. 190 ()
      Interessante Grundsatzbetrachtung(en):
      http://oilpro.com/post/22275/oil-prices-price-discovery-spur…

      Auszug:

      "As bearish as things are now, we do not subscribe to the view that we are entering a lost decade for oil due to massive over investment. Oil and liquid hydrocarbons are not logistically-constrained regional commodities like natural gas. While a decade of investment has done little to globalize US gas prices, we have certainly seen the impact of pipeline and rail unlocking Bakken, Niobrara, Permian and Eagle Ford oil differentials. The oil market is truly global, and therefore the regional natural gas market, in our opinion a poor template for comparison.

      Yes, there was way too much debt financing of the boom, as financiers and investors alike failed to appreciate the impact of oil price volatility. Thus far, the resulting incentive distortion has prevented North American production from becoming the marginal swing barrel once widely projected.

      Moreover, it has contributed to the misallocation of financial risk that currently plagues the Macro outlook. But we are of the view that despite the relatively high development costs, that the US tight oil and liquids industry is not capable of over supplying the world in the long term.

      What we are seeing is the uncomfortable result of risk-averse capital allocation decisions creating medium-term dislocations that manifest themselves superficially as “market share” battles.

      The real math is that OPEC is not squeezing out tight oil in a market share battle. OPEC is squeezing out more traditional E&P in frontier locations, something that should be very concerning for the Western supermajors. Arctic development has died. Deepwater has paused. Exploration has stopped.

      The truth is that capital has voted to shun direct exploration risk en masse, much preferring the return profile of onshore liquids development utilizing advanced technologies and techniques, over the return profile of finding new reservoir development opportunities via deep water or harsh environment exploration and development.

      Unfortunately, the one-dimensional comparison of costs per barrel by region that are readily available in analyst’s monthly publications fail to capture the irrationalities of human biases in terms of risk-reward preference. People - individuals, investment committees, regulators - place far more weight on negative outcomes than can be explained by probability statistics alone. Expected return, or the sum of probability weighted outcomes, is not the sole driving factor of capital allocation decisions in the oilpatch. Rather, time (in the measure of of both discounted cash returns, and information that “de-risks” future outcomes), risk of absolute loss, and the magnitude of dispersion of returns play a very substantial role in addition to expected return.

      What we may conclude from this line of thought (although deeper study is recommended) is that the tight oil industry is here to stay. Compared to traditional E&P, by virtually eliminating the binary nature (wide return dispersion) of finding costs, leveraging continuous technological development, and the ability to address reservoir development decisions (drilling and fracking) apart from marketing infrastructure decisions (truck, rail, pipe and vessel) result in a very competitive and attractive barrel.

      The ramifications of this thesis vector are quite profound:

      * Extreme negativity on the overbuild in deepwater assets is warranted. The outlook for seismic, floating offshore drillers and certain equipment and marine construction players is quite ugly.

      * Political constraints on “finding” and “large-scale development” are far more extreme than are currently expressed in the supermajors earnings dialogs, which tends to be a precursor for consolidating acquisitions.

      * Even though a large portion of energy debt will need to be converted to equity, and MLP investors as a whole mistook current yield as a proxy for debt-like principal protection, the underlying assets themselves will not become white elephants. While the industry needs to be recapitalized and consolidated using more appropriate instruments or management of oil price volatility - the industry in North America, specifically, is not dead.

      Investors who are highly selective, and strategically position themselves to thrive in a volatile environment, as opposed to those just trying to time a unilateral bounce in price, will thrive. We posit that the displacement of marginal traditional E&P by tight oil will be bumpy, uncomfortable, and at times quite volatile. Rather than a cap on pricing, the net effect will be to destabilize the predictability and smoothness of non-tight-oil supply. Once the Macro demand story has sorted itself out, long-term volatility is in for some very interesting turbulence."
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 18.02.16 12:42:41
      Beitrag Nr. 191 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 51.776.416 von R-BgO am 18.02.16 12:13:57
      Focus-Money
      hat die letzten Abstürze und die Wiederanstiege dargestellt.
      Rebound war meist über 200%.

      Könnte auch so passieren. Je mehr die Multis auf die lange Bank schieben,
      um so schneller stellt sich ein Engpass ein.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 18.03.16 09:21:49
      Beitrag Nr. 192 ()
      eine Tabelle von Zerohedge mit anstehenden Kuponzahlungen bei Anleihen
      die zum Erstellungszeitpunkt bei <=30% notierten (nicht nur Öl, sondern "Energy"):

      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 18.03.16 10:31:44
      Beitrag Nr. 193 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 52.008.701 von R-BgO am 18.03.16 09:21:49
      Zitat von R-BgO: eine Tabelle von Zerohedge mit anstehenden Kuponzahlungen bei Anleihen
      die zum Erstellungszeitpunkt bei <=30% notierten (nicht nur Öl, sondern "Energy"):


      :eek: :eek: :eek:

      oh my god :eek:

      da steht ja die kleinigkeit von ca. 20 mrd uneinbringbar auf der liste
      ein wahnsinn ist wenn man sich die aktienkurse dieser unternehmen ansieht
      da gibt es zahlreiche "leichen" mit USD 0,?? kursen

      :eek: :eek: :eek:

      oh my god :eek:
      Avatar
      schrieb am 21.03.16 13:34:08
      Beitrag Nr. 194 ()
      der Ölpreis wird nicht steigen, der zunehmende Einsatz von alternativen Energien sorgt für einen Deckel. Die ganzen Fracker werden in Insolvenz gehen natürlich einschliesslich Ihrer Anleihen.
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 21.03.16 13:46:53
      Beitrag Nr. 195 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 52.025.489 von Manfred123 am 21.03.16 13:34:08
      Ich tippe aufs Gegenteil - mittelfristig
      Zitat von Manfred123: der Ölpreis wird nicht steigen, der zunehmende Einsatz von alternativen Energien sorgt für einen Deckel. Die ganzen Fracker werden in Insolvenz gehen natürlich einschliesslich Ihrer Anleihen.


      Öl wird zu sehr als Kraftstoff reduziert. Es wird auch für die Herstellung von Medizin und Kunststoffen gebraucht. Durch die stark wachsende Weltbevölkerung wächst hier die Nachfrage für ein endliches Produkt.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 24.03.16 09:13:34
      Beitrag Nr. 196 ()
      48% der Pruduktion in USA kommen von Wells, die jünger als 2 Jahre sind:


      Quelle: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25472


      Interessant finde ich aber auch, dass ich keinen großen Rückgang bei den alten Wells sehe
      3 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 24.03.16 11:16:29
      Beitrag Nr. 197 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 52.050.407 von R-BgO am 24.03.16 09:13:34Könnte es sein dass, die 4 Jahre alten Wells sogenannte "Stripper Wells" sind die zwar wenig dafür aber kon­ti­nu­ier­lich auf niedrigem Niveau produzieren?
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 24.03.16 12:01:09
      Beitrag Nr. 198 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 52.051.946 von Ayon am 24.03.16 11:16:29
      JA !!! völlig richtig
      Zitat von Ayon: Könnte es sein dass, die 4 Jahre alten Wells sogenannte "Stripper Wells" sind die zwar wenig dafür aber kon­ti­nu­ier­lich auf niedrigem Niveau produzieren?
      Avatar
      schrieb am 24.03.16 12:07:25
      Beitrag Nr. 199 ()
      Well's die weniger als 10 Barrel pro Tag produzieren ....
      davon gibt es im Öl-Bundesstaat Texas z.B. per 28.02.2016 130.544 wells
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 24.03.16 14:34:42
      Beitrag Nr. 200 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 52.052.489 von abgemeldet-228391 am 24.03.16 12:07:25Die Frackingtechnologie hat die Eigenschaft am Anfang der Produktion sehr viel zu produzieren. Die sogenannte Decline-Rate ist beim Fracking im ersten Jahr am höchsten. Der Output des Wells geht über die Jahre in eine geringe aber gleichmäßige Menge über. Damit erklärt sich die Statistik. Dieses Wissen ist aber auch für die Ermittlung der zukünftigen Produktionsmengen nützlich. Denn der hellbraune Balken wird definitiv in den nächsten 6 Monaten zurück gehen.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 04.04.16 16:58:06
      Beitrag Nr. 201 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 52.050.407 von R-BgO am 24.03.16 09:13:34
      ist doch einfach
      Zitat von R-BgO:

