Military Review

The International Energy Agency is showing another example of global market manipulation.

At the end of the week, it was reported that the International Energy Agency (IEA) deliberately overstated the excess oil in the market, provoking a decline in prices for it. The source of this media sensation was John Kemp of Reuters, an English agency. Some experts noted: Kemp's calculations are not perfect, but they could not challenge them with the numbers in their hands.

The International Energy Agency is showing another example of global market manipulation.

How the energy agency lost 500 million barrels of oil

John Kemp analyzed the latest IEA data and came to the conclusion that the energy agency deliberately overstates the volume of excess oil supplies. In his article, Kemp writes: “Of the 1 billion produced, but not used barrels, about 420 million are in the oil storage facilities of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Approximately another 75 million barrels, we can assume, is located in oil tankers, which are used as storage, or these tankers are located between the fields and the refinery. ”

Kemp counted all the surplus on 495 million barrels of oil. And the agency declared a billion! What happened to over 500 million barrels? There is no answer to this question. Meanwhile, the volume of the error is very decent. It exceeds half of the oil surplus called by the IEA, which puts pressure on the global market today.

Usually experts make mistakes in the estimates. They happen and vary, as a rule, with an error from one to five percent. In the case identified by John Kemp, where more than half is “attributed”, deliberate targets are clearly visible. After all, the figure appeared serious - comparable to the annual export of such oil-producing countries as Algeria, Iraq, Libya, Kazakhstan, Qatar. Among other things, this is a very significant amount. To transport 500 million barrels of oil would require over 300 large tankers of third class with a deadweight of 250 thousand tons. Not a needle in a haystack. However, Kemp did not find physical confirmation of the IEA data.

It's time to look closely at this energy agency, created after the oil crisis 1973 — 1974. It includes three dozen member countries of the aforementioned OECD, including the full G7 club state and all their main allies. Among the countries that made up the IEA, there are no major producers and exporters of oil, because the agency was created as a counterweight to OPEC.

The IEA has formed a kind of collective energy security system. An important element was the obligation to maintain our own oil reserves of at least three months' imports and, if necessary, influence the price policy of oil exporters at the expense of this resource. Nowadays, the total strategic reserves of the IEA countries exceed 4 billion barrels of oil.

Over the years of its existence, the energy agency threw into the market its oil reserves three times in order to maintain an acceptable price level. So it was in 1991 during the Gulf War, in 2005, when, due to Hurricane Katrina, mining fell sharply in the Gulf of Mexico and the United States, and in 2011. Then the IEA compensated for the decline in production, caused by the civil war in Libya.

On the terms of Western economies

There is an instrument in the energy agency’s arsenal such as regular reports on the state of the world oil market. They influence prices no less, and maybe even more than direct interventions from strategic stocks. Under pressure from the United States, the IEA reports have repeatedly exaggerated or underestimated the risks in the oil market. British The Guardian caught on this energy agency in 2009 year. A year earlier, Swedish scientists from Uppsala University proved that the IEA's forecasts are seriously overstated. Thus, according to scientific estimates of the university, by 2030, oil production will not exceed 75 million barrels per day, and according to the agency's forecast, daily production will rise to 105 million barrels. The Swedes called that IEA report a “political document.”

There were other cases where the energy agency misled the world, both by predicting potential levels of oil production and by the state of current reserves. Following the IEA estimates, oil prices were also moving. This policy continues. Suffice it to recall the information disseminated by the IEA this year. Here are just some of the headlines: “IEA: a glut of the global oil market is aggravated by a slowdown in demand”, “Overproduction on the oil market is increasing - IEA”, “IEA: overproduction on the oil market is increasing”. This is all from the publications of recent months, the roll rolling on the pages and screens of the media. Moreover, in the conditions of cheapening oil, objective information from independent experts about the reduction in the number of drilling rigs and the reduction of production at expensive, difficult to extract fields, especially in the United States, is multiplying.

