Military Review

Oil. The fire is on fire. Bid on 1 trillion dollars.

110
Oil. The fire is on fire. Bid on 1 trillion dollars.



Foci of fire around the world flare up with unprecedented speed and intensity. The world is on the verge of great upheaval, because The system is being tested for rupture in full, trying to protect its hegemony.

The political conspiracy of the United States and Saudi Arabia for the forced collapse of oil is obvious and no one doubts. Each side has its own purpose.

Saudi Arabia is trying to clear the glade (by taking market share) from the weakest and most unstable participants — first of all, to intercept the African market share (Nigeria, Libya, Algeria) and to clear the Persian Gulf (Iran). This is the case when, shooting a leg in yourself, you hope to grab a fatty piece in the future. And maybe not grab, then how come ...

Saudi Arabia is not involved in the collapse of oil prices, and its role is to keep production at any price and prevent oil shortages in the market, playing a dominant role in OPEC. And the OPEC rules prohibit unilateral change of quotas without coordination with other participants. Saudis are denied access to the international market, where the pricing of oil contracts takes place (this is done by European and American structures).

The tales that the Saudis are acting against the United States, trying to dislodge shale projects, are untenable. Between the USA and Saudi Arabia the most powerful in the world stories military strategic alliance, therefore, no political decision, and even more so important in the energy market does not occur without the approval of the curator (US). Before starting to act independently (sovereignly), the Saudis must expel the entire American intelligence network from their country, which obviously is not happening. So I propose to leave nonsense about the plot of Saudi Arabia against the United States. Nothing like this. This is a concerted action.

Also complete nonsense is the statement that there is an oversupply in the world. As already mentioned before, they produce exactly as much as they have contracted. No more, no less in the long run. Of course, there are times when they mine more than they bought, i.e. oil producers form oil reserves, but these opportunities are limited to oil storage facilities (which are very expensive), and this practice itself is seasonal (repeated from year to year). Now the situation (in the balance of supply and demand) is absolutely no different from what it was a year ago or 10 years ago. The fact that they began to produce more is true, but the demand has grown strongly due to Asia in the first place.

The graph shows the dynamics of oil production and consumption by January 2015. The indicator is volatile, but production inevitably follows consumption.



The fact that the capacity utilization fell somewhat due to the fact that additional capacity from the USA appeared on the market at 4.5 million barrels - this does not affect prices, but only on future investments of companies. Moreover, the drop in US demand was intercepted by Asia, so that OPEC exports as much as 3 a year ago with the price of oil in 120.

Another journalistic delusion is the statement that China is slowing down and has stopped buying oil. According to the data of the customs structures of China - in December there were record in the whole history of China purchases of oil in physical terms in thousand tons. Details on the chart.



Also, a record volume of purchases per year. China is actively stocking up cheap oil, while giving.

The collapse of oil itself is directed by American politicians and cartels and controlled by American trades operators, as well as the forced rally of the stock markets of developed countries (to “fix” the balance of the right boys), with the simultaneous deprivation of the commodity group, especially the precious metals market ( so that the most ambitious QE runs smoothly without undermining the balance of the system and confidence in the dollar).

The US is playing on a larger scale. The United States sacrifices its energy sector, making a bet "for everything". The task is to crush and tame the obstinate - Russia, Venezuela, Iran. Three in one. Act simultaneously from all fronts.

Why Russia, Venezuela, Iran? The answer to this question is in the table below.



These are the world's largest exporters of goods. Red oval - countries that are under full or high control from the United States, blue oval - countries with a sufficient level of control; the gray oval indicates countries that do not represent any strategic importance, while the countries that have not been completely subordinated to the United States are highlighted in green.

Consumption and production of oil in the world exceeds 92 million barrels, about 43-45 million barrels (that is, almost half) are involved in foreign trade operations. The United States holds, directly or indirectly, all key players with the exception of Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. For the full 100% control over strategic energy trade flows, there is a lack of a final touch.

It is worth explaining. Despite the “despotic bloody tyrant”, Nicolas Maduro (president of Venezuela), the United States is quite well supplied from Venezuela to 340-360 million barrels per year (now less than 280 million due to the development of production in the US). Those. one million barrels a day or so.



Political fuss remains political fuss, and business remains a business. But the United States has failed for many years to establish sufficient control over the oil production of Venezuela, regulate the volume of production, supply, profits and pile up the oil market in Venezuela.

The United States does not like this, so Venezuela is traditionally proclaimed as an undemocratic country, with a lack of freedom of speech and civil rights. Also, traditionally, the United States is trying to conduct unrest in Venezuela, organizing attempts to state a coup. This happens so often that everyone has long gone astray. The last large-scale attempt began at the end of 2013 and continues to this day with varying intensity. The ultimate goal is the overthrow of the government and the establishment of the American puppet with the American dictatorship followed by the privatization of all the significant resources of Venezuela into the hands of the United States.

In Venezuela, a huge problem. Official inflation exceeds 60%, but unofficial inflation for vital groups of essential goods amounts to hundreds of percent. The country has a chronic shortage of products, medicines with a steady trend towards rising unemployment. According to my calculations, the real purchasing power of household income (low income) from 2011 to 2014 fell more than twice. In the structure of exports of goods, oil in Venezuela takes up over 93%. In fact, all exports are oil, so the dynamics of exports are almost identical to the quotes. But actually worse. Since Venezuela is losing more physical volume due to the fact that the United States began to buy less. Details here.

Venezuela has an external government debt in 110 billion dollars, and almost 100% blocked the capital market (can not borrow on reasonable terms), almost completely tied to oil exports and state budget, exorbitant social obligations and upheavals in the economy. The prospects are bleak, and with the price of oil in 45 bucks, the fall of Venezuela is a matter of time.

Do you realize that the US is playing a break?

Although the American agent network is spread all over the world and is represented, including in Russia in almost all echelons (which is only the Central Bank of the Russian Federation), however, Russia's actions in many aspects are contrary to the general foreign policy and foreign economic doctrine of the United States. It also does not like the United States. Everybody knows the chronology of pressure on Russia, so I will not waste time. I also write a lot about economic conditions.

Iran. The attack on Iran began in 2011, intensified in 2012. Sanction pressure is extremely strong (much stronger than in Russia). A complete trade embargo among US satellite countries + blocking of accounts + complete closure of capital markets + ban on cash settlement services in vassal countries of the USA. The consequences are very serious. Although Iran is held mainly by supporting Asia, prices in 45 can knock the “saddle” out of Iran.

So far, the stability of Iran and Russia is quite high, and the weak link is Venezuela. That she can go first.

The consequences of the collapse in oil prices can be very large.

This is the funeral of the entire alternative and green energy (at such prices it is simply not profitable to deal with it).

This is a multiple decrease in investments of oil and gas companies, and these investments occupy a very significant share in the economy of all countries of the world. For example, in Russia they are about 60% of the total extractive and manufacturing production. Moreover, oil and gas investments have a multiplier effect, because affect oilfield services companies, engineering, electrical equipment, the metallurgical industry and many other industries, and they, in turn, other industries, and so the chain. Oil and gas investments have the highest multiplier, even higher than in the construction industry.

This is the pressure on jobs that are almost always highly paid, i.e. the middle class and the wealthy class of the population, and this is a blow to the purchase of durable goods, tourism, real estate and so on.

This is the inevitable massive and large-scale bankruptcies of energy companies.

Very serious branch transformations.

According to my calculations and sources, when the price of oil in 45 dollars becomes unprofitable (subject to the average price per quarter at the level of 45-50):


-100% arctic projects;

-95% of shale oil and gas projects (over 65% of shale projects were on the verge of profitability with the price of oil in 110, and now all the more);

-more than 87% deep-sea mining and offshore projects;

-more than 75% of oil which is difficult to recover;

about 15% of traditional production, subject to zero taxes on oil companies. If the tax format remains in the current format, then at the price of oil in 45 dollars over 65% of traditional production is unprofitable.

For example, Rosneft, with average oil prices above 105, more than half of the revenue was taken by the state (export duties, MET, excise taxes, other types of taxes). The total cost of production and sales of oil from Rosneft is about 35 dollars per barrel (ie, exploration, drilling, maintenance, administration of the entire structure of Rosneft, payment for oilfield services companies, depreciation of fixed assets, oil transportation and final sales). The extraction itself costs no more than 7-10 bucks. This is at inflated costs. If you tighten the belt, then you can keep up with the 25-27 bucks. But without taxes. And so with the price of oil in 50 bucks (annual average), all of our oil and gas is unprofitable, completely. The same applies to more than 80% of US and European companies.

As for the subject consequences of the fall in oil prices (energy balance, company profitability, sectoral transformations) - this is a separate, very, very capacious topic. Another time somewhere in the future somehow another time sometime later.

The United States involved in the confrontation with Russia half the world. In direct confrontation 33 countries (EU + Japan + Canada + Australia + Switzerland + Norway). The loss of exporters' incomes from the collapse of prices from 105-110 to 45-50 is about 1 trillion a year. Those. we can assume that the United States has priced 1 trillion dollars for the heads of Putin, Maduro and Rouhani, putting at risk almost all of their shale industry into bankruptcy. Understand the scale of rates? There is a reflexive hand to nuclear arms not stretched ...
Originator:
http://cont.ws/post/71925
110 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. KuzkinaMother
    KuzkinaMother 16 January 2015 14: 22
    +16
    The game is really big, already half the world is on the verge of wars: external and internal.
    And then there is someone whom Voynass ..
    1. a52333
      a52333 16 January 2015 14: 28
      +10
      I will reassure the author: the USA will not attack. Opinion of a reputable Israeli ex-head of special services
      1. kirieeleyson
        kirieeleyson 16 January 2015 17: 19
        +1
        Oh, this "dead hand". All the same, there is hope to win without it.
        1. Lich
          Lich 16 January 2015 21: 16
          +2
          Then, as if reflexively, a hand to a nuclear weapon did not reach ...

