Sdajii
Sdaji
- Joined
- 13 October 2009
- Posts
- 2,117
- Reactions
- 2,237
I think the market is on the money, otherwise if they saw it the same as your most likely scenario then I think we would already be in POO $100+ already. Not to say there is a lot of shouting and niggling going on and if it continues and someone pushes too hard the real fight might begin. I think all parties would be very cautious about making that big shove.Thoughts? Am I missing something? The market seems to be assuming there's a low chance of things escalating, but I see it as the clearly most likely scenario.
I think the market is on the money, otherwise if they saw it the same as your most likely scenario then I think we would already be in POO $100+ already. Not to say there is a lot of shouting and niggling going on and if it continues and someone pushes too hard the real fight might begin. I think all parties would be very cautious about making that big shove.
Lets hope it settles and everyone backs off. That may take some time … giving the weapons sellers time to cash in.
Cutting to the chase, Iran can choke off the the Strait of Hormuz, which is the world's single most important oil passageway, being the only route for over 15% of global oil and one-third of the world's LNG.I'm not sure we're going to see $100 and if we do I'm almost certain we're going to see something well below $50 within a few months of it after the economy crashes, demand dwindles and supply increases. So, (keep in mind this is a hypothetical, not what I expect) if we assuming oil will be $120 in 2-6 months after USA and SA strike Iran, Iran fights back and it spreads somewhat in the middle east, and then in 4-10 months oil is $30, what price would it make sense for the market to set now? You can say that since we know (in this hypothetical) it's going to $110 within 6 months it makes sense to take a massive long position at anything more than about 10-20% below $110, and since it's currently trading at $58-60 the market is sure it won't go about $70-80, but we can see this doesn't make sense since if it does go to $110 (which is a real life possibility in the next few months), we also can be very confident it will crash the market and with it the oil price, presumably to around $40 or less, so surely the market would be so full of shorters that the price couldn't get above about $50-60 even in all out war. Clearly it doesn't work that way for several reasons.
But regardless of what the market thinks, I'd be interested to hear people's own thoughts here and why they expect it rather than just 'the market thinks x'. Will Iran just accept the increased sanctions and economic pain and do nothing? They were already willing to stage an attack and blame Yemen. Presumably that means they didn't want to take credit because fear a military response, and having been caught out they are very vulnerable to a counterstrike given how thin their ice now is, but the pressure is on more than ever. It has seemed to me for several months that Trump wants a war with Iran, he's just being absolutely sure to make it look to the majority of people that he really didn't want it, so he has to make the first move subtly to ensure it looks like they made the first move.
Cutting to the chase, Iran can choke off the the Strait of Hormuz, which is the world's single most important oil passageway, being the only route for over 15% of global oil and one-third of the world's LNG.
And Iran has VERY powerful allies who are also not overly fond of the USA.
So for the USA to think that attacking Iran will achieve what they want is exceptionally naive.
Oil under a scenario of Iran under attack would reach all time highs. And if the war was prolonged, oil prices would stay high for a longer time still as all the US's strategic reserves would be depleted and replenishment required.
And, that's assuming Iran had zero opportunity to damage Saudi or UAE production facilities.
The very separate business as usual scenario should still see oil hold at and above $50/bbl for some time as the USA's Permian producers are not profitable at lesser prices, and producer debt is leading to record bankruptcies because the costs of borrowings are crippling them. Any dips into the $40 will see Permain production decline and cause prices to again rise.
I'm in the camp expecting that there's a price rise, although I won't try and predict when beyond saying that it'll be in the not to distant future.
My reasoning is firstly the political situation as has already been mentioned. It's not only the actual loss of production, and that is certainly not insignificant of itself, but that there's now an effectively permanent threat of similar attacks. Well, it's permanent until there's a radical change in the overall situation which probably won't happen quickly.
Second reason is that nobody would dispute that this current (USA) business cycle is getting rather old, indeed it's the longest on record, and if we look back over the entire period since the end of WW2 then there seems to be only one occasion when the oil price didn't increase toward the end of the business cycle, that being in 1960. The one thing missing that would signal the end of this business cycle has been a rise in the oil price.
If any major increase does occur though well it'll kill the economy no doubt. Things were looking a bit shaky economically even before the Saudi attacks.
I think that's the one thing that can be said with certainty.We certainly live in strange times
"Managed" to the degree that oil under $50/bbl becomes to marginal for lots of North American production (eg Permian Basin and Canada's oil sands), but still profitable for most of OPEC, especially in the Middle East.So the oil price is back roughly where it started.
I'll avoid making political comments as such but just noting the situation:
*Drone, missle or whatever you want to call it attack on the oil facilities in Saudi.
*Drums of war being given a bash with various countries blaming Iran.
*Attempts to impeach the President of the USA.
Things that in any previous time would have been in the news for months but in 2019 everyone just shrugs their shoulders, the markets move 1% or so, the Federal Reserve throws around a few $ billion and life carries on.
We're living in a very strange times and in the context of the price of oil I can't avoid thinking that the price is being "managed". OK, so we all know OPEC is a cartel but I mean beyond that. It's just seems too stable at present really - world goes mad and the oil price is as consistent as the sun rising each morning. That just doesn't seem right.
I heard a commentator a few months ago nothing that the US shale industry has effectively done what was always thought to be impossible.Maybe the other issue that is seldom covered is that it's US money that significantly dabbles in the oil markets. And if you live in the USA you will know that oil and gas production are not just at record highs, but able to swing higher if the market were to tighten.
We no longer need you lunatics and you can go on killing each other as much as you like.
Renewable energies and fracking are now taking over so stay in your Muhammad arse licking terrorist hell without us providing security and we'll carry on civilizing the civilized.
could the Australian position be a reflection of policy trends..no fracking, bad Australia stealing Timor resources, fossil fuel is bad, big us corporation taking over or have we really exhausted all our resources?An issue there is the divergence between what's good for the USA versus what's good for anyone else.
Australia for example has never imported more oil in absolute volume terms than it does now and as a net % of consumption you'd have to go back to the 1960's to find a time when we were more reliant on imports than we are today.
So heading in opposite directions there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?