      Quelle: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25472


      Interessant finde ich aber auch, dass ich keinen großen Rückgang bei den alten Wells sehe


      _________________________________________________________________
      Fracking begann 2010...
      Alles was vorher besteht ist konventionell onshore!
      Fracking schaffte die Verdoppelung des Outputs.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.04.16 10:27:40
      Beitrag Nr. 202 ()
      Interessant re_Nachfragestruktur
      http://oilpro.com/post/23669/china-peak-diesel-poses-serious…

      Auszug:

      "China’s own official data suggest near term diesel fuel demand may have peaked in at least 13 provinces, which collectively account for nearly 60% of the country’s diesel fuel use (Exhibit 1). This development matters greatly because diesel accounted for nearly 1/3 of Chinese oil product consumption in 2015. Furthermore, China’s share of global diesel fuel consumption has increased from 9.6% in 2005 to 13.1% in 2015, and China accounted for nearly 36% of the global net increase in diesel fuel consumption, according to JODI data. Sinopec, China’s largest refiner, takes in approximately 3.27 barrels of crude oil for each barrel of diesel fuel produced. Because the vast majority of diesel fuel used in China is refined in the country, this ratio suggests that conservatively, each 100kbd of diesel consumed requires that refineries process at least 300 kbd of crude.

      China’s national diesel consumption declined in both 2014 and 2015. Consecutive years of contraction, coupled with weakness in other physical indicators of industrial activity, increasingly suggests that China’s diesel demand architecture is structurally evolving. It remains somewhat premature to conclude that China’s diesel demand has “permanently” peaked. But the evidence increasingly suggests that for 1-to-4 year oil price path analysis purposes, the Middle Kingdom’s diesel demand is not coming back. Indeed, the IEA itself forecasts a continued decline in Chinese diesel consumption in 2016.

      China’s tectonic diesel consumption shift has given pause to the global oil market. And it will continue to do so as producers, traders, and capital providers adjust to a new normal in which sustained massive oil demand growth from China can no longer be taken for granted. China’s diesel demand weakness also points to a potentially massive flaw in certain OPEC producers’ view that demand growth will quickly mop up the current crude supply overhang and resuscitate oil prices even if OPEC maintains current production rates."
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.04.16 10:44:54
      Beitrag Nr. 203 ()
      Supertanker-Schlangen am 11.April
      http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/1/1253/1888/index.…



      Das beste Bild ließ sich leider nicht verlinken...
      Avatar
      schrieb am 19.04.16 14:51:03
      Beitrag Nr. 204 ()
      auf den Seiten 4 und 5 dieser Präsentation:
      https://www.marinemoney.com/sites/marinemoney.com/files/Andr…

      kann man erkennen, welches Ausmaß der Zerstörung im offshore-Sektor gegeben ist.


      Innerhalb eines Jahres sieht der Author den Wert aller in Betrieb und im Orderbuch befindlichen Offshore-units von 423 Mrd. USD auf 212 HALBIERT!
      Avatar
      schrieb am 21.04.16 11:54:12
      Beitrag Nr. 205 ()
      kurzund knapp:
      http://oilpro.com/post/23885/we-ve-already-hit-bottom

      We've Already Hit Bottom

      The $27 we hit in February was the bottom. We're not going to see that again until we see $60+. You heard it here first.

      What makes me make such a bold prediction?

      CAPEX is in the toilet. We have an industry where the profits are counted quarterly, but the work is done in two year sections. We've cut CAPEX to the bone for about 18 months, starting right after the June 2014 dip became apparent that it was not a dip, but the beginning of a drop, which turned into a bust.

      We have 18+ months of no real expenditures replacing the wells we need to keep production at present levels. So, in about 3 months, we're going to see that supply is falling below demand.

      The only problem right now is that supply exceeds demand. That's what is keeping the price below $50. In three months of time, we will see the effect of no new drilling to speak of. That means in three months, supply will not meet demand.

      Some will say "That's OK. We have lots of oil in storage." This is true; however, traders - who rely on chicken entrails and dart boards - will see that supply is going down and demand is going up (it never stopped going up, by the way), so they will bid up the price of oil.

      Only this time, they are right. Wells are not being drilled to supply tomorrow's oil, but there is no other way to do it. That means that oil is going to be more scarce.

      DUCs are a factor in this, but even they require 2 months to prepare and more months to produce. In addition, they need money to be completed, and that money is 6 months away. That is 9 months later than they'll need to have it.

      We've hit bottom. If you were laid off, prepare your CV for submission. The patch will be back a bit in three months, and gangbusters in 12.

      As I said, "You heard it here first."
      Avatar
      schrieb am 25.04.16 22:54:23
      Beitrag Nr. 206 ()
      aus dem CoreLabs Q1-Bericht:
      The Company continues to anticipate a “V-shaped” worldwide commodity recovery in 2016, with upticks expected to start in the third quarter. Global demand for hydrocarbon-based energy continues to improve, while worldwide crude oil supply peaked in the second half of 2015 beginning a decline that Core believes will continue through all of 2016 and 2017.

      The Company has observed that U.S. onshore oil production peaked in March 2015 and has fallen since then by over 600,000 barrels of oil per day (“BOPD”), some of which was offset by new additions to production in the Gulf of Mexico (“GOM”) as a result of eight deepwater legacy-field developments coming on-line in 2015. This new production, from deepwater fields that includes Anadarko’s Lucius and Heidelberg and Shell’s Stones, offset significant declines in existing GOM fields.

      At current U.S. activity levels, Core predicts 2016 U.S. onshore oil production will fall approximately 1,100,000 BOPD, somewhat offset by GOM gains of approximately 200,000 BOPD, yielding a U.S. net decline of 900,000 BOPD and net decline curve rate of 10.1%.

      Based on currently available worldwide crude oil production data, coupled with internal Core Lab data, Core has increased its estimate of the net worldwide annual crude oil production decline rate to 3.3%, as supported by recent International Energy Agency ("IEA") reports that worldwide crude oil production fell 300,000 BOPD in March from February 2016 levels. March was the third consecutive month of global oil production decreases.

      The increase in the net worldwide decline rate is predicated on sharper decline curve rates for tight-oil reservoirs and the significant decline in maintenance capital expenditures for the existing crude oil production base. This, coupled with the continuing decline in global production and the continuing increase in global energy consumption, should create a tight crude oil supply market for the second half of 2016, and that should lead to increased crude prices and industry activity levels worldwide.
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 17.05.16 12:07:56
      Beitrag Nr. 207 ()
      There's Been &quot;A Sudden Halt To The Oil Market Surplus,&quot; Goldman Sachs Says
      http://oilpro.com/post/24476/there-been-sudden-halt-to-oil-m…

      In a Sunday note to clients, Goldman Sachs said it now forecasts $50/bbl WTI by 2H16, up from its March prediction of $45/bbl by that time, as the oil market has finally shifted from "nearing storage saturation to being in deficit much earlier than we expected."

      The analysts, led by Damien Courvalin and Jeffrey Currie, said they now project U.S. crude to reach $45/bbl in 2Q, versus the $35/bbl they forecasted in March.

      The Iranian post-sanctions production boost, the Nigerian supply disruptions, and improving demand, were among the factors cited by Goldman as prompting the revised forecast.



      Source: Reuters, Platts, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research


      Following a quarter of unexpected gains in supply and demand, the bank said the global oil market "has likely shifted into deficit in May," describing this shift as "a sudden halt to the oil market surplus."

      The analysts wrote, "The [2Q16] deficit that we now forecast is occurring one quarter earlier than we expected mid-March, driven by both sustained strong demand as well as sharply declining production."