          I remembered Tarmashev's book "Ancient" Part 1 :)
          By the way, I recommend a very interesting fantasy
          1. kirieeleyson
            kirieeleyson 18 January 2015 21: 42
            0
            smile read a long time ago. There are 3 or 4 parts. Interesting in GMOs in general.
      2. viktorR
        viktorR 17 January 2015 01: 56
        0
        Not a single prediction of this Kedmi came true. Let such "experts" be played on TV in Israel in Hebrew.
    2. vodolaz
      vodolaz 16 January 2015 15: 13
      +16
      It’s interesting, and if a dozen Topolis are discharged in Saudi Arabia, how quickly will oil go up?
      1. bmv04636
        bmv04636 16 January 2015 15: 49
        +3
        and there’s a vigorous bomb ticking the King of CA already 92 years old, and he suffers from diabetes and who will replace him with the question of questions before the brothers came to the throne, but now it’s not clear
        1. ermolai
          ermolai 16 January 2015 16: 08
          +3
          Quote: bmv04636
          before the brothers came to the throne, but now it’s not clear

          Well, let's send our brothers, and everything will be right according to concepts.
        2. Semurg
          Semurg 16 January 2015 18: 05
          0
          Quote: bmv04636
          and there’s a vigorous bomb ticking the King of CA already 92 years old, and he suffers from diabetes and who will replace him with the question of questions before the brothers came to the throne, but now it’s not clear

          ladder system of succession. It seems that Kievan Rus lived under such a system. with it there are minuses and pluses like any system.
        3. albert
          albert 16 January 2015 18: 44
          +2
          Quote: bmv04636
          the king of CA has already turned 92,

          Some even believe that the King of the Saudis has already died, but his death is carefully concealed due to possible instability in Arabia. Oil in this case will definitely jump up.
        4. GSH-18
          GSH-18 16 January 2015 22: 14
          0
          Quote: bmv04636
          and there’s a vigorous bomb ticking the King of CA already 92 years old, and he suffers from diabetes and who will replace him with the question of questions before the brothers came to the throne, but now it’s not clear

          Perhaps it's all over color revolution, and policy boarding the "throne" of Arabia Barakovskoy a nigger president! lol
      2. beeFrost
        beeFrost 16 January 2015 17: 07
        +1
        so what are you ?! We now have the concept of non-nuclear deterrence)). The Saudis will soon have tuberculosis, batulism, cholera break out .... Shiites will attack the suites ... and so on
    3. SAXA.SHURA
      SAXA.SHURA 16 January 2015 15: 34
      0
      The Saudis behind the Americans’s back think that it’s possible for everyone, it’s unlikely.
      1. jjj
        jjj 16 January 2015 17: 22
        +1
        Meanwhile, Switzerland unexpectedly, without prior notice, untied its franc to the euro. It became unprofitable
  2. Evgen4ik
    Evgen4ik 16 January 2015 14: 24
    +16
    It is believed that the US plan is simple. Bend unwanted countries (change regimes to pro-American) - Venezuela, Iran, Russia. And then make oil prices sky-high (for they would have reached self-sufficiency by then) and even then China will bend. And China understands this like no one else.
    1. Iline
      Iline 16 January 2015 18: 03
      +1
      The US wanted to crack down on Russia through low oil prices as quickly as it did on the USSR. But the process unexpectedly for the Americans dragged on and Russia did not follow their lead. This began to threaten the states themselves with utter collapse. Therefore, we see loud forecasts by OPEC and the International Energy Agency over the past week about increasing oil demand this year. This made it possible to stabilize the price of oil in the range of $ 45-50 per barrel and save at least some of their companies from the imminent ruin and subsequent ruin of insurance companies. The latter would be a stake in the grave of a country called the United States for so much is tied up in this country on the insurance business.
  3. Capacitor
    Capacitor 16 January 2015 14: 24
    +3
    Not for nothing did the soldier prepare his. God forbid naturally, but nonetheless!
    1. Semurg
      Semurg 16 January 2015 18: 02
      +2
      Quote: Kondensator
      Not for nothing did the soldier prepare his. God forbid naturally, but nonetheless!

      well, if a military man obviously doesn’t need a full-fledged nuclear exchange, if you are getting ready, then a good basement with a supply of water and food laughing . And of course, judging by komentom, many people go slowly laughing
  4. Vasily Ivashov
    Vasily Ivashov 16 January 2015 14: 24
    +22
    "Do you realize the scale of the stakes? Here, reflexively, the hand does not reach for nuclear weapons ..."
    - Who do we have or from the USA?
    And I like the scale, otherwise it would be ridiculous if such a fuss fired up due to some nasty Ukraine!
    1. U-47
      U-47 16 January 2015 14: 42
      +23
      Quote: Vasily Ivashov
      if such a fuss fired up due to some nasty Ukraine!
      1. Vasily Ivashov
        Vasily Ivashov 16 January 2015 14: 49
        +2
        Thank you, I’m terrified as I liked. Have fun!
        Good luck!
        1. U-47
          U-47 16 January 2015 15: 32
          +6
          Quote: Vasily Ivashov
          Have fun!
          1. Vasily Ivashov
            Vasily Ivashov 16 January 2015 15: 39
            +2
            I am writing an answer and I miss the keyboard. I haven’t laughed like this for a long time, Thank you my friend!
          2. Vovan - prison
            Vovan - prison 16 January 2015 18: 35
            +1
            wassat laughing wassat Neighing again !!! good
    2. Patriot.ru.
      Patriot.ru. 16 January 2015 17: 09
      +1
      Ukraine is not so naughty. There are also trillions and geopolitics
      1. U-47
        U-47 16 January 2015 19: 58
        +2
        Quote: Patriot.ru.
        Ukraine is not so naughty.

        You have to smell right ...
  5. Russian jacket
    Russian jacket 16 January 2015 14: 29
    +6
    Our shtatovskie friends would not have torn themselves .. Time is passing, and the most patient and unpretentious always wins from such a situation. And the scale of the pressure shows that time is not on the side of the geyrops and Mat rasnikov ... So everything is still ahead. hi
  6. D_E_A_L_E_R
    D_E_A_L_E_R 16 January 2015 14: 30
    +8
    Yes, they have sweaty feet in their mouths, these Saudis and Americans! Russia will not lie under them, not those times, not the mentality of the people to bend under someone.
    1. pavel_SPB
      pavel_SPB 16 January 2015 17: 39
      +2
      Does the government know about this?
  7. Bakht
    Bakht 16 January 2015 14: 35
    +12
    Interesting, but I want to clarify a couple of points.

    The price of oil is determined neither by consumption nor by demand. The price of oil is determined on the exchanges by speculators. They wrote about this for a long time. And you can speculate only on one condition. If there is a slight excess of goods. Therefore, the excess of production over consumption is vital for speculators. Now the surplus is about 1-1,5 million barrels per day.

    The second point, which is very significant. States do not export oil. Due to shale projects, they increased production and reduced oil imports. So reducing the price of oil is quite beneficial for the US economy. With the ban on the export of American oil, we get the picture that within the United States the price will be significantly lower than in the world. The loss ratio of shale projects is very arbitrary. In a situation where the production of both dollars and oil is inside the country - this is not a problem.

    The third point - with all this, keeping oil at a low level will not work. At low prices, China's economy will rush up so that no one will catch up.

    Summary. With my modest data analysis capabilities, this scenario can be assumed. To strengthen the growth of its economy and slow down the growth of the economies of other countries, it is necessary to reduce the price of oil inside the country and increase it outside the country. This is achieved either by a ban on exports (what the States are doing) and instability in other countries. Oil producers (this is the Middle East and the Russian Federation) and transit countries (Ukraine is critically important for Europe).

    We are waiting for Maidan in Turkey.
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 16 January 2015 15: 22
      +1
      And you can speculate only on one condition. If there is a slight excess of goods.


      Or money that circulates in the market for this product. You look at the percentage of "excess" of production over consumption and the percentage of "subsidence" of prices, do not match. But the withdrawal of finance from the oil market could well lead to a fall in prices.
      1. jjj
        jjj 16 January 2015 17: 30
        0
        For players in the oil market, the price level is completely irrelevant. 20, 40 or 100 dollars per barrel. The main thing is that at the time of the actual delivery of oil, its personifying paper was more expensive than the purchase. And the average price level by coordinated actions of players can either be increased or decreased.
        But, when the demand for physical oil is very high, it is impossible to play for a fall, since the rise in the price of futures is very tempting. Then everyone becomes bulls and supports growth
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 17 January 2015 05: 17
          0
          For players in the oil market, the price level is completely irrelevant. 20, 40 or 100 dollars per barrel.


          In the sense? If oil costs $ 100 per barrel, then from the price of the contract, say $ 50, you can weld $ 50, and if 20, then no more than 10, something must be passed to the producer.
    2. Lunic
      Lunic 16 January 2015 16: 39
      0
      Quote: Bakht
      Interesting, but I want to clarify a couple of points.

      The price of oil is determined neither by consumption nor by demand. The price of oil is determined on the exchanges by speculators. They wrote about this for a long time. And you can speculate only on one condition. If there is a slight excess of goods. Therefore, the excess of production over consumption is vital for speculators. Now the surplus is about 1-1,5 million barrels per day.

      The second point, which is very significant. States do not export oil. Due to shale projects, they increased production and reduced oil imports. So reducing the price of oil is quite beneficial for the US economy. With the ban on the export of American oil, we get the picture that within the United States the price will be significantly lower than in the world. The loss ratio of shale projects is very arbitrary. In a situation where the production of both dollars and oil is inside the country - this is not a problem.

      The third point - with all this, keeping oil at a low level will not work. At low prices, China's economy will rush up so that no one will catch up.

      Summary. With my modest data analysis capabilities, this scenario can be assumed. To strengthen the growth of its economy and slow down the growth of the economies of other countries, it is necessary to reduce the price of oil inside the country and increase it outside the country. This is achieved either by a ban on exports (what the States are doing) and instability in other countries. Oil producers (this is the Middle East and the Russian Federation) and transit countries (Ukraine is critically important for Europe).

      We are waiting for Maidan in Turkey.


      ... in general, there is already a venomous debate in the United States about allowing the sale of part of the oil abroad. In addition, a new congress (the Republican majority since the new year) is actively pushing the Keystone pipeline initiative, which involves pumping Canadian shale oil to the southern United States (Louisiana) where oil refineries are concentrated. The initiative is this: 60 percent of processed products remain in the US for domestic consumption and 40 percent are mainly for sale in Europe ....
      1. Bakht
        Bakht 17 January 2015 16: 25
        0
        I've written about "non-deliverable futures" many times. The amount of oil sold on the stock exchanges is 50 (!) Times higher than the amount of real oil. A barrel of oil until it reaches from the Middle East to Amsterdam is resold 10-15 times. So a slight excess of oil allows you to control the price of oil. Moreover, with "non-deliverable futures" there is no need to pay the full fee. A couple of percent of the cost is enough. This is pure speculation. If the exchange sells 50 times more than real oil is produced, then the Saudi Arabian oil minister is absolutely right. Reducing production will do nothing. We need a DEFICIENCY of oil.
        1. iConst
          iConst 17 January 2015 16: 47
          0
          Quote: Bakht
          Reduced production will not do anything. NEEDS DEFICIENCY OIL.

          Reduced production and creates a deficit. Or am I wrong?
          Explain if possible.
          1. Bakht
            Bakht 17 January 2015 16: 59
            +1
            Are right. But how much should be reduced? Everything is in the fog. Now an overabundance of about 2 million barrels per day. Or one and a half. Different sources. But nobody wants to agree on this reduction. Then there is another factor that no one pays attention to. Opportunities for refineries. They are already packed with oil under I can not. Six months ago, I knew that in the Gulf of Mexico there are a dozen tankers with oil under full load. Nowhere to merge. The average tanker is 250 thousand tons. There are 330 each. To reduce production now is not so simple. Especially in Russia, where mining conditions are very harsh. The tractor, which was brought in October, is not jammed until March. Otherwise, do not start. I was beyond the Arctic Circle in Alaska. That is exactly where things are. I do not think otherwise in Russia. Reduce production - then you will spend the same amount on increase.

