yesman182 Posted January 21 Posted January 21 On 1/15/2025 at 9:05 AM, SharperDingaan said: Just to throw out some numbers ..... for simplicity assume just one seller, and one US buyer refining Alberta crude. No tariffs. 100 bbl sold @ USD 60 world price; seller gets USD 6,000, refiner pays USD 6,000. > US 25% tariff. 100 bbl sold @ USD 60; seller gets USD 6,000, tariff collector gets USD 1,500 (25%), refiner pays USD 7,500. US consumer pays more. But the refiner can only pay USD 6,000 ...... > US 25% tariff. 100 bbl sold @ USD 60; seller gets USD 4,800, tariff collector gets USD 1,200 (25%), refiner pays USD 6,000. Producer gets 12% less revenue on the same 100 bbl sold. Need a solution .... Cut US bound production to 80 bbls, sold at a higher price. Sell the remaining 20 bbls to Asia from BC tidewater. > US 25% tariff. 80 bbl sold @ USD 60; seller gets USD 4,800, tariff collector gets USD 1,200 (25%), refiner pays USD 6,000. US consumer pays more as the refiners cost is now USD 75/bbl, and in the short-term the refiner can't refine crude from anywhere else. > No US 25% tariff. 20 bbl sold to Asia @ USD 60; seller gets USD 1,200. Producer gets a total of USD 6.000 (4,800 + 1,200) on the 100 bbl sold. As long as the new west coast pipe and rail has the capacity; the only folks getting hurt here are the US consumer, and it is the US tariff collector that has their money. And if that BC tidewater buyer is US tariff exempt ..... they merely sail a tanker down the west coast, and sell the crude to the refiner at a very profitable USD 75/bbl less costs. The way out is new and big pipe going south. Drop the tariffs, double production, spread the costs over a bigger base, and everybody wins. SD I was under the impression that the importer paid the tariff. So in the case of Canadian oil, it would be the US refiner. But Trump talked about setting up a ERS (external revenue service) to manage the tariffs paid by foreign nations. If these tariffs are put in place on Canadian crude headed to the US, who will send the check to the US government?
Spekulatius Posted January 21 Posted January 21 21 minutes ago, yesman182 said: I was under the impression that the importer paid the tariff. So in the case of Canadian oil, it would be the US refiner. But Trump talked about setting up a ERS (external revenue service) to manage the tariffs paid by foreign nations. If these tariffs are put in place on Canadian crude headed to the US, who will send the check to the US government? Tariffs are just consumption taxes on foreign goods . This is not that complicated. There will be no checks from other governments. He might as well have the IRS manage the tariffs.
Parsad Posted January 23 Posted January 23 https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-artificial-sun-sets-nuclear-133129651.html Cheers!
fareastwarriors Posted January 24 Posted January 24 (edited) Chevron’s Kazakhstan Oil Field Expands as Trump Pushes OPEC Tengiz currently produces about 700,000 barrels of crude per day. Neff stressed the importance of the Kazakhstan asset in the upstream portfolio. With 1 million barrels of oil equivalent per day in 2025, it’s about the same as Chevron’s US Permian Basin output, which is also expected to reach 1 million barrels a day this year Edited January 24 by fareastwarriors
SharperDingaan Posted January 24 Posted January 24 You all might want to take a closer look at the levels of the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Trumps yapping around 'Drill Baby Drill' and cheaper oil, and the declining US drill count. The only way this works is if the fed agrees to tax collection via an oil PIK, and the 'cash saved' goes into additional drilling at shale reservoirs that are already tied into the collection networks. Once the reservoir is primarily gas, it then becomes a strategic gas reserve that is accessed via these same wells. The oil pumped into the SPR, replaced from new reserves in the various restricted reservoirs that Trump is busy making available. SD
Warner Posted January 28 Posted January 28 Chevron does not well advertise publically that in 2033 the lease is up in Tengiz and they are likely to loose their most profitable asset. They don't currently have anything to replace it.
yesman182 Posted January 30 Posted January 30 Trump is asked if Canada's oil will be part of the tariff. He said Canada is taxing the Us with a deficit. Then asked again and says "oil has nothing to do with it". Seems like he doesn't want a tariff on oil. Happy to hear how others interpret him.
SharperDingaan Posted January 31 Posted January 31 Calls assuming he defers the implementation. Puts assuming he is dumb enough to do it. SD
cubsfan Posted January 31 Posted January 31 16 hours ago, SharperDingaan said: Calls assuming he defers the implementation. Puts assuming he is dumb enough to do it. SD Promises made, promises kept.
