Sunday, April 12, 2020

It's Unanimous. Twenty-Three "Members" Agree to Cut Production By 9.7 Million BBls; Mexico Gets Its Way; Saudi Blinked -- April 12, 2020

Updates

April 22, 2020: link here, downloaded this date:


March 13, 2020: I just love this blog ... LOL --


Later, 8:37 p.m. CT: see first comment regarding my "mixing up" petroleum and crude oil.  The graph I often post, the one below breaks out "petroleum" and "natural gas."  See comment.

This ychart.com graph shows Saudi Arabia crude oil production from this source. For the last several years, Saudi Arabia production has run about 10.4 million bopd (the one significant dip was due to a missile attack on its fields/terminal, September, 2019.


Later, 1:58 p.m. CT: I have posted this graphic many, many times, most recently May 4, 2019, a year ago. The boe axis is at the right in the graphic below; the heavier shade is petroleum; the lighter shade is natural gas; the total is boe. If 8.5 million bbls is accurate, that is absolutely incredible. In "modern history" -- since the beginning of the shale revolution -- Saudi Arabian oil (correction: see comment: petroleum) production has never been less than 10.5 million bopd. And it's not going to be enough.



Later, 1:56 p.m. CT: smoke and mirrors. Saudi energy minister says Saudi Arabia will cut production to 8.5 million bopd.

Later, 1:43 p.m. CT: let the "spin" begin. First bit of spin:
  • Mexico: "We stood our ground; we agreed to a 100,000-bbl cut."
  • Saudi: "Mexico agree to a 400,000-bbl cut. They will cut global exports by 100,000 bbls and will export 300,000 bbls to the US, effectively taking 400,000 bbls off the global market."
  • Anyone who understands heavy oil and light oil will sort this out immediately. Bottom line: Mexico did not waver; held its ground; won. Saudi quibbled over 300,000 bobd (global production / global demand, around 100 million bopd) prior to demand destruction. Demand destruction conservatively estimated to be 20 million bopd, perhaps as much as 30 million bopd for the next six months.
  • MBS unable to have Mexican negotiators thrown into house arrest.
Later, 1:39 p.m. CT: rumor -- Mexico may "leave" OPEC+ this summer. Maybe the better word: "disinvited." As in:
"In the future, Mexico will be disinvited to OPEC+ meetings."
Later, 1:38 p.m. CT: let the spin begin --



Later, 1:36 p.m. CT: it looks like I was correct. Mexico got its way. Saudi blinked:



Original Post
Note: I do not know Spanish. I took two years of Latin in high school, and four years of German (high school / college). I may have lost something in translation. If this is important to you, go to the source, and/or find a good translation:

The screenshots:



I have yet to read the story, but back-of-the-envelope:
  • OPEC+: goal: a cut of 10.0 million bbls to include a 400,000-bbl-cut by Mexico
  • Mexico: refused; only wanted to maintain a 100,000-bbl-cut
  • subtract 300,000 from 10.0 million and one gets 9.7 million bbls
  • did Mexico get its way; did Saudi Arabia lose -- willing to sign anyway;
  • we'll wait for the story and the translation to see

5 comments:

  1. You are confusing oil (crude and lease condensate) with petroleum (or total liquids). The former has NGLs in it. The latter does not. The 10.5/8.5 is oil (no NGLs). Your graph shows figures that include NGLs.

    You've been doing this long enough. You should know how to keep track of these things. Take a strain, Air Force.

    Agreed, Mexico stood their ground. Their share was a proportional amount. Everyone was cutting about 20% But not worth blowing things up. SA got Russia and rest of OPEC to the table. Who cares about flipping Mexico. They are in decline. Before you know it, they'll be net importers.

    All that said, I don't take this as a good sign. I like US oil because it crashes prices. But I don't like high prices to prop up US oil. Would be happier with blood on the streets and dollar gasoline fillups.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. We're pretty much at dollar gasoline fill-ups now.

      I agree completely with your comments regarding Mexico. I was thinking about that, again, on my bike ride today. It is in our interest (US interest) that Mexico not implode -- I've mentioned this on the blog before -- if Mexico implodes, like Venezuela has, their citizens won't be flowing south to Guatemala; they will be heading north to California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

      Delete
    2. With regard to proportionate cut, it depends on the base year.

      Be that as it may, what I find interesting is MBS' "obsession" with Mexico. It speaks volumes about how precarious his country's condition really is.

      Delete
  2. Seems to me the House of Saud has blinked a lot lately!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I still say that if MBS had the power, he would put the Mexican energy minister under house arrest. Wow, he must be fuming.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.