            Exit in the withdrawal of real oil from exchange speculation. That is what Russia is now busy with. Trading around the dollar is a deadly number for the petrodollar. This is what should be brought to its logical end. And then it will be completely unimportant how much the dollar is worth - one ruble or one hundred rubles. For the simple reason that nobody in FIG will need the dollar itself. He is not just a dollar. He is petrodollar.
          2. atalef
            atalef 17 January 2015 17: 06
            +1
            Quote: iConst
            Quote: Bakht
            Reduced production will not do anything. NEEDS DEFICIENCY OIL.

            Reduced production and creates a deficit. Or am I wrong?
            Explain if possible.

            Oil shortages can occur only for 2 reasons. decline in production or rapid development of the global economy
            But in general, the oil shortage came to an end, maybe. Shale oil production is a very quick and cheap process; in America, thousands of businesses live on it, and their profitability at the level of oil prices is 50-60 bucks, on some and 30 bucks it is cost-effective.
            Drilling has been put on stream and cheap, of course, when oil falls to 40 parts will go bankrupt, but the technology will not die (for example, drilling one well is less than a month), therefore, when 40 parts are closed. when climbing to 60, they will start drilling again and this is it. that finally fixes the price of oil in the region of 50-60 bucks (or even less) is that Domocles sword. which will never allow oil to rise to sky-high 100-120-150.
            Late to drink Borjomi.
            1. Bakht
              Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 13
              0
              Idyll. Therefore, the share price of shale oil went down. It is good that I did not invest in them. Take my word for it, without any links. Shale oil is a big hemorrhoids and bluff. It will not be drilled below $ 80.

              So it’s too late to drink Borjomi. Texas is dying.
              1. atalef
                atalef 17 January 2015 17: 24
                0
                Quote: Bakht
                Idyll. Therefore, the share price of shale oil went down.

                Of course, because their profitability decreased
                Quote: Bakht
                It is good that I did not invest in them. Take my word for it, without any links. Shale oil is a big hemorrhoids and bluff

                Judging by the influence it had on world prices and raised America’s oil production 6 times --- you are deeply mistaken
                Quote: Bakht
                It will not be drilled below $ 80.

                Read articles on the topic, you will be disappointed
                One of the main questions is at what oil prices shale production will remain profitable. According to the IEA, only 4% of such production in the US is unprofitable at a price below $ 80, and most of the production at the Bakken shale field in North Dakota, the largest in the US, is profitable at a price of $ 42 and below. “Cost in Mackenzie County, the state’s most productive county, is only $ 28 per barrel,” the agency’s report said.

                About 80% of hard-to-recover oil (mainly shale oil), which can be produced in 2015, has a cost of $ 50-69 per barrel WTI, IHS estimates; this price covers capital and operating expenses and gives a rate of return of 10%. (Profitability of 10% is included in the cost estimate in all calculations.)
                1. Bakht
                  Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 30
                  +1
                  Blessed is he who believes.

                  Everyone can read. And now the harsh reality. The largest oil companies announced reductions of 50 seats. Only Schlum announced reductions of 000 people. The exploration fleet is reduced from 9000 to 15 vessels. The famous newest Mickey Mouse works as an auxiliary. These are not articles, but reality. But you can believe in yours.

                  I worked on the shelf of Alaska for 3 years. Shell invested about 10 billion there. The project is collapsed.
                  -------

                  A barrel of oil (it seems 136 liters) costs 45 bucks. This is approximately 30 cents per liter. For comparison, go to the nearest supermarket and buy there a bottle of fresh water for 30 cents. Will you find? About 90 million barrels per day are currently spent in the world. This is 2,5 liters per every inhabitant of the Earth. From the president of the United States to the last poor man in Africa.

                  Assuming non-renewable oil — even 200 bucks a barrel — is very cheap.
                  1. atalef
                    atalef 17 January 2015 17: 34
                    0
                    Quote: Bakht
                    Everyone can read. And now the harsh reality. The largest oil companies announced reductions of 50 seats. Only Schlum announced reductions of 000 people. The exploration fleet is reduced from 9000 to 15 vessels. The famous newest Mickey Mouse works as an auxiliary. These are not articles, but reality. But you can believe in yours.

                    I worked on the shelf of Alaska for 3 years. Shell invested about 10 billion there. The project is collapsed.

                    So what ? Today will be minimized, tomorrow (at 60 bucks) - open.
                    There will never be 100 bucks of oil and the greed of oil producers led to this ---- they would have kept oil at an acceptable level - no one would have thought about shale oil
                    Quote: Bakht
                    Assuming non-renewable oil — even 200 bucks a barrel — is very cheap.

                    Well, maybe 500 sell? Only who will buy?
                    1. Bakht
                      Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 41
                      0
                      Delirium of the amateur. Do you know what it means to conduct only exploration? How much does one day of a special ship cost in the Beaufort Sea? The flag is in your hands. When you find a specialist who can deploy 16 braids to you at Mickey Mouse, tell me. I will be happy for you.

                      A minimum of one year is required.
                      1. atalef
                        atalef 17 January 2015 18: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Delirium of the amateur. Do you know what it means to conduct only exploration?

                        What does it matter ? But you received money for exploration in futures with delivery a year later (as an example) and then you generally know what the cost price is?
                        That's when you figure it out - then say
                        Quote: Bakht
                        How much does one day of a special ship cost in the Beaufort Sea? The flag is in your hands.

                        Why a flag? Enough calculator. to determine the cost of the final product
                        Quote: Bakht
                        When you find a specialist who can deploy 16 braids to you at Mickey Mouse, tell me. I will be happy for you.

                        I do not know . what are you talking about, but I know that the cost of the product (when selling) includes all the costs of its production. and the cost of sales - usually includes a 10% markup on profitability, only what images do you use when producing the same Lukoil oil with a prime cost of 25 bucks per barrel and sell for 100 (at least) --- Do not you call it speculation? And then what is it?
                        How Amsterdam speculators poured water on the Lukoil mill. what would he (Lukoil or Rosneft) - receive 400% profit?
                        Cossacks mishandled laughing
                        Or you continue to argue. that having 4005 profit on the product is a fair price?
                      2. Bakht
                        Bakht 17 January 2015 18: 07
                        0
                        Do you even remember what this is about? The price is determined on the exchange, trading goods which is not. What does the cost of it?

                        And who saw a profit of 400%? No one except you. Do you think the price of the wellhead? Wow. What can you argue about? I repeat once again - less than $ 50-60 does not work out in any way. If Shell threw out 10 billion and decided that the production would not pay off - what does it mean? The start of work was at 140 dollars. Collapse of the project at 100 dollars. So the largest oil company considers 100 dollars unacceptable. What are you talking about?

                        If it is a fact that 50 people lose their jobs at a price of $ 000, what other facts do you want?
                      3. atalef
                        atalef 17 January 2015 18: 35
                        0
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Do you even remember what this is about? The price is determined on the exchange, trading goods which is not. What does the cost of it?

                        Actually, they are trading on the exchange of goods, today or with delivery over time.
                        By commodity - do you understand or not?
                        I can sell (as a manufacturer) I can not.
                        Without the goods delivered by me, no bidding can be a priori.
                        Then you generally understand. What is a stock exchange?
                        This is just an intermediary between the seller and the BUYER.
                        I determine (as a buyer) whether I will buy for this price or not, the broker only fulfills my will

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And who saw a profit of 400%? No one except you.

                        Mathematics is a stubborn thing. how much is your profit - at a cost of production of 25 bucks. and selling at 150?
                        Or do you have special math?
                        Quote: Bakht
                        I repeat once again - less than $ 50-60 does not work in any way

                        You know, let's calm down. let it be 50-60, a profit of 200% - is this normal? Or speculation?
                        Quote: Bakht
                        . If Shell threw out 10 billion and decided that the production would not pay off - what does it mean?

                        What do they know how to count
                        Quote: Bakht
                        The start of work was at 140 dollars. Collapse of the project at 100 dollars. So the largest oil company considers 100 dollars unacceptable. What are you talking about?

                        I'm talking about that. that the cost of production at that field was above $ 100, under modern conditions, to mine at a loss? Well, it's like with galoshes in the USSR
                        Quote: Bakht
                        If it is a fact that 50 people lose their jobs at a price of $ 000, what other facts do you want?

                        It's okay, it's much better than raising the whole world into trillions.
                        Let them optimize production. reduce costs. I reduce salaries for managers - you look and no one will have to be fired.
                      4. iConst
                        iConst 17 January 2015 18: 41
                        +1
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Do you even remember what this is about? The price is determined on the exchange, trading goods which is not. What does the cost of it?

                        I will take the liberty of inviting you to end the discussion with atalef.

                        People are either fooling around or rigidly profaning. In any case - toss the beads. smile
                      5. Bakht
                        Bakht 17 January 2015 19: 37
                        0
                        I agree. Moreover, this is not the first time. drinks
          3. iConst
            iConst 17 January 2015 17: 57
            0
            Quote: atalef
            Read articles on the topic, you will be disappointed

            You will also be disappointed with some factors:
            - Bans on the extraction of oil and gas in this way in many states and the process did not stop.
            - Overestimated estimates of the profitability of wells (for the "goodness" of loans from banks) - the decline in production volumes occurs much earlier than announced.
            - And the factor of cheap equipment that rusted in warehouses and at the beginning of the shale boom was sold as scrap metal. New, instead of worn out and spent, will drastically reduce the profitability of the already not very easy extraction.
            1. atalef
              atalef 17 January 2015 18: 39
              0
              Quote: iConst
              Prohibitions on oil and gas production in this way in many states and the process did not stop.

              Facts say that. that the United States increased oil production (over 5 years) by 6 times. and on gas we went to self-sufficiency - the rest is a conversation in favor of the poor
              Quote: iConst
              Overestimated estimates of the profitability of wells (for the "goodness" of loans from banks) - a decline in production volumes occurs much earlier than announced.

              Reducing oil prices to 50 bucks (while all the same, part of the oil shale remains cost-effective) - everything else is glossary

              Quote: iConst
              And the factor of cheap equipment that rusted in warehouses and at the beginning of the shale boom was sold as scrap

              Nothing. Now they are conserving it (they will preserve a maximum of 0. When oil prices rise, they will again be put into operation (as already, YES?)
              Shale oil is a fact and a strategic shift in the production market - therefore, few people believe in oil (if war does not break out) for more than 60 bucks
  8. atalef
    atalef 17 January 2015 17: 01
    0
    Quote: Bakht
    . A barrel of oil until it reaches the region of the Middle East to Amsterdam is resold 10-15 times. So a small excess of oil allows you to control the price of oil.