As we see, the information disseminated by the IEA was not washed out to clarify the situation on the oil market, but on the contrary - to manipulate it. A special place in this series is occupied by the statement of the executive director of the energy agency, Turk Fatih Birol, made by him in January at the World Economic Forum in Davos. English Reuters then quoted Birol: "If the price of oil remains at $ 30 per barrel in 2016, the Middle East countries will lose a third of their GDP, Russia will lose 10% of GDP." Meanwhile, 2015 was left behind the year when oil prices almost halved, but even this did not lead to such radical changes in the economies of exporting countries, as the head of the IEA now predicts.

Why is the energy agency trying so hard with its dubious forecasts and estimates? The answer is simple. It shapes market expectations in the interests of the United States and their main Western partners. About this let out the other day the International Monetary Fund. In its report addressed to the ministers of finance and the governors of the central banks of the G20 countries, the IMF was sad about business in the global economy. Among other risks and problems, he noted the "weaker than expected effect of lower oil prices on the growth of the global economy."

In other words, lower oil prices were a prerequisite for global economic recovery. On the shoulders of the problems of raw materials and mining countries, developed countries intended to restore their potential and even make a spurt to growth. For this, the energy agency tried to actively manipulate the oil market. Judging by the IMF report, not everything worked out for Birol and his team. In addition, she was still caught manipulating information, which John Kemp reflected in his analysis.

"Paper oil" in the real market

For all that, the International Energy Agency cannot be regarded as an independent player in the oil market. It leads its party, and no more. The market is conducted by the American financial community, united through the shareholder banks of the US Federal Reserve System (FRS). Not so long ago, a whole series of publications took place in the world media on this topic. It highlights the article by American financial expert Michael Macdonald.

MacDonald claims that bankers control the oil market through loans to energy companies. The total amount of such loans now exceeds 4 trillion. dollars. The creditors are the leading banks of America (they are also shareholders of the Fed) Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc.

Other experts "twisted" the information and found more powerful tools for manipulation - futures contracts for oil and similar contracts. Their trick is that the prices of the current day are determined by the prices of future deliveries (in a quarter, a year). They, in turn, are formed from the so-called "expectations". This is where the time comes for rating agencies, experts, the media and the American-led energy agency to take action. Recall the headers given earlier with reference to the IEA. Already at the beginning of the year, it formed "expectations" of an oversupply of oil, and, therefore, low prices for it.

Banks earn good money on price fluctuations and brokering. Moreover, the financial market has long been a thing in itself. For example, last year, according to Bloomberg, only on the two largest exchanges in the world (NYMEX in New York and ICE in London) “the volume of oil futures trading has already exceeded annual oil consumption in the world more than 10 times”.

“Paper Oil” has become for bankers a kind of bonus for the control of commodity markets, in particular, the oil market. Therefore, when today people talk about the long-term trend of low oil prices, it does not mean at all that in the long run, as they say in classic textbooks, “supply will outpace demand”. So it is necessary for banks-shareholders of the Fed (experts call them a global financial cartel) in order to keep their main currency afloat - the dollar, which is pretty much divorced from commodity security. (In conditions of low oil prices, speculators prefer to invest in currency.) To achieve this goal, the cartel does not hesitate to do anything, even outright manipulations.

Does this need other countries involved in the activities of the International Energy Agency (Norway, for example, whose GDP directly depends on energy prices)? The big question. The world has long come to terms with the cheekiness of the Americans, who have arranged their lives for others. So many IEA member countries today have become, essentially, extras in politics pursued by the United States in the oil and global markets.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. EFA
    EFA 14 March 2016 06: 29
    Q.E.D. The fictions on the financial market are already such that it is simply not realistic to hide them. As Spleen sang: "Everything in the world is made of plastic, and around is plastic life."
    1. Sensatus
      Sensatus 14 March 2016 07: 29
      How is the author not ashamed? Dear agency to defame? Amers have all the rating agencies the most honest, the athletes are the cleanest from doping, the army is the most peaceful, and democracy is the most democratic, and anywhere in the world!
      1. SSR
        SSR 14 March 2016 07: 46
        I wonder if Rosneft or Lukoil has no "departments" monitoring the "market" or elsewhere? But what about such a value as "economic espionage", because there must be specialists and protect against such espionage.
        Quote: Sensatus
        How is the author not ashamed? Dear agency to defame? !
    2. demo
      demo 14 March 2016 11: 06
      Whoever owns the information, owns the world!

