U.S. Oil Production NOT going higher yet
5 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - March 10, 2022, 6:52 p.m.

As Global Supply Worries Escalate, U.S. Oil Production Holds Stubbornly Flat

From Natural Gas Shale Daily:

 Kevin Dobbs

March 9, 2022 


 

Even as sanctions mount against energy-rich Russia amid its war in Ukraine — intensifying concerns about global crude supplies — U.S. oil output is holding steady, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) said Wednesday.

 

Production for the week ended March 4 held at 11.6 million b/d, EIA’s latest Weekly Petroleum Status Report showed. It hovered at that level throughout February as well, signaling that producers were in no hurry to ramp up activity to capitalize on lofty prices. 

At the same time, demand increased, fueled by an accelerating U.S. economy and greater consumption of travel fuels derived from oil. 

Total petroleum demand climbed 2% week/week and held well above year-earlier levels.

 

Demand over the last four-week period averaged 21.6 million b/d, up 12% from the same period last year. Over the same span, motor gasoline consumption averaged 8.7 million b/d, up 8%, while distillate fuel demand averaged 4.4 million b/d, up 6%. Jet fuel product supplied jumped 35% to more than 1.4 million b/d.

 

Crude prices, already elevated amid the strong demand, surged even further over the past two weeks because of the raging war and the increasing likelihood that Russian oil exports will dwindle, hampering global supplies. Russia is the world’s third-largest crude producer after the United States and Saudi Arabia. 

Citing Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, President Biden on Tuesday banned imports of Russian oil and natural gas in a move that compounded already severe sanctions against the Kremlin.

 Several major Western energy companies in recent days also vowed to pull out of Russia

If the United States were able to galvanize European leaders to participate in the embargo, some 4.0 million b/d of Russian crude could get wiped from the Western energy landscape, according to Rystad Energy.  

 

Brent crude prices, the international benchmark, topped $120/bbl in Monday trading – up more than 50% since the start of the year. After the Biden announcement the next day, prices spiked to $130 before pulling back on Wednesday.

 

Even before the Ukraine war started nearly two weeks ago, energy prices were soaring amid constrained global supplies, pushing the U.S. inflation rate in January to a 40-year high

“Oil prices could hit $240/bbl this summer in the worst-case scenario if Western countries roll out sanctions on Russia’s oil exports en masse,” Rystad Energy analyst Bjørnar Tonhaugen said Wednesday. 

“This is the largest energy crisis in decades and the impact on the world’s most important commodity is going to be unprecedented,” he added. 

Against that backdrop, Tonhaugen said U.S. producers are likely to ramp up output this year – both to fill an emerging void on the global stage and to capitalize on high prices. But new drilling is a time-consuming endeavor, and it could take months from producers to substantially lift overall output above current levels. 

Prices are likely to escalate further “to destroy sufficient demand and incentivize a supply response through higher activity – both of which happen with a time lag of several months – to rebalance the market at a higher supply/demand/price intersection,” Tonhaugen said.

 In the meantime, the United States and allied countries have pledged to release strategic reserves of 60 million bbl. Half of that would come from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). 

Still, that would only offset lost Russian exports for a few weeks. 

U.S. commercial crude inventories for the March 4 period, excluding those in the SPR, decreased by 1.9 million bbl from the previous week. At 411.6 million bbl, inventories were 13% below the five-year average.


Comments
By metmike - March 10, 2022, 7:07 p.m.
Like Reply

At other times in history, we saw production soaring higher with these prices.

There's a reason why that's NOT the case this time. 

The war on fossil fuels!


https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/79131/#79182

                By metmike - Dec. 17, 2021, 1:07 p.m.                        

Crude stocks are the lowest in 7 years and close to the lowest in 10 years right now.......and being depleted even while tapping into SPR oil.

The only thing that can change that, other than a temporary COVID shutdown, is MORE supplies. 

The war on fossil fuels is trying to do the complete opposite and is winning. However, increasing prices, though not having their previous more immediate effect on supply based on the historical response, one would think will eventually cause new supplies when storage drops low enough and prices high enough.

But the curve has shifted, especially the risk for investment money curve.

When fossil fuels were king, oil and natural gas companies could drill with impunity and expect their investments to pay for themselves, even if it took awhile.

Now the mentality is that fossil fuels are killing the planet and big oil is evil, corrupt and greedy and we need to eliminate them ASAP. This won't be happening for numerous decades but if you look at the blue print that some people in the market place look at.........fossil fuels are going away and sinking money in them is risky.


Weekly US ending stocks of crude oil.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRSTUS1&f=W


You might disagree with me on the climate part but the point here is to look at what they did to the coal industry. ....intentionally. 

Investors in the coal industry got their butts beat. We are in the early stages of an attempt to do this with oil and ng. It won't work because alternate energy promises can't come close to meeting the real world demand.......however, they are next on the hit list.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/78168/

Dems are crying foul at Pubs for blaming Biden. Yes, the right is exaggerating things like we always see in politics but who was it that make it their #1 priority, the day that he took office to sign the US back up with the Climate Accord and ramp up the war on fossil fuels to "save the planet"?

Who was it that shut down the Keystone Pipeline?


Who was it that banned new drilling?