    This is with any product, beef. Pork. orange juice and coffee (as well as dozens of other products. Delivery after a certain time) are traded in the same way.
    Only here is the question of how it is, good or bad - intermediaries seem to have remained. and the price is falling?
    I don’t understand the hype when goods become cheaper - it’s good for everyone, the price of oil was lifted higher by speculators above the roof. now this period has come to a reasonable end.
    Oil is getting cheaper. gasoline is getting cheaper. electricity, less production costs - what's wrong with that?
    1. Bakht
      Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 05
      0
      This is not with all goods.

      But your thesis that the price of oil was lifted above the roof, I would argue. How much oil is spent today per day. and what is the cost of oil? If you can say, then there will be something to compare
      1. atalef
        atalef 17 January 2015 17: 12
        0
        Quote: Bakht
        But your thesis that the price of oil was lifted above the roof, I would argue

        Please bet how much is the price of production? What profitability is considered (in industry) to be excellent? 12% is super.
        Here we are talking about hundreds of percent profit - is this a fair price?
        Quote: Bakht
        . How much oil is spent today per day. and what is the cost of oil?

        It does not matter, the same bread wasted no measured. but no one sells it at 500% profit
        1. Bakht
          Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 17
          0
          What is the cost of oil? The question is simple. Not at the wellhead. To understand the difference - you need at least a little to be in the subject.
          1. atalef
            atalef 17 January 2015 17: 26
            0
            Quote: Bakht
            What is the cost of oil? The question is simple. Not at the wellhead. To understand the difference - you need at least a little to be in the subject.

            So how much does it cost? Including all associated costs?
            You do not understand . that the prices in any case are rather averaged by mk in old deposits - it is lower. in new fields higher. but in Russia an average of 25 bucks a barrel.
            1. Bakht
              Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 35
              0
              Nowhere in the world is there a price of $ 25 per barrel. Saudi is cheaper because on land. And because tanker shipping is cheaper. But still, the Gavar field is running out of steam.

              Nobody knows the exact numbers. Simmons wanted to know - drowned in his pool at home. And I still want to live.
              1. atalef
                atalef 17 January 2015 18: 03
                0
                Quote: Bakht
                Nowhere in the world is there a price of $ 25

                How much do you have ? Or is Primakov lying?
                How much . voice the price?
                Quote: Bakht
                Nobody knows the exact numbers. Simmons wanted to know - drowned in his pool at home. And I still want to live.

                Sleep well. no one sold at a loss.
  • Throw
    Throw 16 January 2015 18: 51
    0
    And you can speculate only on one condition. If there is a slight excess of goods.


    Absurd.

    And with a deficit, it is impossible to duplicate that? Yes, it is, despite the fact that a large part of the production volume has been contracted! Moreover, there are derivatives such as futures and options.
    1. Bakht
      Bakht 17 January 2015 16: 32
      0
      You can speculate and air. About futures, I wrote my vision. Maybe it's wrong. But it is. In principle, all (all) oil is contracted. But here's what the jump in price due to a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico means, you probably heard. Or just a clerk’s mistake and the price jumps unpredictably. Although production has not changed a barrel.

      A slight deviation from the topic. I somehow drew attention to trading in the shares of my company (not mine, but in the one in which I work). And I decided to see how general managers trade stocks. The coolest was not the general, but the financial director. He traded in thousands of stocks. That sold, then bought. Of course, I had a delay in information, but I began to follow his body movements. And I have never lost. Although I had only a couple dozen stocks. But in the minus I did not get even once. Conclusion: Forget about the analysts. Information is more expensive than money. And the price of oil is determined only by speculators. You can give me a hundred arguments. I have a REAL example before my eyes.
      1. iConst
        iConst 17 January 2015 16: 48
        0
        Quote: Bakht
        But here's what the jump in price due to a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico means, you probably heard. Or just a clerk’s mistake and the price jumps unpredictably. Although production has not changed a barrel.

        The pricing factor is associated not only with the production conditions - but also with the conditions of sale.

        But, most likely, the basis is simple speculation about and without reason.
      2. iConst
        iConst 17 January 2015 16: 53
        0
        Quote: Bakht
        About futures, I wrote my vision. Maybe it's wrong. But it is.

        What is a vision? smile

        Futures generally need to (my opinion) be prohibited. This is a prerequisite for price manipulation, in which the concept of the market goes into oblivion.

        If a money bag has been invested in futures, and by the time the transaction is closed, the current price does not suit him, then he includes all the resources to adjust the price to conditions favorable to him.
        Nonsense - don't you find?
        1. atalef
          atalef 17 January 2015 16: 56
          0
          Quote: iConst
          Futures generally need (my opinion) to ban

          And how do you understand --- futures?
          And if you call it - an advance payment for goods delivered in the future?
          How are you with this?
          Quote: iConst
          If any money bag has been invested in futures, and by the time the transaction is closed, the current price does not suit him, then he includes all the resources to adjust the price to favorable conditions

          Did you come up with this yourself?
          1. iConst
            iConst 17 January 2015 17: 18
            0
            Quote: atalef
            And if you call it - an advance payment for goods delivered in the future?

            Amendment - advance payment (although this is not an advance payment) for nonexistent product! It is only assumed that it will be at that time and at the estimated price. How do you like this?
            Quote: atalef

            Quote: iConst

            If any money bag has been invested in futures, and by the time the transaction is closed, the current price does not suit him, then he includes all the resources to adjust the price to favorable conditions

            Did you come up with this yourself?

            No - this stems from the speculator’s logic regarding futures. If I were a money bag - I would do so (yes they do, whoever can).
            1. Bakht
              Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 23
              0
              Deliverable futures DOES NOT ALLOW delivery of goods at all. Neither now nor in the future. This is air. And there are 50 times more such futures than real goods.
              1. iConst
                iConst 17 January 2015 17: 31
                0
                Quote: Bakht
                Deliverable futures DOES NOT ALLOW delivery of goods at all. Neither now nor in the future. This is air. And there are 50 times more such futures than real goods.

                At last! In the hole!
                Thank you, I know what futures are without delivery. Only, returning to my thesis about the dangers of futures (against which you are fighting) - FUCK IT HE NEEDS?

                ?? laughing
                1. Bakht
                  Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 42
                  0
                  I fight against non-deliverable futures. Normal futures are a perfectly acceptable thing.
                  1. atalef
                    atalef 17 January 2015 18: 05
                    0
                    Quote: Bakht
                    I fight against non-deliverable futures. Normal futures are a perfectly acceptable thing.

                    Are you for futures delivery yesterday?
                    those. when futures traded oil at 150 - this is correct and not speculative futures. but 40 is pure speculation belay
                    Tell me . can oil have changed or has the barrel dried up?
                    1. Bakht
                      Bakht 17 January 2015 18: 12
                      0
                      Listen google at least what is a DELIVERY futures I suggest. The keyword is WITHOUT.
                    2. atalef
                      atalef 17 January 2015 18: 41
                      0
                      Quote: Bakht
                      Listen google at least what is a DELIVERY futures I suggest. The keyword is WITHOUT.

                      I perfectly understand what I mean, but you understand. that someone should buy it, and what does it pay for?
              2. atalef
                atalef 17 January 2015 17: 44
                0
                Quote: iConst
                But why the hell is he NEEDED?

                ??

                So the same Rosneft needs money today. and oil will be obtained only in a month-- and this is what is needed.
                1. Bakht
                  Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 49
                  0
                  I'm tired. Here is the information for you. If you want more details, you will find on the Internet.

                  Speculation only

                  Each trade contract for a term of IPRE1 based in London or in the bowels of the NYMEX2 represents 1000 barrels of oil. In 2003, the total amount of trade was 100 billion barrels. This figure, exceeding the annual volume of oil production, can only be explained by speculation. Annually, up to 570 barrels recorded on paper during the sale correspond to one single “real” barrel.

                  These operations have a dual purpose: to control and manipulate prices. The prices declared publicly are speculative, and they are not the prices at which oil is sold daily in accordance with long-term contracts.

                  In London, on the IPE market, speculators can carry out transactions with funds representing only 3,8% of their purchases. 1000 barrels of $ 40 each amount to $ 40, of which buyers pay only $ 000, or 1250% of the total. Transactions concluded in this market correspond to five times the volume of world oil production in all types. You can control world oil prices even if you have insignificant capital.

                  An even more surreal fact. Brent, an oil field in the North Sea, provides only 0,4% of world oil production, while its spot price is up to 60% of the value of all world oil production.
                  IPE is managed by the former head of Shell, Sir Robert Reid, along with representatives of the largest banks in the world.

                  As soon as the Saudis decide to produce 2 million barrels per day in addition to bring down prices, speculators immediately buy through NYMEX 77 long-term contracts. Each contract represents 000 barrels of oil, and they hold the equivalent of 1000 million barrels in their hands and thus raise oil prices and neutralize the Saudi initiative.

                  Oil companies are often the first to use these speculative leverage. In order to increase their profits, they also reduce their capacity in oil refining, this is a bottleneck causing a sharp rise in oil prices. They pretend that the reduction in the number of treatment plants in the United States over the past twenty years is due to pressure from environmentalists. This is for the most part a lie; such decisions, rather, reflect the statement of the leaders of these firms: oil is becoming increasingly rare. They prefer to reduce their investment in oil exploration and speculate on prices. Another initiative comes from difficulties that are increasing: the merger and purchase of oil companies, which have been produced since the end of 1990.
                  In December 1998, BP and Amoko merged; in April BP-Amoko was bought by Arco; in December 1999, Exxon and Mobile merged; in October 2000, the turn of "Chevron" and "Texaco"; then, in November 2001, Philips and Konoko; in September 2002, Shell acquired the Penzoli-Quaker Street; in February 2003, Frontier Oil and Holi merged; in March 2004, Marathon buys 40% of Ashland’s capital; in April 2004, Westport buys Kerr-Mack Gee; in July 2004, financial analysts proposed merging BP and Shell; In April 2005, Chevron-Texaco bought Unocal, a California-based company that the Chinese really wanted to buy.

                  These great maneuvers spur the exchange rate and increase the reserves held by these new mastodons, but this is primarily about the latest tricks of the industry, which is declining and becoming as fragile as the automotive industry or airlines.
                  1. atalef
                    atalef 17 January 2015 17: 54
                    0
                    Quote: Bakht
                    These operations have a dual purpose: to control and manipulate prices. Prices stated publicly are speculative and they are not those prices

                    I agree with you. The price of oil at 100-150 bucks a barrel is a typical speculation. Now speculators seem to have a tail, although at a profitability (normal at 12%) the price of oil at the level of 30 bucks (taking into account production for 25) is also quite normal
                  2. Bakht
                    Bakht 17 January 2015 18: 01
                    0
                    Have you ever learned arithmetic? Cost of 25 bucks (as you wrote) an export duty of 20 bucks per barrel. Plus shipping costs. Plus margin. Below $ 50-60 I can’t do it.
                  3. atalef
                    atalef 17 January 2015 18: 44
                    0
                    Quote: Bakht
                    Have you ever learned arithmetic? Cost of 25 bucks (as you wrote) an export duty of 20 bucks per barrel.