      1. max702
        max702 14 March 2016 15: 52
        Quote: demo
        Whoever owns the information, owns the world!


        Her information is out of date! The world is owned by the one who comes up with this information! And the others will learn about it before someone else later. But the main gesheft is collected by the one who came up with this information and gave it to everyone else ..
  2. Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 14 March 2016 06: 29
    How not count, but according to American laws 2 multiplied by 2 will always be 10, because it "meets the US national interests"!
  3. Good cat
    Good cat 14 March 2016 06: 34
    Do not expect objectivity from people defending their selfish interests!
  4. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 14 March 2016 06: 53
    Gentlemen take their word for it! Here's the map and "flooded."
  5. VP
    VP 14 March 2016 07: 00
    It just got to the west that cheap oil negatively affects their own markets. The New York Stock Exchange began a small increase only after oil began to rise slightly from 30 bucks.
    Suddenly it dawned on everyone that the state of the economies of developing countries is very important for the global economy, and by hindering emerging markets, you greatly reduce their demand and solvency for your goods, services, and loans. And with markets now tight - free markets have long been gone, lowering them you lower yourself. The last major undeveloped markets was the USSR. But now there is no market vacuum there, especially since they quarreled with the Russian Federation and complicated their work in this market.
    Perhaps this is the reason for the "insight" of various "John Camps" - if it were not needed, then the article would not have been, and if it had been in some second-rate edition.
  6. SPACE
    SPACE 14 March 2016 07: 42
    Quote: SPACE
    14 September 2015 08:43 | Oil: how the optimists were wrong. "Unambiguously, knowing about the mechanisms of origin and course of various natural phenomena, we can predict their development, at least the direction and tendencies. But if we see that the natural course of events is somehow disrupted, then by this we must understand one thing, the natural process intervened some extraneous force, for example human.This rule is also applicable to artificial processes launched by man, for example, to such global mechanisms as the economy, where oil is its integral and important part, like money. So, within the framework of logic and factors acting at a given time , the rise in the price of energy carriers is natural and logical and must continue, this tendency to change for a certain long period, within the framework of a reasonable, (not war) is impossible, but it is impossible to turn back to sleep for a short time, of course spending enormous efforts. economy, only by manipulating supply and demand. And if we observe the fall in oil prices, contrary to the natural trend, this clearly indicates that someone is manipulating this process. The question is who? I believe to those who, on the one hand, are profitable, on the other, there are opportunities or leverage for this, and there is no point in guessing, this is the United States and the West. They are the largest importers of oil, and besides, the largest producers of goods, in fact, for which they need energy, in addition, debts and problems in the economy from a lack of funds, how much more money can be printed. Using their influence and available resources, they collapse the oil market, the price decline of which is comparable to subsidies to their own commodity-producing economy, a kind of oil Qm, well, and a blow to Russia ... This cannot happen for a long time, since prices for goods in As a result, the entire economy will return to the previous level through denomination, after which the euro and the dollar will face terrible inflation. I suppose there is a tacking, on the bends of which they break bonuses and make an attempt to get ahead, in general, the tanks are filled to capacity ".