      Specifically addressing the causes and implications of the recent roll-over in non-OPEC production, the analysts wrote:

      The recent roll-over in production is the result of somewhat offsetting cross currents. Production has rolled over faster than we had expected in China, India and non-OPEC Africa more than offset upside surprises in the US and the North Sea. Transient but recurring disruptions have more than offset larger than expected Iran and Iraq production. And while some of the disruptions will stop such as maintenance, fires and strikes, some are likely systemic, for example in Nigeria, and we now expect production there will remain curtailed for the remainder of the year. Net, this leaves us expecting a sharp decline in 2Q output.

      But increased output from Iraq and Iran could more than offset the supply disruptions in Nigeria and Goldman's higher demand forecast, the analysts wrote. They project a more gradual decline in oil stockpiles in 2H than in previous forecasts, and forecast that the oil market will return to surplus in 1Q17.

      From the note:

      The inflection phase of the oil market continues to deliver its share of surprises, with low prices driving disruptions in Nigeria, higher output in Iran and better demand. With each of these shifts significant in magnitude, the oil market has gone from nearing storage saturation to being in deficit much earlier than we expected and we are pulling forward our price forecast, with 2Q/2H16 WTI now $45/bbl and $50/bbl.

      However, we expect that the return of some of these outages as well as higher Iran and Iraq production will more than offset lingering issues in Nigeria and our higher demand forecast. As a result, we now forecast a more gradual decline in inventories in 2H than previously and a return into surplus in 1Q17, with low-cost production continuing to grow in the New Oil Order. This leads us to lower our 2017 forecast with prices in 1Q17 at $45/bbl and only reaching $60/bbl by 4Q17.

      The analysts shed further color on their prediction that WTI will gradually reach $60/bbl by 4Q17- up from the March forecast of $55/bbl.

      ... while the physical barrel rebalancing has started, the structural imbalance in the capital markets remains large, with $45 bn of equity and bond issuance taking place in the US this year. As a result, we believe that the industry still has further to adjust and our updated forecast maintains the same 2016-2017 price level that we previously believed was required to finally correct both the barrel and capital imbalances, and eventually take prices to $60/bbl.

      Concerning increased demand, Goldman raised its China demand forecast "to reflect the expected support from the recent transient stimulus:

      Stronger vehicle sales, activity and a bigger harvest are leading us to raise our Indian and Russia demand forecasts for the year. And while we are reducing our US and EU forecasts on the combination of weaker activity and higher prices than previously assumed, we are raising our China demand forecasts to reflect the expected support from the recent transient stimulus. Net, our 2016 oil demand growth forecast is now 1.4 mb/d, up from 1.2 mb/d previously. Our bias for strong demand growth since October 2014 leaves us seeing risks to this forecast as skewed to the upside although lesser fuel and crude burn for power generation in Brazil, Japan and likely Saudi are large headwinds this year.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 25.05.16 10:33:06
      Beitrag Nr. 208 ()
      Oil & Gas Activity Will Pick Up This Year – Regardless of Oil Price
      by Roy Robinson

      http://oilpro.com/post/24616/oil-gas-activity-pick-up-year-r…


      It been awhile since I posted on OilPro. Mostly because anything I thought needed saying was being said much better by others. Now I see a need for a view not obsessed with what Saudi Arabia and OPEC will do in their June meeting, or when/if oil prices will recover to above $65/bbl.

      I do see market pressure building on OPEC as their market share strategy starts to reduce everyone’s costs. For any operator in a free market those reductions in costs translate directly into production cost savings; meaning they can be profitable at $35 to $45 a barrel. The production costs of NOC’s on the other hand typically have a hidden social component, which has not gone down. The end result being the NOC’s and OPEC becoming less, not more competitive.


      The Cost of Development Has Aligned With the Current Price

      Just as it took more than a year for the oil producers and service companies to believe “lower for longer”, it is taking a roughly equivalent amount of time for producers to believe they can forward plan using the new lower prices as a basis. In December 2014, Rystad Energy Research listed the following mean Break Even costs for oil:

      Onshore Middle East $29/bbl ($18/bbl to $40/bbl spread)
      Ultra-Deepwater Oil $57/bbl ($40/bbl to $70/bbl spread)
      Oil Sands $74/bbl ($55/bbl to $95/bbl spread)

      Assuming those numbers are correct, and adjusting for the current market prices for equipment and services that would mean corresponding breakeven prices in 2016 of $15/bbl; $28/bbl, and $37/bbl respectively. If anyone doubts that CAPEX has dropped 50% they either have not priced out a field lately, or are so optimistic they think oil prices and costs will both recover to 2014 levels this year.

      Put another way Oil Sands are at best marginally profitable at $35/bbl to $45/bbl, while surprisingly Ultra-Deepwater oil is profitable at current oil prices. This is especially true when accounting for the reduced cost of ultra-deepwater rigs which are down %65+ not just %50.


      The Cost of Exploration is the Lowest Since 2002

      The same price reduction has reduced the cost of exploration drilling, in some cases by as much as 70%. No less than the CEO of Transocean is quoted as saying that he would consider day rates in the $180k per day range for a short term ultra-deepwater rig contract. That will lead to more exploration which will lead to more projects. The economics on these fields will be as it was in 2002 or so. Lower total revenue but lower risk as well, probably similar return on capital employed.


      Those Lower Costs Will Filter through the Supermajor Gate Processes

      In my opinion, many of my coworkers were laid off without the oil companies they worked for giving enough thought to the mid-term. From now until a full blown recovery will be a golden time to develop fields providing you have any access to cash. If you are at all bullish on oil price in theory you could contract all of the work now at the depressed CAPEX and have your facility come online in the middle of a price recovery.

      I expect that given enough time this will filter through the various gate systems and projects will start to appear out the other side this summer or fall. In some ways though the layoffs have been a boon to those still in the business because unlike the oversupply of drilling rigs, when the work picks up there is likely to be an even more acute manpower shortage than before. This will be especially true for offshore oil and gas.


      Developing Offshore Gas Fields Will Not Be Cheaper for the Next 20 Years

      Any place where there is either a good local gas price or where a long term LNG contract is at play; now is the time to spend the CAPEX. The offshore CAPEX costs are driven primarily by oil price, which in many markets is not linked directly to gas price. I expect a spike in offshore gas field developments once these economics make their way through the nimble halls of the major oil companies.


      If OPEC Does Not Cut Production Some Players Will Fall Off the Cliff

      The Rystad OPEC value does not account for the social burden per barrel that should be added in to the production cost where applicable. On that basis the Middle East costs were higher than shown by Rystad in 2014. What’s more those cost, unlike production costs have not come down. Using Saudi Arabia as an example, they are on the low end of the mid-east production cost at around $20/bbl in 2014. At that same time they needed $65/bbl (some estimates were as high as $105/bbl) to cover the hidden social costs. If their production costs are now half at $10/bbl, than they still need a price of $55/bbl to cover their social loads as well as production costs. That is why they are dipping into their cash reserves despite record production.

      If OPEC does not cut oil production at all in June (I for one think they will) it is possible places like Venezuela will suffer a full social breakdown. If that happens the 2MMbopd they produce will be “cut” just as efficiently as if KSA had done it themselves. That drop in production alone would put prices back up to the $65/bbl range. Other OPEC and Non-OPEC producers like Nigeria (OEPC) and Russia (Non-OPEC) are neglecting O&M costs to prop-up the social payments, but after two years that lack of reinvestment will start to effect production.

      At issue is the other OPEC countries and Russia that don’t have anything like the Saudi’s cash reserves to support their governments. As I have written elsewhere the Middle East bloc will protect their market share but in the end it will be at the expense of their OPEC partners, not USA shale producers or offshore developments.