                    I tell you again, I absolutely do not give a damn about the export duty, the duty is a tax in favor of the state, and I (as buyer 0, have absolutely no obligation to feed the Russian budget.
                    those. I do not care . who profits from 25 bucks in production costs - a company or a state (selling at 100-150) - this is pure speculation
                    Or are you against it?
                    Quote: Bakht
                    Plus margin. Below $ 50-60 I can’t do it.

                    And sell for 100 - no speculation?
        2. atalef
          atalef 17 January 2015 17: 41
          0
          Quote: Bakht
          Deliverable futures DOES NOT ALLOW delivery of goods at all. Neither now nor in the future. This is air. And there are 50 times more such futures than real goods.

          And then who gets the money for futures? So a strange question?
          For example, Rosneft entered the futures market with 1 million tons of 9 non-existent oil) - when will it receive the money?
          What ? Question. and ?
          So Rosneft (as an example) receives money today (for non-existing oil) - it’s good and wonderful, but the one who invested in it and waits another half a year (at the risk of noticing losing at a lower price) is speculation - it’s not absurd find?
          1. Bakht
            Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 45
            0
            Nobody gets money for non-deliverable futures. Speculators get the difference in price. It can be measured in cents. But there are a lot of them. So Rosneft with its real oil has nothing to do with it.

            This is exclusively the business of stock speculators.
            1. atalef
              atalef 17 January 2015 18: 09
              0
              Quote: Bakht
              Nobody gets money for non-deliverable futures.

              Where is the margin? As Putin said, and what kind of speculators are they. if no one gets the money? belay
              Quote: Bakht
              Speculators get the difference in price

              You deal with yourself
              If I (Rosneft) as an example. I contract oil on the futures at 100 bucks per barrel. so she does get 100 bucks a barrel. and here’s what they’re doing with this contract - she (Rosneft) no longer cares.
              Only speculators apparently went some wrong way - are they trading at a loss? Or maybe they just take less in your pocket?
              Quote: Bakht
              This is exclusively the business of stock speculators.

              Operate with numbers. not slogans - it will be easier.
              1. Bakht
                Bakht 17 January 2015 18: 13
                0
                So I only operate with numbers. It’s just that you still didn’t understand the exchange working scheme. Anyway. It is interesting to discuss with those who understand something in the subject. I have never succeeded with you.
              2. atalef
                atalef 17 January 2015 18: 46
                0
                Quote: Bakht
                So I only operate with numbers. It’s just that you still didn’t understand the exchange working scheme.

                Of course I didn’t understand. I’ve been sitting in it for only 14 years. laughing
                Quote: Bakht
                I have never succeeded with you.

                Tell me the block of shares that you are holding now and when you made the last time (on the exchange) to buy / sell - then we'll talk.
    2. atalef
      atalef 17 January 2015 17: 40
      0
      Quote: iConst
      Amendment - advance payment (although this is not an advance payment) for non-existent goods! It is only assumed that it will be at that time and at the estimated price. How do you like this?

      Fine . mk can win as a buyer. so is the seller.
      imagine. because someone bought (half a year ago) futures for delivery in January for 80 bucks, the seller won.
      The balance is maintained. Do not twist
      You need money today. for non-existing oil (which you deliver in half a year. 3 months. month)
      One of two things - or keep enough money on your balance sheet. Do not go into futures and sell on the spot, and if you want to get money for air today, then either sell for how much they will give on futures or sit with a bare bolt.
      Quote: iConst
      No - this stems from the speculator’s logic regarding futures.

      It’s strange. when oil half a year ago was 100 bucks - it was a fair price. and when she’s 50 bucks now, it’s speculation belay
      Or am I a ram, or have speculators become neither?
  • Bakht
    Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 11
    0
    Futures was invented for grain initially. This is not a stupid thing. A farmer needs credit to grow crops. And needed in the spring. And he will sell the crop in the fall. So futures were invented to smooth out the risks. But here the WITHOUT DELIVERY futures came up with speculator Mark Rich.
    1. atalef
      atalef 17 January 2015 17: 28
      0
      Quote: Bakht
      Futures was invented for grain initially. This is not a stupid thing. A farmer needs credit to grow crops. And needed in the spring. And he will sell the crop in the fall. So futures were invented to smooth out the risks. But here the WITHOUT DELIVERY futures came up with speculator Mark Rich.

      Well, and in what (how does commodity 0 oil differ from grain?
      As an oil producer, today I need money for development. intelligence. equipment - money today - and oil tomorrow.
      Everything is logical. By the way, not a small part is also sold in spot markets.
      1. Bakht
        Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 33
        0
        You do not read. I write that you need to trade real goods. Non-deliverable trading is just speculation. In 2008, Obama hinted at trading real goods. They quickly explained to him that he was nobody and there was no way to call him.
        1. atalef
          atalef 17 January 2015 18: 11
          0
          Quote: Bakht
          You do not read. I write that you need to trade real goods.

          Here I am about that. why the heck Rosneft sells not produced oil belay
          Probably really wants money
          Quote: Bakht
          . In 2008, Obama hinted at trading real goods. They quickly explained to him that he was nobody and there was no way to call him.

          Well, as always, you were present at this conversation.
          1. Bakht
            Bakht 17 January 2015 18: 16
            0
            Just Rosneft does not trade in crude oil. Am I talking to the prizepack? Or do not you read ?.

            I was not present. I listened to Obama's speech in a hotel room in New Orleans. I was getting ready to fly to the Gulf of Mexico.

            If you didn’t listen, then it’s not my fault.
            1. atalef
              atalef 17 January 2015 18: 48
              0
              Quote: Bakht
              Just Rosneft does not trade in crude oil.

              Does Rosneft sell everything on the spot market? belay
              Quote: Bakht
              I listened to Obama's speech in a hotel room in New Orleans. I was getting ready to fly to the Gulf of Mexico.

              So how is it ? Did they shut his mouth with you?
              Reset Link
    2. iConst
      iConst 17 January 2015 17: 38
      0
      Quote: Bakht
      Futures was invented for grain initially. This is not a stupid thing. A farmer needs credit to grow crops. And needed in the spring. And he will sell the crop in the fall. So futures were invented to smooth out the risks. But here the WITHOUT DELIVERY futures came up with speculator Mark Rich.

      And where is the exchange and credit?

      And then - you never know when it was thought up as good - now this is evil. Dot.

      There are other mechanisms for the scenario you described. Mankind has been growing grain for tens of thousands of years. And the economy was not invented a hundred or five hundred years ago.

      What are you fighting for - I don’t understand ...
      1. atalef
        atalef 17 January 2015 18: 12
        0
        Quote: iConst
        And then - you never know when it was thought up as good - now this is evil. Dot.

        Well, when 150 bucks a barrel is good. and 40 is evil.
        World turned upside down
        Quote: iConst
        Mankind has been growing grain for tens of thousands of years. And the economy was not invented a hundred or five hundred years ago.

        sorry - kindergarten.
        1. Bakht
          Bakht 17 January 2015 18: 18
          0
          Where is the logic?

          Maybe the price of 150 was normal. But at $ 40, Obama said that he personally had a hand in order to bring down the price. Although you are not listening to Obama. But for some reason I’m listening. What about Obama’s statement that he is pleased that he personally had a hand in the collapse in oil prices. Not a speculator?
          1. atalef
            atalef 17 January 2015 18: 49
            0
            Quote: Bakht
            Maybe the price of 150 was normal. But at $ 40, Obama said that he personally had a hand in order to bring down the price.

            Thanks to Obama, this is good for buyers. Cheaper to pay - that's right
            Quote: Bakht
            Although you are not listening to Obama. But for some reason I’m listening. What about Obama’s statement that he is pleased that he personally had a hand in the collapse in oil prices. Not a speculator?

            Some speculator is not correct. There would be more of these.
        2. iConst
          iConst 17 January 2015 18: 33
          0
          Quote: atalef
          Quote: iConst
          And then - you never know when it was thought up as good - now this is evil. Dot.

          Well, when 150 bucks a barrel is good. and 40 is evil.
          World turned upside down
          Quote: iConst
          Mankind has been growing grain for tens of thousands of years. And the economy was not invented a hundred or five hundred years ago.

          sorry - kindergarten.

          Sorry - this is a mess in your head - with futures you are replacing loans, speculation with normal market relations (garbage - one of the participants in the transaction is fucking hard, the second either went bankrupt or (which is usually) transferred the losses to the end consumer - people - eat wheat at an exorbitant price futures!

          In fact, or include a fool? Tired of it already.
          1. atalef
            atalef 17 January 2015 19: 01
            0
            Quote: iConst
            Sorry - this is your cereal in your head - you replace loans with futures,

            porridge in YOU’s head, access to the fishery market is getting money for goods not delivered ... or ... well? You were credited - sorry
            Quote: iConst
            speculation - normal market relations

            Well, yes, when 150 per barrel - this is normal market relations. and when 40 (note the same oil. from the same places) - this is speculation. Weird you
            Quote: iConst
            shifted losses to the final consumer - people - eat wheat at exorbitant prices for futures!

            Oh, just substitute wheat for oil - and you will receive - 150 oil each is a three-fold, speculation.
            Quote: iConst
            In fact, or include a fool? Tired of it already.

            You turn on Durku. trying to prove. that trading at 100 barrels for oil is normal. and 50 is speculation
            I'm telling you . that 50 is speculation. and 100 - is already a robbery - and thank God that it ended.
            I consider the real price of oil - 25 + 10% - about 30 bucks per barrel, and let the state receive a profit tax.
            hi
          2. Bakht
            Bakht 17 January 2015 19: 47
            0
            Settlement (non-deliverable) futures suggests that between participants cash settlement only in the amount of the difference between the contract price and the actual price of the asset at the date of execution of the contract without physical delivery underlying asset. Commonly used for hedging the risk of changes in the price of the underlying asset or for speculative purposes.