    For the United States and the West there is no good choice, all of their actions, it is better to say throwing, always have a double-edged sword, the law of nature, if it arrived somewhere it means it disappeared somewhere. Reduce the price of one of the main goods on the planet in the pursuit of preferences for their economies, well, well))) they lowered the price of oil by manipulating oil and gas companies and allies in the face of Canada, Qatar, CA, Norway by manipulating them , Australia and others. Own exporters of goods for which a high dollar ruins business and markets, and in the presence of a mass of competitors, is irreversible. In addition, almost all oil and gas producers sell it for currency and the lion's share of which it is nonetheless invested back in the economies of the countries of the West and the United States, as a means of payment for high-tech and consumer goods. Now, at a low cost of resources, this reverse cash flow will fall and, in addition, in the long run will force miners to look for a cheaper alternative to Western goods or to develop import substitution. In general, in world trade, prices for everything will fall down, will there be a fall in mainly western or redistribution of production to the east, as a result, we will reach a new level of world prices with large volumes of something? excess currency and an even greater decline in the economies of the United States and the West and the whole world ... Well, or they just fill up the tanks and tomorrow oil prices will rise again)))
    1. VP
      VP 14 March 2016 08: 12
      Another side effect is a drop in global turnover in the dollar currency.
      Because energy is the commodity in which the largest global transactions take place, no payments for iPhones provide anything similar in volume even close.
      The dollar is called oil tank for a reason. Decrease in global settlements in the dollar - undermining the fundamentals.
  7. Alexey Z.
    Alexey Z. 14 March 2016 07: 53
    It was clear for a long time. They had already become so "snappy" that they did not even try to hide an obvious lie. But someday this "paper-soap bubble" will burst ... and I think the time has come ...
  8. lotar
    lotar 14 March 2016 08: 21
    This agency is one of many instruments of influence, both of individuals and organizations, as well as of certain states on the world stage. So far, it turns out that the United States uses all methods, including dirty ones, following the example of individual boxers and other athletes. Moreover, many judges they prefer not to notice this, because either they have been paid, or they have some kind of incriminating evidence on them, and there is only a small chance that they simply did not notice it.
  9. Svetovod
    Svetovod 14 March 2016 08: 46
    Bln This is their life and bread! It’s much weirder to be surprised at this and to try to surprise others.
    1. Alexey Z.
      Alexey Z. 14 March 2016 09: 44
      Strange you reason. It turns out that if some scammer deceived you or a member of your family for a large amount of money, you should not react and be surprised .... it's their life and bread .... belay
  10. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 14 March 2016 09: 49
    An expert would at least read the IEA data. Because if you lie about the position of the one you are exposing, then all the rest of your conclusions and facts can be flushed into the toilet immediately.
    Kemp writes in his article: “Of the 1 billion barrels produced but not used, about 420 million are in the oil storages of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries. Approximately another 75 million barrels can be assumed to be located in oil tankers, which are used as storage facilities, or these tankers are located between fields and oil refineries. ”

    Now let's see what the IEA says.
    OECD commercial stocks up 7.6 mb in December
    counterbalanced by seasonal trends and amounted to the end of the month
    3 012 mb, which is 350 mb higher than the average. Demand coverage
    oil products in the days of the forward amounted to 32.3 days, which is 0.1 day
    above the level at the end of November. According to preliminary
    data, in January, stocks continued to increase.
    That is, the IEA states that only the OECD has 3 times more oil than Kemp claims with reference to the IEA, and more than 6 times more than it claims the OECD has.
    1. kotvov
      kotvov 14 March 2016 11: 04
      That is, the IEA states that only the OECD has 3 times more oil than Kemp claims with reference to the IEA, and more than 6 times more than it claims the OECD has. ,,
      Of course, you can say that he is a liar, and how do you explain the increase in oil prices.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 14 March 2016 11: 10
        Each time the oil jumps a little, the news immediately indicates why.
        Oil prices on Monday morning, March 14, rose 0,15 percent to $ 40,45 per barrel during trading on the London ICE. A slight increase occurred against the backdrop of data on a decrease in the number of wells in the USA published by the consulting company Baker Hughes, Interfax writes with reference to Bloomberg agency data. The number of drilling rigs decreased by six units to 386, which is the lowest figure since 2009.
        And so on, almost every day the news about the next movement, and usually in the same news indicating why
        1. Bakht
          Bakht 14 March 2016 13: 37
          Interest Ask. Decrease in the number of drilling rigs caused an increase in oil prices? This is the reason? This is chickens to laugh. How much oil did these 6 plants extract per day? I'm not saying that these are DRILL Rigs. That is, they did not affect the production in any way!
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 14 March 2016 14: 57
            So it grew by only 0,15%, that is, the chickens grew laughing. And on the stock exchange, not only current deliveries are important, but also future ones, both for speculators and the real sector, it will be purchased for the future, so that you do not have to pay more later or make money on future growth.
            1. Bakht
              Bakht 14 March 2016 15: 51
              This "reason" should not have any effect on prices at all. Futures are concluded for a month. And what will the 6 installations change? This is not the reason. It's like being deceived in kindergarten. Today we see fluctuations in the price of $ 1. For example, when I wrote the first comment, despite the "reason" given, the price dropped from $ 40,2 to $ 39,2. The price at the moment is 39,33 Brent. And what does the number of drilling rigs have to do with it?
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 14 March 2016 16: 20
                Not for a month, but for any desired period, at least for a trillion years.

