Posted on 12/01/2014 7:01:18 AM PST by Citizen Zed
Remember way back in June, when oil was $115 a barrel? Now it's trading at around $67.90 a barrel for Brent crude and some analysts are predicting, given the right conditions, it could tumble to as low as $40 a barrel.
Weak demand, a strong U.S. dollar and booming U.S. oil production are the three main reasons behind the fall, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), which warned of a "new chapter" for oil markets, which could even affect the social stability of some countries. Russia is already feeling some pain: the ruble tumbled about 4 percent on Monday, on course for its biggest daily drop since the 1998 financial crisis.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
This is good. This is really good.
Domestically, this is an across the board benefit, it helps consumers, businesses, and the ultimate cost of nearly all goods and services produced, unlike measures out of DC that tend to be “targeted” to one class or the other.
I’m hearing that most of the shale oil plays in the US can survive above $50 per barrel, so the downside is possibly not as bad as once thought.
This is good for now, but it is a massively destabilizing force for geopolitics.
The house of Saud is on the edge already, and Russia is gearing up their military. Cut off their #1 source of funding and they will make a move.
Not saying we should stop production, but there was a reason Ike cut the deals he did back in the 50’s.
If you consider economic warfare by Sunni muslim states against the United States, then it’s good, I guess.
They are dumping oil at lower than the cost of production to harm US domestic production.
Well, it has ALWAYS been time to nuke Saudi Arabia.
groceries are still high, probably because of the de-valued dollar rather than energy costs
Lower than their cost of production? Which country of OPEC do you think is doing that?
synopsise Ikes deals for me ... or direct me to links, etc.
A technical note regarding nuking the Saudi peninsula - the effect on the oil hundreds of feet below the desert surface would be nil. The cost of production would go up as oil workers would have to use radiation hazard procedures for a few years. Not to hard to overcome.
Nuke Saudi Arabia.
“In the meantime, oil below $70 is already playing havoc with budgets across the global petro-nexus. The fiscal break-even cost is $161 for Venezuela, $160 for Yemen, $132 for Algeria, $131 for Iran, $126 for Nigeria, and $125 for Bahrain, $111 for Iraq, and $105 for Russia, and even $98 for Saudi Arabia itself, according to Citigroup.”
Kindly check the prevailing winds, then carry on.
A ground burst would not be the ideal choice. I would say 1 megaton warheads at 500 feet detonation altitude would be ideal. Cause little destruction to most of the oil production infrastructure.
Quick and dirty, Ike made a deal with the Saudi’s. We had the technology to build coal gas plants after WWII (the German used mainly coal gas at the end of the war) to supply all of our oil needs.
Ike told the Saudi’s that he would support them in taking over the oil wells, in return for favorable prices. The goal was to keep the Soviets from the oil and the region.
Short term it worked. The Soviets never penetrated into the Middle East, and the new Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was a stabilizing force. Trouble is that all the tensions they were sitting on required a huge amount of oil money to contain, and the Wahabbi’s (a left over British innovation from WWI) started to gain followers. Now they are sitting on top of a needle, hoping the wind won’t blow.
By putting domestic oil back on line, we are cutting out the only remaining support the house of Saud has to hold on to power. Now, that may not be the worst thing, but it will make the area rather unstable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.