            I still had to go to Google. There is no product. Just not physically. And there are billions of such deals. What does the increase or decrease in production. Pure speculation. And if our opponent does not understand (although he sits on the stock exchange), then it can be explained that speculation happens both for a decrease and an increase. I did not come up with bulls and bears on the exchange.
            1. atalef
              atalef 17 January 2015 20: 01
              0
              Quote: Bakht
              I still had to go to Google. There is no product. Just not physically

              You confuse soft with sour
              The seller who has exposed and sold the goods in the futures market receives money for the minute of its sale and at the price set at that time
              Eventually . the seller receives MONEY, the buyer has the contract exclusively (without a product, of course, because it will be delivered exclusively on the day the contract is executed), then the buyer who has the delivery contract and paid the money has the right (of course, 0 to do whatever he wants with this contract - then the moment of non-deliverable futures comes, that is, the sale is under a contract - (in this case, a debt obligation) and only at the very last stage (in the event that this contract (re-mortgaged. sold. acted as a guarantor) on the maturity day acquires the status of a commodity .
              Up to this point - HE IS DELIVERY. --- understandably ?
              But the seller then (suppose Rosneft 0 has long received money for it.
              The rest is a stock exchange game.
              Futures determine market trends in the first place
              How it works . the company comes out and says. we are ready to sell say a million barrels of oil with delivery in a month - who pay how much?
              Buyers come out with applications, and so - the price for which they are ready to buy - this is the price of the futures.
              Buyer . calculating risks determines the trend and prices.
              Learn mate part
              Futures (futures contract) (from futures) is a derivative financial instrument, a standard fixed-term exchange contract for the sale and purchase of an underlying asset, at the conclusion of which the parties (seller and buyer) agree only on the price level and delivery time. The remaining parameters of the asset (quantity, quality, packaging, labeling, etc.) are agreed in advance in the specification of the exchange contract. The parties are liable to the exchange until the execution of the futures.
              1. Bakht
                Bakht 17 January 2015 20: 10
                0
                We certainly speak different languages. The difference in the two types of futures is precisely the absence of goods. It is not intended initially. Profit or loss is determined after the lapse of time at the price that is at the time the contract expires. Understand a simple thing. There is no product. I buy air and within a day I can resell it a hundred times. The difference is a couple of cents and makes my profit or loss.

                Obama said that it is necessary to stop trading non-deliverable futures and trade in REAL goods. At that time it was all very much discussed with us. Since so far (and 6 years have passed) nothing has happened, we can conclude that this offer does not suit the exchange. I remember that literally a couple of days later there was a message that exchanges would not change the rules of their work. I don’t want to search for links. Do not believe - I will not convince.

                I understand perfectly that a product can be resold at least a thousand times. But here already noted. This does not work with real oil, because it is impossible to resell it. It is all contracted for many years to come. This can only be done with surplus. Therefore, without a small overabundance, speculation is impossible. Well, Shell or Rosneft will not allow (it doesn’t matter) to trade in oil that has already been contracted.

                Now, if there is a small deficit, you will see what the real cost of oil will be. In the meantime, it is trading cheaper than drinking water. So what is its real value, no one knows.
  • atalef
    atalef 17 January 2015 17: 08
    0
    Quote: Lance
    And with a deficit, it is impossible to duplicate that? Yes, it is, despite the fact that a large part of the production volume has been contracted! Moreover, there are derivatives such as futures and options.

    Interesting . and what was Russia doing, selling oil at 100 -150 bucks a barrel? This is an honest price or pure speculation (the cost of production is 25 bucks) - 600% of the profits weren’t weak.
    1. Bakht
      Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 15
      0
      Do you believe the media? What is the price of oil now? I asked a specific question. She didn’t even cost 25 bucks in Azerbaijan. If the Saudis can get 25 bucks a barrel, I’ll put a monument to them
      1. atalef
        atalef 17 January 2015 17: 31
        0
        [quote = Bakht] Do you believe the media? What is the price of oil now? I asked a specific question. She didn’t even cost 25 bucks in Azerbaijan. If the Saudis can get 25 bucks a barrel, I’ll put a monument to them [/ quote]
        [/ quote] On most fields, an acceptable yield provides a price of $ 60 per barrel. And LUKOIL stated that production in Western Siberia is profitable even at 25 dollars per barrel, ”Primakov noted. [/ Quote]
        So what kind of profit were profiteers selling oil at 110 -130 bucks a barrel?
        1. Bakht
          Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 37
          0
          The export duty in the Russian Federation has been reduced to $ 112 per ton. Today's post. That means about $ 20 a barrel. So to add this digit too. As well as transportation costs for pipelines. How many km are from Western Siberia to Europe?

          I said that you need to be at least a little bit in the subject.
          1. atalef
            atalef 17 January 2015 18: 17
            0
            Quote: Bakht
            The export duty in the Russian Federation has been reduced to $ 112 per ton. Today's post. That means about $ 20 a barrel. So to add this digit too

            Yes, I do not give a damn about Russian export duties and how much the Russian budget wants to weld on gasoline that I fill. You can try to suck in your oil for 100 bucks, the world apparently prefers another
            Apparently in Saudi kings are not so greedy and are willing to sell cheaper - thanks to them. gasoline has fallen in price for almost half a dollar per liter in half a year.

            Quote: Bakht
            As well as transportation costs for pipelines. How many km are from Western Siberia to Europe?

            If you have such an expensive product - then reduce the cost. or go bankrupt-- there is no other way.
  • vadson
    vadson 16 January 2015 14: 37
    +3
    well, their mother has globalized, you start to dream of a curtain of iron with all its pros and cons
    1. Bakht
      Bakht 17 January 2015 16: 37
      0
      You are right at 100 and even 200%.

      But ... What devalued Putin's speech? The last phrase "we are open to world cooperation." Why were there no crises in the USSR? Due to the closedness of the market from speculators. Market openness means crises. Medvedev just said today that the convertibility of the ruble is unchanged. This is a straight path to the abyss. But he's an idiot, and there's nothing you can do about it.

      The way out of the crisis is to ban the convertibility of the ruble and close its markets. But that means REVOLUTION. This is not like Medvedev, not even Putin.

      If the price of your oil is determined in Amsterdam, if the rating of the country is determined by some firms, then there is no independence and will not be.
      1. atalef
        atalef 17 January 2015 17: 16
        0
        Quote: Bakht
        Why were there no crises in the USSR?

        Because . that there was no economy in the USSR., in its normal form, and planned loss-making enterprises existed for decades, producing galoshes that no one needed (as an example)
        Quote: Bakht
        the way out of the crisis is to ban ruble convertibility and close its markets

        Wellcome to North Korea
        Quote: Bakht
        If the price of your oil is determined in Amsterdam, if the rating of the country is determined by some firms, then there is no independence and will not be.

        You know. at home (in Russia) you can put forward any ratings and set any price. if you are trading abroad. then reconcile. that the price determines the balance between the desire of the buyer and seller.
        Do not like it - do not sell.
        1. Bakht
          Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 21
          0
          This is not a serious conversation. I do not want to participate, because in the same post I understand that you have no idea what the Soviet economy is. Not Brezhnev, but Stalin. By the way, galoshes were goods that have no competition in the world. And in demand in the world. So the irony is out of place.

          I can only give you a hint. In the USSR, the profitability of enterprises did not stand in the first place. And unprofitable enterprises worked perfectly. You just need to understand the difference between different economies. You can argue for a long time and from experience I know that it is useless.

          The closure of markets and the ruble's non-convertibility does not at all mean North Korea. That you hit the sky with your finger. In the middle
          1. iConst
            iConst 17 January 2015 17: 48
            0
            Quote: Bakht
            This is not a serious conversation. I do not want to participate, because in the same post I understand that you have no idea what the Soviet economy is. Not Brezhnev, but Stalin. By the way, galoshes were goods that have no competition in the world. And in demand in the world. So the irony is out of place.

            I can only give you a hint. In the USSR, the profitability of enterprises did not stand in the first place. And unprofitable enterprises worked perfectly. You just need to understand the difference between different economies. You can argue for a long time and from experience I know that it is useless.

            The closure of markets and the ruble's non-convertibility does not at all mean North Korea. That you hit the sky with your finger. In the middle

            I agree with the idea that the basis is "why".
            The Western market, with artificially lowering the purchase price of agricultural products, and then subsidizing by the state at the expense of high technology revenues, is a dubious model, to put it mildly. The better the regulated USSR?

            The answer is simple - cut off the competition of underdeveloped countries to accumulate initial capital that can be invested by these countries (and will be invested) in high technology. Western Europe, without a sufficient raw material base, cannot allow countries with raw materials to get hold of technology. This is the death of a well-fed Geyrope.

            It's me for atalef.
            1. atalef
              atalef 17 January 2015 18: 23
              +1
              Quote: iConst
              The Western market, with artificially lowering the purchase price of agricultural products, and then subsidizing by the state at the expense of high technology revenues, is a dubious model, to put it mildly. The better the regulated USSR?

              Probably the fact that one fell apart. and the second lives
              Quote: iConst
              The answer is simple - cut off the competition of underdeveloped countries to accumulate initial capital, to

              Competition of Underdeveloped Countries laughing
              oranges do not grow on aspen, when an underdeveloped country develops and becomes highly developed - then there will be a competitor. and so, some are lifting up prices for raw materials - others for technology -
              Quote: iConst
              Western Europe, without a sufficient raw material base, cannot allow countries with raw materials to get hold of technology.

              Yes? So controversial statement. which even introduces a little into a stupor.
              And what prevented Russia. getting hundreds of billions of ha oil - to develop their technology. buy western?
              Like the rest of the country?
              Just the presence of light grandmas. hitters from the ground - relaxes. Europe did not have such a luxury.
              It was necessary to work, head first
              Quote: iConst
              This is me for atalef.

              Do not strain. There are no minerals in Israel. at the same time, we are remarkably technologically advanced - not a dock.
              1. iConst
                iConst 17 January 2015 18: 39
                0
                Quote: atalef
                not a dock.

                Exactly - inconsistency - read my post again laughing

                And if you don't "enter" - then, alas, the inconsistency is permanent, guess where?

                CAPACITIES: all that is higher is generally nonsense. Although the stupor, perhaps, is also permanent. laughing
                1. atalef
                  atalef 17 January 2015 18: 54
                  0
                  Quote: iConst
                  Quote: atalef
                  not a dock.

                  Exactly - inconsistency - read my post again laughing

                  And if you don't "enter" - then, alas, the inconsistency is permanent, guess where?

                  CAPACITIES: all that is higher is generally nonsense. Although the stupor, perhaps, is also permanent. laughing

                  Of course of course . what is stopping Angola. Nigeria or Russia to become like Qatar or Saudi Arabia with Kuwait?
                  They get little money for oil * Can't buy technology? Do not invite professors and teachers and raise their scientists and production personnel?
                  What prevents that?
                  So get them. besides local theft and stupid rulers limits?
          2. atalef
            atalef 17 January 2015 17: 51
            0
            Quote: Bakht
            This is not a serious conversation. I do not want to participate, because in the same post I understand that you have no idea what the Soviet economy is.

            What are you saying ? It’s strange. on the economics of socialism had a solid 5
            Quote: Bakht
            Not Brezhnev, but Stalin

            Stalin's economy - in general, some kind of nonsense

            Quote: Bakht
            By the way, galoshes were goods that have no competition in the world. And in demand in the world. So the irony is out of place.

            Ah, well then, sorry. really nothing to talk about
            Quote: Bakht
            I can only give you a hint. In the USSR, the profitability of enterprises did not stand in the first place.