                Here is a reference to the cost of futures for brent, right up to March 2023.
                And it fell because Iran did not want to freeze production.
                And the rigs, despite what it means in the future, the USA will get less oil, which means it will be less, it means it can go up in price and futures contracts can go up in price in the future and you can earn money by buying oil now.
                1. Bakht
                  Bakht 14 March 2016 17: 18
                  A trillion years is certainly good. But .... standard oil futures are 1000 barrels of oil for a period of 1 month. In the chart you presented, I personally was surprised by the volume of contracts for the whole year. The years that follow are understandable. There, the trade volume is zero point zero. But I did not expect that during the year there are several thousand futures sold until the end of the year.

                  So theoretically, perhaps you are right, but practically not sure. The bulk of sales for a month.
                  1. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 14 March 2016 17: 41
                    May 16 39.15 -1.24 40.25 40.65 38.82 137700 09:26 Q / C / O
                    Jun 16 39.84 -1.25 40.80 41.29 39.50 83092 09:26 Q / C / O
                    Jul 16 40.39 -1.25 41.48 41.83 40.05 37544 09:26 Q / C / O
                    Aug 16 40.94 -1.27 42.04 42.38 40.62 31291 09
                    For the first month, less than the next three. In such conditions, it is difficult to say that the bulk of sales is for a month.
                    Dec 16 42.96 -1.16 43.92 44.14 42.67 29192
                    29 thousand contracts, I would not call several thousand winked
                    But at the end of 2017 you can still call something like that
                    Dec 17 46.50 -0.90 47.35 47.35 46.30 7222
                    And do not forget that in addition to Futures, there are a bunch of other financial instruments.
                    For example, options, if you add up all kinds, then a huge mountain will come out.
                    1. Bakht
                      Bakht 14 March 2016 17: 49
                      Excuse me. But I, with my bad English, still think that a month is real futures. And forex is forex.

                      A link to the English Commodity Exchange I provided. Everything else - let everyone think in his own way. For some reason, I'm sure I'm right :-). What I wish you.
                      1. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 14 March 2016 17: 56
                        Looked bad
                      2. Bakht
                        Bakht 14 March 2016 18: 02
                        We have double (even triple) information. From the same site. Paradox? I don’t think so. Here is the next option


                        We just can smoothly move on to a new understanding. Was the translation correct? The deadline is a month on my link and a few years on yours. How will we explain?

                        The first option is specifications, the second is data, and the third is timing. :-)
                        Any ideas?
                      3. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 14 March 2016 18: 05
                        From your link
                        CONTRACT SERIES
                        Up to 96 consecutive months
                      4. Bakht
                        Bakht 14 March 2016 18: 09
                        And what does it give? Product specifications are clearly stated. Up to 1 month. And if you do not break the tongue and read this link here? Only carefully


                        I'm afraid the link will not work. Just in case, drive oil futures into a search engine and look at Wikipedia.
                      5. Bakht
                        Bakht 14 March 2016 18: 14
                        I will quote myself

                        A futures specification is a document approved by the exchange, in which the basic conditions of a futures contract are fixed.