      It wont be a "boom by Christmas" but it may be that June, with or without OPEC marks the bottom of this cycle.
      4 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 25.05.16 10:36:00
      Beitrag Nr. 209 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 52.472.215 von R-BgO am 25.05.16 10:33:06weiß wer was mit brent bei s&l los ist steigt von einer Sekunde auf die andere auf über 49,8 während er bei DB noch bei 42,2 verharrt. Beobachtet so um 10Uhr 30... und WTI der gleich auf lag notiert auch bei 49,2 herum. Die Zertifikate reagieren nicht...
      3 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 25.05.16 10:59:37
      Beitrag Nr. 210 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 52.472.254 von VW-Lover am 25.05.16 10:36:00was isn das fürn Schei....

      schöne falsche Darstellung - Brent steht bei 49,30 und nicht 49,78
      Wegen dieser Schei.. grade Short eingestiegen und nun doch nicht!!!
      Kotz!!!!!!!
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 25.05.16 11:20:31
      Beitrag Nr. 211 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 52.472.515 von Utzi_78 am 25.05.16 10:59:37Die solltest du lieber vor 16:30 noch abstoßen. Aus meiner Sicht geht es jetzt mit Ziel auf den 02.06 weiter nach oben. Unabhängig davon was bei dem Opec Treffen heraus kommt.
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 25.05.16 11:26:02
      Beitrag Nr. 212 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 52.472.704 von Lordbanks am 25.05.16 11:20:31
      Bin auch der Meinung, dass es bis 02.06 weiter nach oben geht...
      The Cost of Exploration is the Lowest Since 2002

      The same price reduction has reduced the cost of exploration drilling, in some cases by as much as 70%. No less than the CEO of Transocean is quoted as saying that he would consider day rates in the $180k per day range for a short term ultra-deepwater rig contract. That will lead to more exploration which will lead to more projects. The economics on these fields will be as it was in 2002 or so. Lower total revenue but lower risk as well, probably similar return on capital employed.

      If OPEC does not cut oil production at all in June (I for one think they will) it is possible places like Venezuela will suffer a full social breakdown. If that happens the 2MMbopd they produce will be “cut” just as efficiently as if KSA had done it themselves. That drop in production alone would put prices back up to the $65/bbl range. Other OPEC and Non-OPEC producers like Nigeria (OEPC) and Russia (Non-OPEC) are neglecting O&M costs to prop-up the social payments, but after two years that lack of reinvestment will start to effect production.

      At issue is the other OPEC countries and Russia that don’t have anything like the Saudi’s cash reserves to support their governments. As I have written elsewhere the Middle East bloc will protect their market share but in the end it will be at the expense of their OPEC partners, not USA shale producers or offshore developments.

      It wont be a "boom by Christmas" but it may be that June, with or without OPEC marks the bottom of this cycle.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.06.16 12:35:20
      Beitrag Nr. 213 ()
      Why We Could See Less Than 30 USD Oil Again – Part 1
      POSTED BY: RUDOLF HUBER JUNE 7, 2016

      http://www.lng.guru/see-less-30-usd-oil-part-1/

      So, OPEC has met and decided that the world is good as it is and there is no change of strategy needed. Who is surprised here? Who is indeed expecting any shift coming from OPEC right now? They are clearly not in the driving seat anymore and if they still are in the seat, breaks are clearly not working.

      However, whoever hangs on the lips of OPEC executives (or indeed big oil executives) for getting the clues oil holds was always in for a bout of disappointment as those folks have led us into the mess we are right now in the first place. How do we believe in them sorting it out now? It’s like making the goat responsible for the lettuce bed.

      Much more important than what those people think is – what are the core fundamentals this world is going to dance along for the next couple of years. And even more so how that is going to influence the oil price. Aint that what you really want to know?

      OK – now – oil has hit 50 USD again – happy days are here to stay. Let’s have a party.

      Really?

      I don’t like to spoil the fun easily, but we are sitting on a volcano that’s about to erupt and I have a feeling we have not seen the worst yet. Now, I know that this read is not exactly making the day of most O&G folks so if you are of the faint-hearted type – please don’t read on. As what follows will hurt your feelings and I won’t let you blame me for not having warned you in advance.

      Sitting tight? Good.

      Those who read this blog for longer than a few weeks will know that in June 2014 I proposed a wager. I said that WTI is going to be below 28 for at least 5 days before March 31st, 2016. At the time when I said that, WTI was a whopping USD 104. You will also know that I had lost my wager by the tiniest of margins as WTI was below 28 for 4 days – not 5. You will also know that I came closer to the truth than anyone else – and with anyone I really mean anyone. Consulting firms, all banks, experts, oil majors, the EIA – they all were wrong. I also hit a number that has been just USD 1,79 shy of the ultimate truth as the absolute low has been at USD 26,21.

      Now its time for another wager. I believe that by May 31st, 2017, WTI will have been lower than 25 for at least one day. This would mean that the current recovery is a shambles (a dead cat bounce as the finance folks use to say). I also predict that the second dive is going to be way more lethal than the last flirtation with 28.

      Why do I think so?

      Let’s concentrate on my prediction that this time it’s going to be much more painful, virtually lethal. The last dip was excruciating pain for many energy folks. So far, so good. However, conventional wisdom holds that as painful as it may have been – it must be over now. Oil has almost doubled since its low point at 26,21 (WTI) in the earlier months of this year and most energy analysts believe that the journey is the UP again. This means that all those projects and companies that have been more dead than alive at 26,21 USD, but that somehow managed to scrape by, are able to sell the current recovery as hope for better – later.

      This got fingernail-biting bankers off those companies heels – for a while – as they also were able to justify the deep red investments on their balance sheets as salvageable prospects if enough time gets by. This means that much of the current superficial financial sanity in the world’s energy system rests on the belief that the worst really is over.

      How would those same people react if the message were – brace yourself as the worst is yet to come? They would probably wet their undies and race to exit this shit-sandwich as soon as they can – thus fuelling a race to the bottom and crashing a number of companies in the wake.

      But you know that saying – snowballs are tackled best when they are still smaller. This means that it’s also still easier to tackle a very large snowball right now than a ginormous one later. And having a ginormous one later is what the current Ponzi-System style recovery lulls us into building up.

      Let’s come to the fundamentals of the oil market. What are the prospects of oil going down to price hell again?

      Those who believe in quick recovery seem to have forgotten the fundamental nature of the oil world. Oil is the decadal business. Very little of what is being decided today has any real and perceptible impact on the oil market today. I know that there are armies of EXCEL wielding analysts showing you this correlation or that tipping point but rest assured, they are snake oil sellers. Don’t blame them either as they don’t know better. For the longest time (more than a decade) we were in everlasting growth mode and company strategy by KPI. Real strategy has long ago left the boardroom and big numbers rule as those big numbers also justified the obscene bonuses the C-suite allotted to themselves.

      Problems, organic growth, and other risk management mechanisms would only have disturbed this gigantic party.

      It takes ages (a decade most often) from first idea to oil production and sometimes a little longer. Just 2 years ago, the oil price was still 3 digits. This means that whatever significant has been decided over the last 24 months will not bear meaningful consequences for the next 5 to 10 years. You simply don’t feel this on the market. Except the ginormous sums of money flowing down the value chain through the sheer cost of building those monster projects. This money often still fuels the impression that business is still healthy and that we need just higher prices to make everything nice again.

      The oil price is a jittery thing as even misbeat of the Saudi rulers heart is interpreted and finds itself in the oil price but those are mere nanosecond jitters. A friend told me that a few 100.000 bbl of production more or less per day makes a difference in the oil world. Anyone having a strategy that looks beyond the balance sheet for the current year must necessarily ignore such ramblings for his Due Diligence of the fundamentals. But does he?

      Just take a look at the Kashagan project in Kashakstan as one particularly galling example of this. Developing this very large oil field took way more than a decade and it’s going to produce oil only from next year on. The money for developing it has been sunk many years ago, way before the current low oil price situation came to bear. And still it’s going to produce its black glibber and throw it on the market as shutting it down for lower oil prices does not make any sense. As said, the money is spent already so they might just as well produce and salvage what they can plus hope for better times later.