            Of course . that's why I say. that there was no economy
            Quote: Bakht
            And unprofitable enterprises worked perfectly. You just need to understand the difference between different economies.

            You know. there is only one concept in a normal economy --- profitability.
            If this concept begins to be replaced by exaggerated slogans, then the result will be like in Venezuela - the country with the largest oil reserves in the world - on the brink of hunger. and without any sanctions - mind you.
            Quote: Bakht
            You can argue for a long time and from experience I know that it is useless.

            of course with the thesis
            Quote: Bakht
            In the USSR, the profitability of enterprises did not stand in the first place. And unprofitable enterprises worked perfectly

            - difficult to argue, especially when it comes to economics
            Quote: Bakht
            Closing markets and ruble non-convertibility doesn't mean North Korea at all

            Yes . but is there another option?
            Although you are right. Putin is unlikely to be corrupted to the size of the great Eun
            Quote: Bakht
            That you hit the sky with your finger. In the middle

            So far, except for slogans. nothing logical was heard from you. hi
            1. Bakht
              Bakht 17 January 2015 17: 57
              0
              Question to the man who had a solid five. What is the difference between the Stalinist economy and the monetarist? Why did prices go down under Stalin, but didn’t this happen after his death? What caused the decline in prices?

              The questions are simple and on the same topic. Answer, I will say whether you received the five correctly.
              1. atalef
                atalef 17 January 2015 19: 34
                0
                Quote: Bakht
                What caused the decline in prices?

                Stalin wanted, that’s what happened --- or you think. that this happened due to cost reduction. increase in labor productivity or ... can purchase prices be reduced?
                1. Bakht
                  Bakht 17 January 2015 19: 41
                  0
                  Two to you in the economics of socialism. There is a simple rationale for lower prices. But you did not study well.
                  1. atalef
                    atalef 17 January 2015 19: 46
                    0
                    Quote: Bakht
                    Two to you in the economics of socialism. There is a simple rationale for lower prices. But you did not study well.

                    Oh well . your opinion ?
                    1. Bakht
                      Bakht 17 January 2015 20: 16
                      0
                      It would take a long time to explain this. We'll have to start with the Luddites. But if by a wave of a magic wand (Stalin said) you can change prices, then you were poorly taught. This is the main difference between the Stalinist economy and the market economy. The Soviet economy was not marketable and should not be profitable by definition. There was a well-defined economic mechanism that allowed reducing the price of goods. And he worked. Those who understand this know very well how the USSR was destroyed. And who does not understand speaks about oil prices.

                      By the way, for this reason, I don’t understand why the export duty on oil in the Russian Federation was reduced. I was waiting for an increase. Then, domestic oil would be cheap, but expensive outside. What the USA is doing now. So, the export duty is not the desire of the state to cash in on consumers, but the desire to create conditions for internal development. And the reduction of this duty makes life comfortable for oil companies. So that they make a profit at low world prices.

                      All this is interesting, but useless. So I send your request back - learn the materiel. The economy of socialism you have failed. Hard two.
  • Viktor Kudinov
    Viktor Kudinov 16 January 2015 14: 38
    +2
    With the growing unprofitability of oil production and the bankruptcy of many existing projects, in the very near future, oil production may sharply decrease. And then prices can rush up as fast as they fell. Then this trillion bucks will recoup. The main thing is to withstand this hard pressure. hi
    1. atalef
      atalef 17 January 2015 17: 17
      0
      Quote: Victor Kudinov
      With the growing unprofitability of oil production and the bankruptcy of many existing projects, in the very near future, oil production may sharply decrease. And then prices can rush up as fast as falling

      And as soon as they reach the level of profitability of shale oil - they will start drilling again and again everything will go down - so Saudi will not allow this option.
      The price will balance at the level of profitability \ bankruptcy of shale oil enterprises i.e. 50-60 bucks.
  • mitya24
    mitya24 16 January 2015 14: 40
    +1
    Everything is clear and to the point. Literally on a few pages. Unambiguous "+" article and respect to the author.
  • tank64rus
    tank64rus 16 January 2015 14: 41
    +4
    To remind the Saudis one of the plans of the times of the USSR, when it was considered as an option a missile and air strike by the Black Sea Fleet grouping at their oil fields, at the time of the outbreak of the Third World War. Apparently they are not in a hurry to become martyrs in their paradise for a long time on earth.
  • sv68
    sv68 16 January 2015 14: 44
    +4
    here is the igil to the Saudis on a visit — so that the sheikhs know how much a barrel of oil from blasted or burning oil wells am and the United States earthquake-12 points on the Richter scale for 48 hours and frost minus 70 degrees am
    1. vadson
      vadson 16 January 2015 15: 39
      +3
      You forgot one more point to add: Obama for a third term !!!!!
    2. Semurg
      Semurg 16 January 2015 17: 56
      +2
      Quote: sv68
      here is the igil to the Saudis on a visit — so that the sheikhs know how much a barrel of oil from blasted or burning oil wells am and the United States earthquake-12 points on the Richter scale for 48 hours and frost minus 70 degrees am

      do not wish those bad things for others has the property of returning as a boomerang. laughing .
      1. Rohon
        Rohon 16 January 2015 18: 54
        0
        and you don’t .. we bend down so that it flies overhead ...laughing
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • Tol.Skiff
    Tol.Skiff 16 January 2015 14: 44
    +4
    It will be bad for the United States itself ... Saudi Arabia, as a country, may soon receive all the delights of hostilities on its territory ... The Arabs will be glad if the hands of the "Islamic State" can destroy this country. Therefore, the Arabs are in no hurry fight them. hi
    1. Days
      Days 16 January 2015 15: 49
      0
      Poles still need a picture) Is it in vain that Minin and Pozharsky released Moscow)
      1. predator.3
        predator.3 16 January 2015 18: 30
        0
        Quote: Dagen
        Poles still need a picture) Is it in vain that Minin and Pozharsky released Moscow)

        Then their kooks were no worse than the Poles, especially the boyars! "Seven Boyars", "Tushino flights", and False Dmitry - this is a brand of the beginning of the 17th century!
  • Tribuns
    Tribuns 16 January 2015 14: 46
    +3
    The stakes of the United States in forcing Russia to make concessions in favor of the United States are high ...
    But Vladimir Putin "is not a bastard either," although Russians are worried about the Gaidar-Yasin liberal lobby in the economic bloc of the Russian Government, brought up on the ideas of the Western market ...
    For example, Nabiullina and Ulyukaev studied in the USA, - graduates of the IVLP (International Visitor Leadership Program), organized by the US Department of State and aiming to educate participants about American values ​​and outlooks on life that are held by US citizens ...
    Yes, practically all economic "advisers" of our supreme power are tied to the values ​​of the market economy that has been reigning in Russia for more than two decades ...
    And this inspires concern in the confident actions of our president ...
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 16 January 2015 14: 50
    +1
    we can assume that the United States set a price of $ 1 trillion for the heads of Putin, Maduro and Rouhani, putting almost all of its shale industry at risk of bankruptcy.

    No wonder. The United States has repeatedly proved that in order to achieve its, even absurd goals, it will not spare anyone and if it will be necessary to walk on corpses.
  • 31rus
    31rus 16 January 2015 14: 50
    +1
    Everything is very controversial, the scenario is correct, but not critical for us, we can conduct oil development and transit together with China and other Asian countries, I just don’t understand why we don’t have any proposals for this
  • dimasialyt
    dimasialyt 16 January 2015 14: 50
    0
    Thank. Interesting and informative. Only here again without a signature. Stirlitz is you? ..
  • MihailK1969
    MihailK1969 16 January 2015 14: 57
    -2
    The author just BURNS! Why write utter nonsense? Or the Conclusions of the Author is "There is truth"?
    Consider the Masterpiece Paragraph:
    “For example, Rosneft, with average oil prices over 105, more than half of the revenue was taken by the state (export duties, mineral extraction tax, excise taxes, other types of taxes). The total cost of production and sales of oil from Rosneft is about $ 35 per barrel (that is, exploration, drilling, maintenance, administration of the entire structure of Rosneft, payment of oil service companies, depreciation of fixed assets, transportation of oil and final sales). The production itself costs no more than $ 7-10. This is with inflated costs. If you tighten your belts, then you can even 25 -27 bucks to meet. But without taxes. And so with the oil price of 50 bucks (average annual) all our oil and gas is completely unprofitable. This also applies to more than 80% of American and European companies. "
    The author - drawing his conclusions from where does that take? The oil company remained not "half of the revenue" (according to the Author), but $ 30 ... Further - Sechin - "the cost of production at ROSNEFT $ 4" ...
    Hence it follows that the Author has sources "close to God" ... these sources contradict the official sources .. Which is equivalent - the Author is delirious!
    The only question is whether it was worth straining so much - scribble so much - if everything written, upon closer examination, is nothing more than, to put it mildly, bullshit ???????
    1. Lord of Wrath
      Lord of Wrath 16 January 2015 15: 25
      +1
      Quote: MihailK1969
      Sechin - "the cost of production at ROSNEFT is $ 4" ...

      Cost of production, not cost of production and transportation
      1. jjj
        jjj 16 January 2015 17: 39
        0
        Data on the total cost were published in the range from 9 to 35 dollars. Many believe that the real value is somewhere in the region of 20 dollars.
        The state at the maximum price takes about 75 percent of the cost of oil. With lower prices, the tax burden is reduced. The main losses fall on the state, not on the company.
        Nevertheless, the average oil price for us last year was 97,6 dollars per barrel. This is higher than the level that was budgeted. In fact, the low oil price in the first quarter of this year, with subsequent growth, is deeply tolerant to us
      2. MihailK1969
        MihailK1969 16 January 2015 22: 45
        +1
        I repeat The author is RADING! See Sechin's interview, he says that THIS is "the cost of production" .... An amateur wrote an article - nothing more ... The author does not even know the essence of taxation of the Oil Industry today .... Then he writes - "... If you tighten your belts , then it is possible to keep within 25-27 bucks. But without taxes. And so with the oil price of 50 bucks (average annual) all our oil and gas is completely unprofitable ... "...
        Yes, even Shoot Everything lol - THIS IS "bullshit" !!!!
        What is it about then?
    2. tolian
      tolian 16 January 2015 19: 44
      0
      Mikhail, what did you write yourself, for example ....... The oil company did not have "half of the proceeds" (according to the Author) but $ 30 ... Well, how can the faceless "half" be compared with the specific thirty dollars? And you have no less letters.
  • Aladin
    Aladin 16 January 2015 15: 06
    -3
    The burning of oil - a traditional Russian business - was blown up by Chechen distillations so that locals could not make money peacefully, now in Libya someone is shooting at tankers - such a competition.
  • iConst
    iConst 16 January 2015 15: 08
    +3
    Those. we can assume that the United States set a price of $ 1 trillion for the heads of Putin, Maduro and Rouhani, putting almost all of its shale industry at risk of bankruptcy. Realize the scale of bets?