                        The futures specification specifies the following parameters:

                        name of the contract
                        conditional name (abbreviation)
                        type of contract (settlement / delivery)
                        contract size - the amount of the underlying asset per contract
                        contract terms
                        date of delivery
                        minimum price change
                        minimum step cost

                        And more
                        Deliverable Futures assumes that on the date the contract is executed, the buyer must purchase and the seller sell the amount of the underlying asset specified in the specification. Delivery is carried out at the estimated price fixed on the last trading date. In the event of the expiration of this contract, but the seller has no goods, the exchange imposes a fine.

                        Settlement (non-deliverable) futures It assumes that only cash settlements are made between participants in the amount of the difference between the contract price and the actual price of the asset at the date the contract is executed without physical delivery of the underlying asset. It is usually used for hedging the risk of changes in the price of the underlying asset or for speculative purposes.

                        Perhaps this is the speculation I'm talking about. With non-deliverable futures (speculative), we are talking about quantities ten times higher than real oil. This is just a game. The main document is the specification of the product you are buying.

                        Okay. We all figured out and became major specialists. I constantly hear media phrases that March futures are like April futures. But no one in the media uses September or December futures prices even this year.
                      6. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 14 March 2016 18: 20
                        With non-deliverable futures (speculative), we are talking about quantities ten times higher than real oil. This is just a game. The main document is the specification of the product you are buying.

                        Delivery from non-delivery is different, only to those who have to press the buy button on the exchange, the end customer or intermediary and that’s all. The rest does not matter.
                        Okay. We all figured out and became major specialists. I constantly hear media phrases that March futures are like April futures. But no one in the media uses September or December futures prices even this year.

                        You constantly hear such blunders from the media that it’s better not to pay much attention to them, after Komsomolskaya Pravda lifted Japanese destroyers into the sky to intercept North Korean missiles, my opinion about them finally went into negative values.
                      7. Bakht
                        Bakht 14 March 2016 18: 28
                        Unfortunately delivery from non-delivery does not differ in this.

                        With non-deliverable futures, it is only a difference at the time of execution of the contract. The supply of real oil is not even initially planned. Moreover, it seems necessary to deposit no more than 1% of the amount. Everything else when calculating.

                        With delivery futures, we are still talking about REAL oil. Non-delivery of it means a large fine.

                        Non-deliverable futures have appeared relatively recently. In the 80s. They were introduced by the famous speculator March (if I do not confuse the name). I don’t want to search. He was sentenced in absentia in the States precisely for speculation on the stock exchange. Got a pardon on the last day of Clinton’s presidency.

                        This is pure speculation. And in huge quantities. When B. Obama hinted that he had to trade in real goods, they quickly shut up his mouth. It was in the year 2008. I hope that the meeting in Moscow on March 20th will nevertheless make this decision. If you don’t accept it, then so much the worse for manufacturers. In general, all real oil is contracted for years to come. The exchange can only trade surpluses. But then its influence will drop to zero. We look forward to March 20th.
                      8. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 14 March 2016 18: 35
                        Well, imagine I’m a real manufacturer, why do I even need Futures? Then, in order to get oil at a certain price, after a certain time.
                        Option A, I take delivery futures. At the time of the transaction, I pay for Futures, and the intermediary buys me oil, I get oil. I am pleased, the intermediary, depending on the price at which he bought oil.
                        Option B, I take non-deliverable Futures. At the time of the transaction, I buy oil, and then, depending on the price of the purchase of oil, I either get money in my pocket or pay extra to the intermediary. That is, if the futures were at $ 40.
                        Option B1, and the oil price is $ 50, then for each barrel I will get $ 10 from an intermediary
                        Option B2, and the oil price is $ 30, then I give $ 10 to an intermediary for each barrel.
                        That's all. Any objections?
                      9. Bakht
                        Bakht 14 March 2016 18: 38
                        No objections. But always remember that non-deliverable futures are NOT SECURED by oil.

                        Just for information. I do not like to be mistaken. And in the last post I was mistaken. This famous speculator was called Mark Rich. If interested, see how pricing works.