Biden Administration Halts New Drilling in Legal Fight Over Climate Costs

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/climate/carbon-biden-drilling-climate.html


By metmike - March 10, 2022, 7:16 p.m.
Like Reply

Biden Administration Halts New Drilling in Legal Fight Over Climate Costs

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/climate/carbon-biden-drilling-climate.html

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration is indefinitely freezing decisions about new federal oil and gas drilling as part of a legal brawl with Republican-led states that could significantly impact President Biden’s plans to tackle climate change.

The move, which came Saturday, was a response to a recent federal ruling that blocked the way the Biden administration was calculating the real cost of climate change, a figure that guides a range of government decisions, from pollution regulation to whether to permit new oil, gas or coal extraction on public lands and in federal waters.

Climate Fwd  There’s an ongoing crisis — and tons of news. Our newsletter keeps you up to date.

Under President Barack Obama, the government estimated that the damage from wildfires, floods and rising sea levels was $51 for every ton of carbon dioxide generated by burning fossil fuels. President Donald J. Trump lowered that number considerably, setting it at $7 or less per ton. Upon taking office, Mr. Biden revived the $51 level and set about updating it further — work that is underway.

Known as the “social cost of carbon,” the metric is designed to underline the potential economic threats from greenhouse gas emissions so they can be compared to the economic benefits from acts like oil drilling. Economists and climate scientists say it is needed because climate-fueled heat waves, storms, wildfires and flooding already cost the United States billions of dollars annually but those costs are often not taken into account by policymakers. Factoring in those costs could make it harder for fossil fuel projects to win federal approval.

But 10 Republican-led states sued the government, and on Feb. 11, Judge James D. Cain Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana found that the Biden administration’s calculations “artificially increase the cost estimates” of oil and gas drilling

Judge Cain, a Trump appointee, said using the social cost of carbon in decision-making would harm his native Louisiana and other energy producing states. He issued an injunction preventing the administration from considering the metric. The Justice Department said it intends to appeal.

In an ironic twist, the fallout from the judge’s ruling — at least initially — is that the federal government has stopped work on new oil and gas leases, as well as permits to drill on federal lands and waters.

“Work surrounding public-facing rules, grants, leases, permits and other projects has been delayed or stopped altogether so that agencies can assess whether and how they can proceed,” the Department of Justice wrote in a legal filing late Saturday asking the court to stay the injunction against using a climate metric.

Melissa Schwartz, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, added in a statement that “delays are expected in permitting and leasing for the oil and gas programs.” She said the agency “is committed to ensuring its programs account for climate impacts.”

That has angered states with significant oil and gas drilling on federal land.

Most immediately, it means a lease sale for drilling across 179,001 acres in Wyoming will not happen any time soon. The Bureau of Land Management missed a deadline last week for announcing that sale. The environmental assessment for the lease sale had incorporated the social cost of carbon metric.

The Petroleum Association of Wyoming accused the Biden administration of “a dereliction of duty” by delaying a sale that could be worth millions of dollars in revenue to the state. Senator Cynthia Lummis, Republican of Wyoming, called the missed deadline “a conscious decision to continue to attack Wyoming and our domestic energy industry in favor of progressive, unrealistic climate policies.”

"When he first took office, Mr. Biden suspended new federal oil and gas leases."


metmike: The social cost of carbon is a complete bs anti science(political) metric. The reality is that the authentic number is massively positive....in the many trillions. 

The wildfires out West for instance are because of the COLDER temperatures in the Pacific and the current La Nina and the pause in global warming. 

Global warming can't cause cold temp anomolies in the tropical Pacific.

What we need most to bust the drought would be for the lack of global warming in recent years...........TO RETURN TO GLOBAL WARMING and along with it, an El Nino from warmer waters in that region which would greatly increases chances to bust the drought along with its greatly elevated precip correlation. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/82479/#82493

This one here is a real good one!

LaNina caused the drought and wildfires.......LaNina's are a cold water anomaly in the  East/Central Tropical Pacific..........the opposite of El Nino/global warming

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/73659/#73720


If we turned the atmospheric clock back to 100 years ago and it was suddenly 1 deg.C cooler and the atmospheric CO2 was 120 parts per million lower like it was in 1922...........over a billion people would starve to death within 3 years.

Storage/stocks would run out quickly and rationing would cause food prices to at least triple during that period for many foods.


By metmike - March 10, 2022, 7:19 p.m.
Like Reply

The Social Benefit of Carbon: $3.5 Trillion in Agricultural Productivity

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/the-social-benefit-of-carbon-3-5-trillion-in-agricultural-productivity/


The Positive Externalities
of Carbon Dioxide:
Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric
CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf

By metmike - March 10, 2022, 9:48 p.m.
Like Reply

Related discussions:

                EIA oil this week            

                            36 responses |         

                Started by patrick - Dec. 16, 2021, 3:13 p.m

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/79131/


                GOP Lies on Gas Prices            

                            5 responses |             

                Started by joj - March 10, 2022, 2:53 p.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/82480/

By mcfarm - March 11, 2022, 7:12 a.m.
Like Reply

damn right MM. Take a look at most any oil graph and the day Biden was elected. These are called future markets and for good reason. He signaled oil and gas could all be bankrupted by his administration so what in the hell do Americans think is going to happen? Oil and gas investors are going to run out and invest in oil or not? And to think the idiots had  road map laid perfectly for them to follow by the previous administration but were too stupid to simply follow it. Now Biden comes out and says we will all feel the pain. Beg my pardon but I hardly think anyone of the elites in DC are going to feel much pain.