    I am surprised that all the "experts" shout that the US has "ruined" its shale oil and gas ... without considering ... that a number of states have already passed their laws banning the extraction of these minerals by hydraulic fracturing.
    Before New Year's Eve, New York State passed such a law and seems to be Virginia. And before that there is still a number.
    The reason is ecology.

    So, if there remain states in which mining will be allowed in this way, then it will be miserable and neither cold nor hot: they lose nothing.
  • Pomah
    Pomah 16 January 2015 15: 21
    +3
    The stakes are high ... During its gluttonous life, the "golden billion" will fight to the last Ukrainian, Libyan, Syrian ...
    1. Semurg
      Semurg 16 January 2015 18: 18
      0
      Quote: POMAH
      The stakes are high ... During its gluttonous life, the "golden billion" will fight to the last Ukrainian, Libyan, Syrian ...

      grandfather like Marx wrote about crises of overproduction and cyclical ups and downs? So why 15 years of greasy oil years cannot be replaced by thin years without searching and appointing those responsible (USA and CA). A crisis is not only the collapse of an outdated and not effective but also a clearing for growth in new directions and areas.
  • Lord of Wrath
    Lord of Wrath 16 January 2015 15: 22
    +2
    Do you reluctantly recall from Soviet times - a medium-sized underground nuclear explosion in the Persian Gulf will not allow oil production in the next 25 years
    eh, maybe let them conspire?))) and to Islamic terrorists, suddenly they will push the warhead?
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 16 January 2015 15: 49
    0
    The Russians suddenly felt like a people! This is not the 90s, when someone just didn’t wipe his feet about Russia.
    They may bend to Venezuela, but they can only bring Russia closer to Iran. But nothing will burst from the mattress themselves?
  • mortido
    mortido 16 January 2015 16: 06
    +2
    Article plus for an adequate view of the situation, I just do not understand why they persistently insist on TV that the Saudis are cutting prices in order to undermine the production of shale oil in the states, it turns out bees against honey ...) -, "Between the United States and Saudi Arabia the most powerful military strategic alliance in world history, therefore, not a single political decision, and even more so important on the energy market, takes place without the approval of the curator (USA) "- but this is much closer to the truth
  • Mariner
    Mariner 16 January 2015 16: 19
    +2
    Yes, a very sensible analysis.
  • capitosha1rang
    capitosha1rang 16 January 2015 16: 21
    +1
    Everything is correct, but not everything is so bad.
    America, as the author correctly noted, directs all this vile action, but any director is guided by the SCENARIO.
    I wish we could announce these "scriptwriters" by name and bring them out into the world!
    Meaning the "scriptwriters" - "the behind-the-scenes government" - the "world elite", which I just want to call the prostate, I say that everything is not so bad.
    If a war breaks out, it burns down all material values, and the carriers of spiritual values ​​die out themselves or are pressed / destroyed so as not to get underfoot and muddy the water, in the process of preparing the country's economy (and any country).
    Does anyone need such a planet, even the global elite prostate?
    Economics is another matter, in this part they are specialists, experience - centuries-old and they will drink a lot of blood!
  • Not served
    Not served 16 January 2015 16: 22
    0
    Quote: Bakht

    Summary. With my modest data analysis capabilities, this scenario can be assumed. To strengthen the growth of its economy and slow down the growth of the economies of other countries, it is necessary to reduce the price of oil inside the country and increase it outside the country. This is achieved either by a ban on exports (what the States are doing) and instability in other countries. Oil producers (this is the Middle East and the Russian Federation) and transit countries (Ukraine is critically important for Europe).


    I wrote this in October.
    Did not serve RU October 15, 2014 18:17 | M. Khazin, "On oil prices"
    It seems that they want to copy our scheme. We have an internal price of $ 47-50 / barrel. The rest is all in state revenue in the form of duties. The whole question is where will this difference go and put themselves at serious risk of collapse of the shale revolution.
  • Mariner
    Mariner 16 January 2015 16: 30
    +2
    Our American "colleagues" have been playing for a long time, trying to control everything and everyone. They have spawned terrorist organizations, trying to destroy Russia, not realizing that these processes are conditionally controlled and everything can go according to a completely unpredictable scenario.
  • oksanamcarevush
    oksanamcarevush 16 January 2015 16: 35
    +3
    Quote: Bakht
    Summary. With my modest data analysis capabilities, this scenario can be assumed. To strengthen the growth of its economy and slow down the growth of the economies of other countries, it is necessary to reduce the price of oil inside the country and increase it outside the country. This is achieved either by a ban on exports (what the States are doing) and instability in other countries. Oil producers (the Middle East and the Russian Federation) and transit countries (Ukraine is critically important for Europe).


    1. A very important idea - Turkey is involved in the game with resources very rapidly and with high stakes - and I want to believe that we have a strong lobby in this country - a member of NATO.

    2. Ukraine is extremely important for Europe both as a transit country and as additional human potential and as territories and resources, incl. black soil, and it will actively fight for it, but for Russia it is strategically important - its role is huge in the alignment of future forces - therefore, we should only win this battle - but not on patriotic slogans, but purely cold-blooded and rational. Victory will be ours.
  • Executer
    Executer 16 January 2015 16: 51
    0
    There is only one conclusion from the article - it's time to bomb 3,14ndostan! Until complete destruction!
  • Executer
    Executer 16 January 2015 17: 02
    +3
    Obama has already smashed ... laughing
  • Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli 16 January 2015 17: 07
    +1
    I hope everyone here will see the Saudis in the future a little different. When they run out of oil.
    Saudi Arabia, a kind of oil central bank of the world, has oil for 42 years, and Iran for 89 years.
    (this is at the current level of production)
  • Starik72
    Starik72 16 January 2015 17: 10
    +3
    I am not an expert in these economic - oil - gas issues, so I don’t presume to discuss this article. I’ll write TIME to show who is right and who is to blame, who will win and who will lose. APPEAL to the moderators: Why do you need to read the READ icon next to the minus or plus or in the extreme case in the middle, so as not to create a pout rating for any article posted to the VO. I think that would be very correct, with respect to Starik 72.
    1. Mama_Cholli
      Mama_Cholli 16 January 2015 17: 19
      +1
      It would be cooler to eat, you could put a thought icon and only after that allow + or -.
  • bairat
    bairat 16 January 2015 17: 14
    +1
    Saudi rockets are too clumsy. It is necessary to act more subtly, to bring confusion into the ranks of the candidates for the throne: the king is not real, he is robbing the people, etc. Also, migrant workers are a vulnerable place - for one citizen there are five servants from poor countries, they work while they are healthy, they have no prospects for a foothold there. In general, as they say, once such a booze went to cut the last cucumber, the special services have something to work on.
  • Pontelimon 5230
    Pontelimon 5230 16 January 2015 17: 28
    +4
    The article is not bad, but about Rosneft that with a price of $ 50 and with current taxes there will be losses I do not quite agree. When oil was worth more than $ 100, the dollar was worth 30 rubles, now oil has fallen to 45-50, but the ruble has fallen to 65 for the dollar, so with the same volumes of sales abroad, in rubles the profit has not changed, and taxes are paid in rubles, salaries, too, so if you do not show off then you can survive.
    1. 97110
      97110 17 January 2015 15: 00
      0
      Quote: Pontemonmon5230
      in rubles, the profit has not changed much,

      what do you mean by the word "profit"? Net, before tax, income and expenses, by cash, by shipment? Or such a synthetic term for stigmatizing a class enemy? How to calculate amortization - from book value or take into account the purchase price of new equipment?
  • Rash
    Rash 16 January 2015 18: 06
    +2
    Quote: Pontemonmon5230
    and taxes are paid in rubles, salaries too

    That's just the equipment is bought for dollars, its almost none. But you need to technically re-equip, set the automation - now there are a lot of old equipment, on relay circuits.
  • uge.garik
    uge.garik 16 January 2015 18: 13
    0
    Well, and who else doubts Western democratic humanistic values ​​..? it is not curable and not operable ...- only to the morgue ...
  • taram taramych
    taram taramych 16 January 2015 18: 19
    +2
    Great analytics. It is clear why Maduro came to Moscow.
    1. Semurg
      Semurg 16 January 2015 18: 30
      +1
      Quote: taram taramych
      Great analytics. It is clear why Maduro came to Moscow.

      probably asked for money, but maybe a Muslim (Latin American) battalion for protection hi . I agree with the author that the current leadership of Venezuela is the first to drain from low oil prices.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Vovan - prison
    Vovan - prison 16 January 2015 18: 33
    0
    Quote: U-47
    Quote: Vasily Ivashov
    if such a fuss fired up due to some nasty Ukraine!

    wassat hahahahahahaaaa wassat gagagagaaaaa good Very good !!! Neighing to tears !!! good
  • SVAROGE
    SVAROGE 16 January 2015 18: 40
    0
    Quote: vodolaz
    It’s interesting, and if a dozen Topolis are discharged in Saudi Arabia, how quickly will oil go up?




    Oh, not a dozen already ...!
    You can put a sotochku there .... to start from scratch the history of the Saudis .... The current "fly agarics" have gotten sick .. !!!
  • v245721
    v245721 16 January 2015 21: 09
    0
    The United States and with audits, prepared for Russia a collapse in oil prices and Russia and China drinks prepared a crash; $ I think everything will happen in 2015.
  • Dembel77
    Dembel77 16 January 2015 21: 57
    0
    Realize the scale of bets? Then, as if reflexively, a hand to a nuclear weapon did not reach ...

    Well, it’s unlikely that it’s nuclear, but I’ve already reached for the usual one. As if the devils were not pumped into the third world war, but on the other hand it’s too bad - they want to push us into slavery. Neither one nor the other option.
    It’s necessary to come up with something like that in order to remain whole and not to become a colony!
  • Sem Faraday
    Sem Faraday 16 January 2015 22: 10
    0
    The allies of the mattresses also suffer from lower oil prices. In Norway, the kroon also fell by more than 15%. Its economy and prosperity also depend heavily on oil prices. Canada also produces a lot of oil.
    Apparently not everything is as clear as stated in the article.
    To destabilize the situation in the Middle East, it is enough to throw a certain amount of weapons on the black market for Libya or for ISIS.
    In the 90s, a tanker in the Persian Gulf fell very efficiently on land mines. Then oil was transported around Africa.
  • Alexey Boukin
    Alexey Boukin 17 January 2015 00: 19
    0
    Quote: Vasily Ivashov
    And I like the scale, otherwise it would be ridiculous if such a fuss fired up due to some nasty Ukraine!

    Yes, Ukraine here in general, as it were, has nothing to do with it, so it was a walk. She will work her own and the Americans will not remember what she was. The Moor has done his work - the Moor may leave. The main goal is to unleash the implacable hostility between Europe and Russia.