                        u-politiku / 18
                      10. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 14 March 2016 18: 42
                        He is provided with money for which you can buy oil at any time. What difference does it make to me? In any case, I get guaranteed oil. I can not get it in both cases only under one condition, there will be no oil at all on the exchange. And thus, either the intermediary will not be able to buy it, or I. Ie there are no differences in guarantees.
                      11. Bakht
                        Bakht 14 March 2016 18: 58
                        We are talking about different things. If there is oil, then you can buy it. But if it is not (it is contracted for real oil refineries) then where will you buy it? You buy air and sell air. Whether you win or lose depends on your luck and insider information. There is no product in reality. But the trouble is that the cost of the NON-EXISTING product greatly affects the price of real oil. This is all fiction. This is just a soap bubble. Sooner or later he must burst. And the sooner - the better for oil producers.
                      12. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 14 March 2016 19: 26
                        A lot of oil is stored, in all possible ways, and you can safely buy it, in case of emergency, if the problem is found, the state with its strategic reserves will come to the rescue, since it is completely not interested in interruptions in the production of oil products and energy.
                        The real producer does not play, on the contrary, he fences himself from the game and other world troubles, with help. of these contracts, and just escapes from fluctuations in oil prices. And speculators won or lost on this, and spit from a high bell tower.
                        If you remove these contracts, the real producer will suffer in the first place, who will lose the ability to easily and unconstrainedly purchase oil for any time period at current prices, and will be constantly sausage on the slides of exchange trading.
                        And as for the oil producers, in any case, they get their 300% profit, and with such a profit, let them sit in the corner and not blather.
                        Cost of oil production
                        USA (shale oil) 20
                        USA (shelf of the Mexican Sea) 25
                        Norway (North Sea) 17
                        Canada (bitumen oil) 16
                        Russia (new deposits) 16
                        Nigeria 11
                        Mexico 9
                        Venezuela (bitumen oil) 9
                        Algeria 8
                        Libya 7
                        Russia (ongoing projects) 6
                        Kazakhstan 6
                        Iran 5
                        Saudi Arabia 4
                      13. Bakht
                        Bakht 14 March 2016 19: 34
                        We have already discussed this a hundred times. The average cost of oil is $ 60 per barrel. And there are no 300% profits and never have been. So manufacturers are already feeling bad. It will not be bad, but now it’s really bad. The oil industry around the world has already lost tens and hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is reality.
                        So you are a prisoner of myths. Your statistics do not mean anything. These are all idealized numbers. Cost at the wellhead. Add tax, transportation costs support infrastructure and you will get a price of $ 60. And it is necessary to operate precisely with the average temperature in the hospital, because we operate with the average price of oil in the world.

                        All the best to you. I don’t even want to discuss it.
                      14. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 14 March 2016 19: 45
                        And so you have an average price of $ 60. So, do you think our oil workers are currently working at a loss? wassat
                        Don’t tell my slippers.
                        The specific capital expenditures for hydrocarbon production in the III quarter remained at the level of 254 rubles. per barrel of oil equivalent (n.a.) ($ 4 / b.n. e.).

                        And operating generally pennies
                        Unit operating costs for hydrocarbon production declined by 1,3% qoq in Q156 to RUB 2,5 / bbl. n. e. ($ XNUMX / boe). Rosneft maintains low unit operating costs for hydrocarbon production in ruble terms amid growing inflation.
                      15. Bakht
                        Bakht 14 March 2016 21: 38
                        At the beginning of 2014, Morgan Stanley and Rystad provided the following estimates of average cost-effective prices (break-even point) of a barrel of oil, depending on the type of field:
                        Middle East - $ 24,
                        Offshore - $ 41,
                        Heavy oils - $ 47,
                        Russian oil - $ 50,
                        Other ground - $ 51,
                        Deep-sea - $ 52,
                        Super deepwater - $ 56,
                        Oil of low permeability shale reservoirs in North America - $ 65,
                        Oil Sands - $ 70,
                        Arctic shelf - $ 75.

