The writer is asking whether the Aramco IPO is behind Saudi' eagerness for an OPEC cut extension? Does it matter?
Some data points from the article and earlier articles:
- "Saudis continued their over-compliance (with the agreed-upon cuts), cutting production to 9.9 million bopd in March, around 100,000 bopd below the agreed-upon monthly quota" [comment: really? oilprice.com considers 100,000 bopd a "meaningful" cut? First, of all, Saudi and other OPEC producers maximized production before announcing cuts; second of all, 100,000 bopd / 10 million bopd = a 1% cut in production; and, finally, that 100,000 bopd cut is easily being made up elsewhere -- even the Bakken can match the 100,000 bopd cut without much effort]
- OPEC producers have indicated their ideal price target is $60 [in fact, they need $100 oil, would like $80 oil but knowing that won't happen are publicly saying they can get by with $60 oil; good luck; that $60 oil is a yearly average and we are well into the fourth month of the year and Brent might be averaging $54 so far this year]
- IEA says supply/demand re-balance will occur, but even IEA notes that as the price of oil recovers, even a bit, US production will increase
The End Of Light Rail In Our Lifetime?
This is a pretty cool article if you accept the premise (I don't). From the Los Angeles Times, driverless cars will lead to a "garage-less economy." If behind a paywall google: the future is in ... a parking garage? Here's one way driverless cars will change urban development: no one will own cars and therefore garages will not be needed. If you accept the premise, and again, I don't, driverless cars will also spell the end of light rail. It will simply be too expensive, and not needed. Interestingly enough , that is not discussed in the article which is not surprising. The Los Angeles Times is very much behind light rail.