      There are many projects like this and the rig count fall in the US is not going to mask that. I love the shale industry and what’s happening in there and it’s true that it responds to different drivers than the conventional industry (much more reactive to price developments, much quicker cash to oil ratios, etc) but it’s still a sliver of oil on top of an ocean of conventional oil. Which means that shale has marginal influence on oil prices but the deep fundamentals are still being driven by the good old decadal projects.

      However, we have just learned that last week the rig count was growing for the first time in many months. If companies in North America put more iron onto the drilling patch at USD 50 this means that this price level allows them to drill new holes and make money when doing so. This also means that costs for developing shale oil in the US must be lower than USD 50 at least in some plays. And if they put in more rigs at 50 they will also maintain stimulation at much lower price levels. plenty of oil coming.

      But at the same time, demand growth is not real. The biggest deception out there is that China is on a new, eternal buying spree and will suck the market dry. Really? Read more on that next week in part II.
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 13.06.16 12:29:14
      Beitrag Nr. 214 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 52.558.760 von R-BgO am 07.06.16 12:35:20
      jetzt fängt er m.E. an zu spinnen:
      http://www.lng.guru/see-less-30-usd-oil-part-2/

      nota bene:
      keinerlei Zahlen mehr... raw emotion
      Avatar
      schrieb am 25.06.16 10:49:44
      Beitrag Nr. 215 ()
      Permian Basin Break-Even Price is $61: The Best Of A Bad Lot

      http://oilpro.com/post/25299/permian-basin-break-even-price-…

      The break-even price for Permian basin tight oil plays is about $61 per barrel (Table 1). That puts Permian plays among the lowest cost significant supply sources in the world. Although that is good news for U.S. tight oil plays, there is a dark side to the story.

      Just because tight oil is low-cost compared to other expensive sources of oil doesn’t mean that it is cheap. Nor is it commercial at current oil prices.

      The disturbing truth is that the real cost of oil production has doubled since the 1990s. That is very bad news for the global economy. Those who believe that technology is always the answer need to think about that.

      Through that lens, Permian basin tight oil plays are the best of a bad, expensive lot.



      ...

      Those who believe that Peak Oil is a failed observation do not understand that it was never about running out of oil. Peak Oil was always about running out of cheap oil. That is an indisputable fact.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.07.16 18:11:05
      Beitrag Nr. 216 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 15.07.16 11:41:02
      Beitrag Nr. 217 ()
      Entwarnung klingt anders...
      Cash is king? The issues facing the OSV market

      JULY 11TH, 2016 Andre Wheeler ANDRE WHEELER OFFSHORE, OPINION 1 COMMENTS


      My latest round of advisory services to private equity and fund managers looking at investment opportunities in the OSV sector suggests that the headwinds facing the sector have become gale force in nature. Not just a couple of months ago, debate was around the green shoot opportunities that were emerging for vessel owners and operators and actions taken to improve liquidity. This debate is now focused on the ‘gale force wind’ that is making sea conditions not just choppy, but unsafe. Here I am talking of the principle of cash in hand and how best to manage it.

      What has happened in the market, particularly within Southeast Asia, that underpins this change? The mega trends in the region are:

      *Utilisation rates are down – we are seeing that rates are down to 50% in the AHTS and PSV sector, with some companies reporting utilisation down to as low as 23%.

      *Charter day rates are down, the average being 40% down on rates achieved in 2014.

      *The definition of ‘old’ vessel has changed from that being 20 years plus to now being only 15 years.

      *Oversupply of vessels, with 476 units on order of which 200 are speculative.

      *11% of the total fleet has been laid up.

      *Smaller vessels (below 80 bollard pull in the AHTS segment and below 3,200 dwt) are mostly being impacted.

      *Rig ratios are down, with the global OSV fleet growing in the period 2015/16 by 18%, increasing the vessel to rig ration by approximately 35%.

      *Rig usage, the primary driver in the sector, is down 20% globally and 38% down in Southeast Asia.

      *Offshore projects E&P has been trimmed such that there has been a 15% reduction in offshore costs.

      *Prices for secondhand vessels have fallen 40%.

      The initial response by some, as I have reported before, was that the OSV market was really immune from the fallout and that it would be business as usual. More astute companies looked at opportunistic green shoots, such as offshore windfarm support as well as to other markets. Of particular interest was the Middle East (MENA) markets.


      A quick profile of the MENA market showed that:

      *Rig decline was the lowest in the global market.

      *NOCs in the region chasing and maintaining production output.

      *High level of tender activity with more than 75 vessels being sought by Saudi Aramco, Qatar Petroleum and Abu Dhabi NOC.

      *Tender activity showed 77 different vessels required, including 29 AHTS.

      *Utilisation rates in excess of 60%, making the spot market very attractive.

      *30% of the market controlled by five operators making it attractive entry.

      The movement to this market as well as into green shoots such as windfarm has only had the impact of ‘sharing’ the oversupply / overcapacity around. This is hardly surprising when one considers, for example, that up to 25 vessel operators have tendered for work in the first quarter of 2016 in the MENA region.


      As of February 2016, the market is starting to look like Southeast Asia, with:

      *Charter rates have fallen by 50% and in some cases to breakeven point or just below, some as low as $8,000 per day.

      *100 vessels now in lay up in the region.

      *Utilisation rates now down to 50%.

      *Oil companies now renegotiating existing contract rate with an expectation of a 20% reduction in those rates.

      Other reactions in the sector, suggesting the depth to which the OSV market has sunk, is the emergence of what I call nationalistic tendencies. For example, Malaysia and Indonesia, two growth markets are enforcing and introducing strict cabotage regulations. The MENA region has embarked on the same process, making it very difficult for international operator prospects.

      With this, there has been a review of asset values, particularly with regard to debt levels. A number of companies have reviewed their valuations as they have tried to restructure debt and payment terms. This has been a review of the fleet, particularly with regards to age and size, and with new vessels sales prices offering discounts of up to 30%, we have seen value wiped off the balance sheet.

      With falling markets and prices of second hand vessels, Companies can no longer rely on asset sales to boost cash reserves. They will have to resort to other activities such as cutting operating expense, particularly by looking at systems and supply chains. Another option is to lock into longer contract terms at lower margins to generate cash i.e. the old fashioned approach of sacrificing margin for revenue that is bankable.

      With the current gale and storm conditions expected to last until 2018, adherence to the principle of ‘Cash is King’ will pervade the OSV sector. This focus will dominate boardroom discussion for the next five years, and with low utilisation and charter rates in all markets, we can expect to see an increase in distressed asset sales.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 26.07.16 13:45:46
      Beitrag Nr. 218 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 52.273.822 von R-BgO am 25.04.16 22:54:23
      aus dem CoreLabs Q2-Bericht:
      "Core believes that worldwide crude oil supply and demand markets are close to balancing and will balance the second half of 2016.

      On the crude oil supply side, U.S. unconventional production peaked at 5.5 million barrels of oil per day in March of 2015, and has since fallen by over a million barrels a day owing to high decline curve rates associated with these tight oil reservoirs.

      Offsetting these sharp production declines have been additions of approximately 160,000 barrels a day from several deep water Gulf of Mexico legacy projects that were commissioned several years ago and started to bear fruit in late 2015-2016. These additions no way will offset what's coming from the deductions that will occur on land throughout this year and into 2017.

      The sharp declines from U.S. land production are continuing in 2016, and Core believes these decreases could reach 1.1 million barrels of oil per day or more by yearend. Lower levels of new wells and delayed production maintenance will exacerbate the fall in U.S. land production going into 2016 – 2017.

      Remember, production decline curves are linear in time but logarithmic in production declines. A year ago, month-over-month U.S. production declines were in the tens of thousands of barrels per day, per month. Now these month-over-month per day losses quite often reach 100,000 barrels of oil per day or more. So look for that to expand and continue to expand into late 2016 and into 2017.

      From these analyses, we would take the over on the drop of 1.1 million barrels per day by yearend. We will recalculate these numbers for Q3 earnings release. Moreover, further net declines from legacy deep water projects – moreover, further net gains from legacy projects in the deep water Gulf of Mexico will be needed to offset significant increases in the existing Gulf of Mexico production base.