                        Yes, some companies are operating at a loss. Do not know why? And you try to reduce production at the well. Technological processes and rules have not been canceled. Ruining a deposit is easy. Gas wells are even worse. There it is practically impossible to reduce the flow rate. Because the contracts are concluded for years. And then those who have slippers laughing, still think that this is a faucet in the kitchen. Go wherever you want ...
                      16. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 14 March 2016 23: 44
                        I give you the data of Rosneft itself, which screams that it has a capital cost of production of $ 4, and boasts of its profits. And you tell me about the Americans, in which our economy is torn to shreds and our oil producers are already at a loss.
                        Hmm, who do you believe. wassat
  11. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 14 March 2016 18: 17
    The fact that it is possible within the framework of this contract is to launch a series of contracts for as long as 96 months, which it can be traded.
    And according to the link to the wiki, nothing is said about the monthly periods and the series.
  • Bakht
    Bakht 14 March 2016 17: 43
    A necessary addition. And then I was already scared that I had mixed up something. I had to get on the English commodity exchange. Just for nonsense. So. Standard oil futures are 1000 barrels of oil for a period of 1 month. Not two, not three, and not a billion years. Only one month. The link that you brought to me is for toys like forex. In reality, the price is determined by such rules

    Contract Months up to and including February 2016:

    Trading shall cease at the end of the designated settlement period on the Business Day (a trading day which is not a public holiday in England and Wales) immediately preceding either:

    (i) the 15th calendar day before the first calendar day of the contract month, if such 15th calendar day is a Business Day; or,

    (ii) if such 15th calendar day is not a Business Day the next preceding Business Day.

    link to the real site here
  • svd-xnumx
    svd-xnumx 14 March 2016 15: 21
    An expert would at least read the IEA data. Because if you lie about the position of the one you are exposing, then all the rest of your conclusions and facts can be flushed into the toilet immediately.
    This article is in the article, you need to read carefully
    The IEA has formed a kind of collective energy security system. An important element was the obligation to maintain our own oil reserves of at least three months' imports and, if necessary, influence the price policy of oil exporters at the expense of this resource. Nowadays, the total strategic reserves of the IEA countries exceed 4 billion barrels of oil.
    But I won’t be surprised that most of these 4 billion are Paper Oil.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 14 March 2016 15: 40
      Well then, it contradicts itself, a billion is extracted but not used, and reserves are 4 billion.
      And paper oil is orders of magnitude larger than real oil, futures for future oil are the same. But it is taken into account separately.
  • Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 14 March 2016 10: 00
    All world agencies, including rating ones, manipulate the opinion of the political and economic world community purposefully, in the interest of the USA, first of all. That is why they are created and financed.
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 14 March 2016 10: 53
    The world has long come to terms with the cheekyness of the Americans, who arranged their lives at the expense of others.

    This is bad. While countries will change their sovereignty to US loyalty, Americans will continue to pump their rights and make money at someone else's expense.
  • Ramzes33
    Ramzes33 14 March 2016 11: 19
    The manipulation of numbers and minds is the basis of the power of the fininter through petrodollar.
  • Bakht
    Bakht 14 March 2016 13: 46
    Finally, someone drew attention to the fact that the price of oil in no way depends on producers and consumers. Tanker analysis can clarify a lot. But you can see some other objective data.

    Oil is not used directly from the wellhead. It must go through refineries (oil refineries). What do we have as a result? Oil production is declared at 95-96 million barrels per day. Consumption of 94 million barrels. The excess oil is from 1 to 2 million barrels per day (different interpretation is caused by various sources). But the productivity of all oil refineries in the world is estimated at 80-85 million barrels per day. And they close !!!!!! The decrease in the number of operating refineries is especially significant in Europe.

    Output. Either there is not enough oil to load the factories, or consumption and production differ significantly from the declared figures. Yes, there are idle tankers. But we don't know the reason. Perhaps they are waiting for a price increase. In any case, for the last 2-3 years, I look at any "expert" assessments with great skepticism. This is all lies and deception. And no predictions can be made on unreliable data.

    The only way out is to decouple the paper oil from the real one. That is a ban on futures. And the way out of the dollar zone. Then exchanges will not be able to influence prices.