      These legacy Gulf of Mexico projects could add a net 160,000 barrels a day in 2016, slightly offsetting the material onshore and shallow water declines that are taking place. Core estimates that the current net decline curve rate for U.S. land production is approximately 10.1%, which will continue to expand into 2017. We are in the process of recalculating these parameters and we'll re-update in Q3.

      Globally, Core estimates that the net crude oil production decline curve rate has expanded to 3.3% net, up some 20 basis points from earlier year estimates. Applying the 3.3% net decline curve rate to a worldwide crude oil production base of approximately 85 million barrels per day means the planet will need to produce an approximately 2.8 million new barrels by this date next year to maintain current worldwide productive capacity totals. With the long-term worldwide spare capacity nearing zero, Core believes worldwide producers will not be able to offset these declines, and the estimated 3.3% net production decline curve rate in 2016 will lead to falling global production in 2016. This is supported by some of the recent IEA data indicating declining production on a global basis through Q2 2016.

      Therefore, Core believes crude markets more than rationalize in the second half of 2016 and price stability, followed by price increases, some occurring as we speak, return to the energy complex. Remember, the immutable laws of physics and thermodynamics mean that crude oil production curve always wins and it never sleeps."


      Zitat von R-BgO: aus dem CoreLabs Q1-Bericht
      The Company continues to anticipate a “V-shaped” worldwide commodity recovery in 2016, with upticks expected to start in the third quarter. Global demand for hydrocarbon-based energy continues to improve, while worldwide crude oil supply peaked in the second half of 2015 beginning a decline that Core believes will continue through all of 2016 and 2017.

      The Company has observed that U.S. onshore oil production peaked in March 2015 and has fallen since then by over 600,000 barrels of oil per day (“BOPD”), some of which was offset by new additions to production in the Gulf of Mexico (“GOM”) as a result of eight deepwater legacy-field developments coming on-line in 2015. This new production, from deepwater fields that includes Anadarko’s Lucius and Heidelberg and Shell’s Stones, offset significant declines in existing GOM fields.

      At current U.S. activity levels, Core predicts 2016 U.S. onshore oil production will fall approximately 1,100,000 BOPD, somewhat offset by GOM gains of approximately 200,000 BOPD, yielding a U.S. net decline of 900,000 BOPD and net decline curve rate of 10.1%.

      Based on currently available worldwide crude oil production data, coupled with internal Core Lab data, Core has increased its estimate of the net worldwide annual crude oil production decline rate to 3.3%, as supported by recent International Energy Agency ("IEA") reports that worldwide crude oil production fell 300,000 BOPD in March from February 2016 levels. March was the third consecutive month of global oil production decreases.

      The increase in the net worldwide decline rate is predicated on sharper decline curve rates for tight-oil reservoirs and the significant decline in maintenance capital expenditures for the existing crude oil production base. This, coupled with the continuing decline in global production and the continuing increase in global energy consumption, should create a tight crude oil supply market for the second half of 2016, and that should lead to increased crude prices and industry activity levels worldwide.
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.08.16 11:32:49
      Beitrag Nr. 219 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 18.12.16 14:33:17
      Beitrag Nr. 220 ()
      GLOBAL LIQUIDS SUPPLY COST CURVE: NEW SHALE AND OIL SANDS ARE MARGINAL SOURCES OF SUPPLY IN 2020

      November 09, 2016

      http://www.rystadenergy.com/NewsEvents/PressReleases/global-…

      Author: Espen Erlingsen, VP Analysis

      Publisher: Offshore Magazine

      At an average breakeven price of 32 USD/bbl, producing fields are the cheapest supply sources. Non-producing shale and oil sands are the marginal sources of supply in 2020, with high drilling/completion costs for the former and high capex/opex for the latter.

      Rystad Energy liquids cost curve, is made up of nearly 20,000 unique assets and considers each asset’s breakeven oil price and potential production in 2020. The breakeven price is the Brent oil price at which NPV equals zero, and considers all future cash flows using a real discount rate of 7.5%.

      Resources are split into two lifecycle categories as of present day: producing and non-producing (under development, discoveries and undiscovered). For each lifecycle, associated costs are indicated such as opex and capex. Lifecycle categories are further split into different supply segment groups shown as colored boxes. The width of the boxes represents production in 2020 from a given supply source. The height of the boxes shows the range of breakeven oil prices that 60% of the production lies within.


      Avatar
      schrieb am 01.02.17 11:13:07
      Beitrag Nr. 221 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 52.917.559 von R-BgO am 26.07.16 13:45:46Core Labs Q4:

      "Core believes that the worldwide crude oil markets are currently undersupplied as indicated by several consecutive months of declining worldwide crude oil inventories. And we believe the projected December draw will be the fifth consecutive month in a row. Projected OPEC cuts of 1.344 million barrels of oil per day and other cooperating countries pledging to cut another 600,000 barrels of oil per day will lead to extended worldwide inventory declines and a continuing rally in oil prices and energy prices in 2017.

      As Core has continually stated, the Middle East was producing oil at unstable levels, and we are sure that some of these cuts will more than welcome by several Middle Eastern producing countries. All that Core did was listened to the reservoirs and not rhetoric. Also importantly, U.S. crude production peaked at 9.7 million barrels a day in March of 2015 and then declined approximately 1.3 million barrels a day into December of 2016. At that time, Core calculated a U.S. net decline curve rate of 11% per annum.

      U.S. crude supplies have increased on a net basis for October and November in response to increased activity levels, largely in the Permian Basin. However, conflicting data sets and completion statistics, especially in the large crude supply increase reported by EIA in October, especially from the Bakken, make calculations and projections for U.S. land production too difficult and uncertain to offer at this time.

      In 2016, production gains in the Gulf of Mexico were disappointing. Originally projected by Core Lab to add 200,000 barrels of production per day during 2016, the production added was essentially flat to up slightly year-over-year, owing to larger than expected activity declines and less production addition from legacy deepwater projects.

      2017 is off to a better start as BP’s Thunder Horse South complex completed ahead of schedule and under budget is set to add 40,000 barrels of new 2017 production. Globally, Core estimates that the net decline curve rate is currently approximately 3.3%. Applying the 3.3% net decline curve rate to the worldwide crude oil production of approximately 85 million barrels a day means that the planet will need to produce an additional 2.8 million barrels of new oil by this date next year to maintain current worldwide productive capacity totals.

      With limited long-term sustainable spare production capacity coupled with the aforementioned production cuts, Core believes worldwide producers will not be able to offset the estimated 3.3% net production decline curve rate in 2017, leading to a further decline in global crude oil production. Also, weighing on future production capacity is the fact that operators discovered less than 4 billion barrels of new oil in 2016, while the globe consumed over 55 billion barrels. Therefore Core believes crude markets more than rationalized in late 2016 and price stability followed by price increases, some occurring as we speak, are returning to the energy complex. Remember, the immutable laws of physics and thermodynamics mean that the crude oil production decline curve always wins and it never sleeps."


      Zitat von R-BgO: "Core believes that worldwide crude oil supply and demand markets are close to balancing and will balance the second half of 2016.

      On the crude oil supply side, U.S. unconventional production peaked at 5.5 million barrels of oil per day in March of 2015, and has since fallen by over a million barrels a day owing to high decline curve rates associated with these tight oil reservoirs.

      Offsetting these sharp production declines have been additions of approximately 160,000 barrels a day from several deep water Gulf of Mexico legacy projects that were commissioned several years ago and started to bear fruit in late 2015-2016. These additions no way will offset what's coming from the deductions that will occur on land throughout this year and into 2017.

      The sharp declines from U.S. land production are continuing in 2016, and Core believes these decreases could reach 1.1 million barrels of oil per day or more by yearend. Lower levels of new wells and delayed production maintenance will exacerbate the fall in U.S. land production going into 2016 – 2017.

      Remember, production decline curves are linear in time but logarithmic in production declines. A year ago, month-over-month U.S. production declines were in the tens of thousands of barrels per day, per month. Now these month-over-month per day losses quite often reach 100,000 barrels of oil per day or more. So look for that to expand and continue to expand into late 2016 and into 2017.

      From these analyses, we would take the over on the drop of 1.1 million barrels per day by yearend. We will recalculate these numbers for Q3 earnings release. Moreover, further net declines from legacy deep water projects – moreover, further net gains from legacy projects in the deep water Gulf of Mexico will be needed to offset significant increases in the existing Gulf of Mexico production base.

      These legacy Gulf of Mexico projects could add a net 160,000 barrels a day in 2016, slightly offsetting the material onshore and shallow water declines that are taking place. Core estimates that the current net decline curve rate for U.S. land production is approximately 10.1%, which will continue to expand into 2017. We are in the process of recalculating these parameters and we'll re-update in Q3.

      Globally, Core estimates that the net crude oil production decline curve rate has expanded to 3.3% net, up some 20 basis points from earlier year estimates. Applying the 3.3% net decline curve rate to a worldwide crude oil production base of approximately 85 million barrels per day means the planet will need to produce an approximately 2.8 million new barrels by this date next year to maintain current worldwide productive capacity totals. With the long-term worldwide spare capacity nearing zero, Core believes worldwide producers will not be able to offset these declines, and the estimated 3.3% net production decline curve rate in 2016 will lead to falling global production in 2016. This is supported by some of the recent IEA data indicating declining production on a global basis through Q2 2016.

      Therefore, Core believes crude markets more than rationalize in the second half of 2016 and price stability, followed by price increases, some occurring as we speak, return to the energy complex. Remember, the immutable laws of physics and thermodynamics mean that crude oil production curve always wins and it never sleeps."


      Zitat von R-BgO: aus dem CoreLabs Q1-Bericht
      The Company continues to anticipate a “V-shaped” worldwide commodity recovery in 2016, with upticks expected to start in the third quarter. Global demand for hydrocarbon-based energy continues to improve, while worldwide crude oil supply peaked in the second half of 2015 beginning a decline that Core believes will continue through all of 2016 and 2017.

      The Company has observed that U.S. onshore oil production peaked in March 2015 and has fallen since then by over 600,000 barrels of oil per day (“BOPD”), some of which was offset by new additions to production in the Gulf of Mexico (“GOM”) as a result of eight deepwater legacy-field developments coming on-line in 2015. This new production, from deepwater fields that includes Anadarko’s Lucius and Heidelberg and Shell’s Stones, offset significant declines in existing GOM fields.

      At current U.S. activity levels, Core predicts 2016 U.S. onshore oil production will fall approximately 1,100,000 BOPD, somewhat offset by GOM gains of approximately 200,000 BOPD, yielding a U.S. net decline of 900,000 BOPD and net decline curve rate of 10.1%.

      Based on currently available worldwide crude oil production data, coupled with internal Core Lab data, Core has increased its estimate of the net worldwide annual crude oil production decline rate to 3.3%, as supported by recent International Energy Agency ("IEA") reports that worldwide crude oil production fell 300,000 BOPD in March from February 2016 levels. March was the third consecutive month of global oil production decreases.

      The increase in the net worldwide decline rate is predicated on sharper decline curve rates for tight-oil reservoirs and the significant decline in maintenance capital expenditures for the existing crude oil production base. This, coupled with the continuing decline in global production and the continuing increase in global energy consumption, should create a tight crude oil supply market for the second half of 2016, and that should lead to increased crude prices and industry activity levels worldwide.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 02.03.17 11:06:46
      Beitrag Nr. 222 ()
      Ich habe den Author zwar als bearish im Kopf,
      aber trotzdem sollte das hier zu denken geben: http://oilpro.com/post/30230/beginning-end-bakken-shale-play

      "The decline in Bakken oil production that started in January 2015 is probably not reversible. 
      New well performance has deteriorated, gas-oil ratios have increased and water cuts are rising. Much of the reservoir energy from gas expansion is depleted and decline rates should accelerate.
      More drilling may increase daily output for awhile but won’t resolve the underlying problem of poorer well performance and declining per-well reserves."



      => Vor lauter "Absaufen in Öl" vergißt man leicht, dass einer der Kritik-/offenen Punkte von Shale die steilen Decline-Kurven sind.

      WENN das Beschriebene für Bakken gilt, dann -früher oder später- auch für die anderen Basins...


      Und dann kommen die anderen Quellen, insbesondere Offshore zurück in den Focus.
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 10.03.17 09:26:00
      Beitrag Nr. 223 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 54.447.351 von R-BgO am 02.03.17 11:06:46
      wie immer: Gegenposition
      http://oilpro.com/post/30382/opec-deal-cannot-overcome-marke…


      OPEC deal cannot overcome market forces… unconventional production vs cartel pressure

      Laws made by man cannot be made to violate the laws of nature; likewise, announcements of intentions to maintain or even reduce supply marginally cannot support oil and gas prices indefinitely, if the underlying reality is one of expanding supply.

      For now, the repeated assurances that Saudi Arabia is determined to ensure thOPECEC production cuts have greatly benefitted its revenues, since the increase in oil prices since they orchestrated the OPEC deal has more than made up for any loss of market share.

      However, no amount of assurances that the cuts will continue can change the reality that the overall oil and gas supply is set to increase in the years ahead. The supply crunch that some fear, based on reduced investment in exploration activities due to low oil prices, is really an oil glut in the making, barring any political instability that could close oilfields in major production regions of the world.

      While some players, such as Hess, believe that the market will rebalance and turn in favor of higher oil prices, because of a perceived supply crunch, others, such as BP and others, realize that there are many potential upside factors that can affect supply (Argus Media, 2017).

      Major offshore projects are in the works, especially in Latin America (Offshore Technology, 2017), while the Gulf of Mexico continues to promise great strides, both in the US, with aggressive leasing plans (Worlkd Oil, 2017a)) and in Mexico, which is making great strides in attracting important oil players to its key offshore plays (World Oil, 2017b).

      On another front, outside fossil fuels, technology advances gave rise to optimistic forecasts for renewables as a share of world energy and fuels supply. But technological advances have also changed the playing field for unconventional oil and gas supply, based on new extraction technologies. Thus, even those who have been forecasting a bright future for renewables must aknowledge that they will have a relatively much smaller impact in the world energy supply, than the large and fast surge in unconventional oil and gas production (Nakhle, C. 2017).

      Then there are the major international deals that involve countries with enormous resources, just waiting to open the floodgates. That is the case, for example, of Iran, which is trying to make up for lost time, and make the most of recent sanction relief, by signing deals that could add significant gas volumens to an already growing production. The giant South Pars field will raise its production by 50 million m3/day when yet another project phase is completed, in a deal witTotal (Offshore Magazine, 2017). There seems to be no lack of interested players to operate in the country, and Iran´s resource base certainly justifies their interest, since it could support a much higher level of activity and production, if foreign companies continue to seek to participate in its major oil and gas plays. Such significant additions to world oil and gas supply dwarf the OPEC cuts.

      Finally, we must recognize that the shale plays in the US have become a new force with which to reckon. Based on their fast response time to any price volatility, and the magnitude of their response, they have become the new regulation mechanism in the international oil and gas supply game. In fact, many analysts now believe that the US shale plays can completely neutralize any OPEC production cuts, and the speed and volume of their production response to oil price increases has been much underestimated.

      While major oil and gas projects in the world routinely take years to startup, and even the largest individual projects are on the order of hundreds of thousands of bopd, individual US shale players are set to contribute new production on the order of one million bopd in a matter of months.

      Furthermore, numbers that were unthinkable even a short while ago, are now discussed as a real
      possibility, such as estimates of 8 to 10 million bopd from the Permian Basin in Texas, in ten years (The Telegraph, 2017).

      Likewise, the Wolfcamp shale will have to be recognized as one of the most significant oil and gas plays in the world, based on its estimated resource base. It has recently been reassessed by the USGS at much higher technically recoverable resource volumes than previously, reaching an incredible 30 billion boe (Blomquist, P. 2017). => reicht für 319 Tage Weltbedarf

      The world has great difficulty in assimilating such numbers, and the geopolitical implications of the changes involved. What is being discussed is the possibility that the production from one US shale play alone, may reach the equivalent of all Saudi Arabia production today, and that the recoverable resources in one US shale play begin to rival the larges fields in the Middle East.

      Definitely, the market dynamics of the world oil and gas supply will be dominated by forces other than temporary and fragile OPEC cuts.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 24.03.17 21:53:24
      Beitrag Nr. 224 ()
      http://www.artberman.com/shale-cost-reductions-are-10-techno…


      The EUR used for break-even prices in charts like Goldman Sachs’ are largely unknown but bigger EUR means lower break-even prices.

      Companies routinely report EUR in barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) that use a natural gas-to-BOE conversion of 6:1 based on energy content but a value-based conversion including natural gas liquids is 15:1.

      For gassy plays like the Eagle Ford and Permian basin, this conversion sleight-of-hand produces ~35% inflation in EUR. It is perfectly legal for reserve reporting but it is a dishonest way to represent break-even price since companies are getting ~$2.50/mmBtu for gas and not the $6.25/mmBtu implied by the 6:1 conversion.

      Advances in technology have resulted in higher early production rates increasing net present value. In many cases, however, these are accompanied by increased decline rates and lower EUR. Figure 2 shows an example from the Bakken Shale play.


      Figure 2. Comparison of 20-mMonth cumulative production and normalized decline rates for the Bakken Shale play. Source: North Dakota Pipeline Authority, Drilling Info and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.

      The chart on the left shows 20-month cumulative production data suggesting that well performance has improved every year. The chart on the right shows decline rates for the same years of production. It shows that, in fact, well performance is decreasing from 2014 through 2016 because of higher decline rates.

      Technology does not create energy. The effect of better technology is a bigger spigot that produces the energy faster. The downside of the technology is that it increases the rate of resource depletion.

      Costs have come down for all oil and gas producers since the oil-price collapse in 2014. Most of the savings are because of lower oil field service costs and not so much because of improved technology.
      Avatar
      schrieb am 31.03.17 11:16:31
      Beitrag Nr. 225 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 26.05.17 19:41:50
      Beitrag Nr. 226 ()
      Wenn der auch nur zu einem Bruchteil recht hat:
      https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be65942f022bb…,


      dann gute Nacht Marie...
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 27.05.17 20:26:55
      Beitrag Nr. 227 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 55.024.893 von R-BgO am 26.05.17 19:41:50Vielen Dank für's Einstellen des Berichtes.
      Zu einem Bruchteil liegt er bestimmt richtig. :cool:

      1. Die Ablösung / Reduzierung des Verbrennungsmotors scheint ja nicht ganz unwahrscheinlich.
      Wenn der Preis für die Batterie noch ein bischen nachgibt, dann ist dem ja bald so; zumindest für den Nahbereich.

      2. Das vollautomatisierte Fahren scheint mir dann noch deutlich mehr Fortschritt zu erfordern. Und ob das dann bis 2029 zu 95% durch ist, die These scheint mit aktuell etwas gewagt zu sein. Aber im Bereich Automatisierung wird sich schon was tun.

      Wegen dem 1. müsste man die Ölindustrie und sowie Verbrennungsmotoren bauende Industrie bzw. davon abhäbgige Länder reduzieren.
      Wegen dem 2. : wenn es da einen klaren Vorreiter gäbe, der könnte dann sehr viel vom Markt abräumen bzw. die anderen (Autobauer) als Hardwarelieferanten einsetzen. Da man nicht weiss wer es sein wird -> auch hier die Autoindustrie meiden.

      Oder wie ist Deine Schlussfolgerung?
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 28.05.17 16:47:59
      Beitrag Nr. 228 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 55.029.054 von Papabile am 27.05.17 20:26:55weitestgehend d'accord
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.06.17 13:31:36
      Beitrag Nr. 229 ()
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 08.06.17 16:39:54
      Beitrag Nr. 230 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 55.087.546 von R-BgO am 06.06.17 13:31:36.... kann jemand sagen, was das auf deutsch heißt in dem Bericht?

      Danke!
      Avatar
      schrieb am 07.12.17 09:55:45
      Beitrag Nr. 231 ()
      1 Antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 19.12.17 14:03:36
      Beitrag Nr. 232 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 20.12.17 10:15:05
      Beitrag Nr. 233 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 56.386.348 von R-BgO am 07.12.17 09:55:45Na das steht ja im crassen Gegensatz zu dem
      Thinktankbericht...Offshore ja oder Offshore nein...
      Glaskugel bitte!
      Avatar
      schrieb am 21.12.17 13:17:10
      Beitrag Nr. 234 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 01.02.18 14:25:46
      Beitrag Nr. 235 ()
      https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Is-The-Shale-…

      "Echoing the criticism of too much hype surrounding U.S. shale from the Saudi oil minister last week, a new report finds that shale drilling is still largely not profitable. Not only that, but costs are on the rise and drillers are pursuing “irrational production.”

      Riyadh-based Al Rajhi Capital dug into the financials of a long list of U.S. shale companies, and found that “despite rising prices most firms under our study are still in losses with no signs of improvement.” The average return on asset for U.S. shale companies “is still a measly 0.8 percent,” the financial services company wrote in its report.

      Moreover, the widely-publicized efficiency gains could be overstated, at least according to Al Rajhi Capital. The firm said that in the third quarter of 2017, the “average operating cost per barrel has broadly remained the same without any efficiency gains.” Not only that, but the cost of producing a barrel of oil, after factoring in the cost of spending and higher debt levels, has actually been rising quite a bit.

      Shale companies often tout their rock-bottom breakeven prices, and they often use a narrowly defined metric that only includes the cost of drilling and production, leaving out all other costs. But because there are a lot of other expenses, only focusing on operating costs can be a bit misleading.

      ..."
      Avatar
      schrieb am 01.02.18 14:32:30
      Beitrag Nr. 236 ()
      Was ist jetzt mit Brent crude und wti crude Preis?
      Wird der jetzt fallen oder steigen ?
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.02.18 12:05:37
      Beitrag Nr. 237 ()
      rebound hier auf 70 dollar erwarte ich...
      2 Antworten
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.02.18 16:18:43
      Beitrag Nr. 238 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 56.947.268 von jameslabrie am 06.02.18 12:05:37
      Mist habe puts für den herbst
      Habe schon gehofft es geht unter 60. danke für die antwort
      Avatar
      schrieb am 06.02.18 16:29:20
      Beitrag Nr. 239 ()
      Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 56.947.268 von jameslabrie am 06.02.18 12:05:37
      Komisch aber das Öl rebounded
      Während Nickel, Zink, Blei und so minus 2 heute sind
      Avatar
      schrieb am 12.11.18 08:20:08
      Beitrag Nr. 240 ()
      Avatar
      schrieb am 22.08.19 09:53:05
      Beitrag Nr. 241 ()
      Heute war ein Rystad-Seminar zu Shale vs Offshore;
      mit ein paar für mich interessanten Take-aways:


      * kurzfristig soll offshore besser ziehen als shale


      * Permian ist world-class


      * bei Offshore hängt extrem viel vom Ölpreis ab
      Öl (Brent) | 60,38 $


      Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben


      Zu dieser Diskussion können keine Beiträge mehr verfasst werden, da der letzte Beitrag vor mehr als zwei Jahren verfasst wurde und die Diskussion daraufhin archiviert wurde.
      Bitte wenden Sie sich an feedback@wallstreet-online.de und erfragen Sie die Reaktivierung der Diskussion oder starten Sie
      hier
      eine neue Diskussion.

      Investoren beobachten auch:

      WertpapierPerf. %
      +0,03
      -0,52
      -0,13
      +0,17
      +4,60
      -0,38
      +0,28
      -0,56
      +6,25
      +2,06
      Ölpreise überverkauft: Gründe für den Absturz der Öl-Notierungen