bizaro86 Posted January 31 Posted January 31 UK court strikes down 2 offshore approvals. Approvals granted in 2022 on projects that are well into construction https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo.amp
formthirteen Posted February 1 Posted February 1 (edited) 16 hours ago, bizaro86 said: UK court strikes down 2 offshore approvals. Approvals granted in 2022 on projects that are well into construction https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo.amp ”The effects of climate change” is politics depend on who you ask: Quote In a 57-page judgement, Lord Ericht wrote that there was a public interest in having the decision "remade on a lawful basis" because of the effects of climate change - which he said outweighed the interests of the developers. The UK should ask Norway about the effects of climate change. If the UK doesn't pump oil, will it affect CO2 emissions in the UK? If the UK sets up a sovereign wealth oil fund and invests in nuclear energy, will they have a nuclear disaster or two within 100 years? Politics all the way down... Edited February 1 by formthirteen
fareastwarriors Posted February 3 Posted February 3 Trump’s Bid for More Oil Is a Hard Sell for Allies in U.S., Saudi Arabia
Mephistopheles Posted February 23 Posted February 23 For the shale experts: many people are saying shale has peaked, but then there is this CO2 injection technology which OXY claims is going to be revolutionary. What’re your thoughts on this matter?
sleepydragon Posted February 23 Posted February 23 52 minutes ago, Mephistopheles said: For the shale experts: many people are saying shale has peaked, but then there is this CO2 injection technology which OXY claims is going to be revolutionary. What’re your thoughts on this matter? “Shale is peaked“ is actually bullish for the biggest US oil companies that has the best fields (cvx, xom, oxy)
Mephistopheles Posted February 23 Posted February 23 10 minutes ago, sleepydragon said: “Shale is peaked“ is actually bullish for the biggest US oil companies that has the best fields (cvx, xom, oxy) Right, I know, but I'm trying to understand what is reality here?
SharperDingaan Posted February 23 Posted February 23 You might want to look at the Pathways Alliance CCS Project. https://pathwaysalliance.ca/foundational-project/carbon-capture-and-storage-ccs/ The method injects large amounts of CO2 into a formation to re-pressure it, and drive CO2 from the high-pressure bores through to the low pressure collectors. The CO2 acts as a liquid dilutant, collecting oil along the way to the collectors, that ultimately flows out the well head as an oil, and sizeable CO2 gas cut. It is a tertiary recovery method and will typically produce another 10%+ out of an existing reservoir (depending upon its porosity). The injected CO2 can either be chemically locked into the reservoir (Alberta), or injected until it flows out of the collectors again; at which point both the injectors and collectors are capped with concrete. To make it economical, requires a carbon tax that pays producers to sequestrate, and massive amounts of CO2 that have to be piped in. The real money is in the disposal fees, the additional oil/gas produced is essentially a by-product. The pipe is a utility, and the CO2 sequestrated counts towards Kyoto agreements. Environmentalists rant as the Kyoto intent was to reduce C02 emissions by not producing C02, versus the technological solution of removing CO2 by locking it in the ground. Zealots on both sides. Minimal impact on 'peak oil', other than delaying the date (ongoing depletion approximately on par with new production). It primarily increases the total gas produced, and turns the reservoir into a giant paid CO2 sponge. Both are environmental pluses. Good for the industry as it extends the economic life of reservoirs by multiple decades. SD
Stuart D Posted February 24 Posted February 24 I think we’ll only know that shale has peaked when CEO’s are compensated primarily for production growth & they can’t do it. The current shareholder return focus muddies the waters.
yesman182 Posted February 24 Posted February 24 (edited) 2 hours ago, Stuart D said: I think we’ll only know that shale has peaked when CEO’s are compensated primarily for production growth & they can’t do it. The current shareholder return focus muddies the waters. “Shale has peaked” seems to be a narrative from Canadian oil companies. I’m not saying they are wrong, but US companies are rushing to find inventory in other fields. So it seems like the shale producers still feel like they have a runway. Edited February 24 by yesman182
Phoenix01 Posted Saturday at 01:13 PM Posted Saturday at 01:13 PM On 2/24/2025 at 5:24 AM, Stuart D said: I think we’ll only know that shale has peaked when CEO’s are compensated primarily for production growth & they can’t do it. The current shareholder return focus muddies the waters. I think that focusing on the rate of growth is the most important thing here. Production will grow, stabilize and then drop. We are still in the growth stage, but it slowing. The slowing growth is the basis for the "PEAK SHALE" call. Just keep in mind that we have yet to reach peak coal....
yesman182 Posted Saturday at 05:36 PM Posted Saturday at 05:36 PM 4 hours ago, Phoenix01 said: Just keep in mind that we have yet to reach peak coal.... Or peak wood burning
SharperDingaan Posted Sunday at 11:22 PM Posted Sunday at 11:22 PM (edited) It will be interesting to see how US tariffs actually get applied to Canada's oil. Canada's main refinery is located in Sarnia (Ontario), and is fed from WCS travelling cross country via the Enbridge mainline. As oil/gas within North America is fully integrated; to get around the Great Lakes, the Enbridge mainline travels south into the US, from which two branches come together in Michigan, and the refinery feed stock re-enters Canada at Sarnia. Two ways the tariff on this supply could go. 1) Sarnia bound crude is exempted as it wasn't exported by Canada, it's just passing through the US. It reflects NA oil/gas integration, and there is essentially no change. 2) All the mainline crude is tariffed, all users pay more for the feed-stock, and both expanded rail and the Energy East pipeline get built as mega-projects. All pipe in Canada, all built by Canadian steel and labour only, and all US involvement intentionally shut out wherever practical. We need the work, and we don't need you .... The attractions are that most inter-provincial trade barriers have now been removed, and to get the benefits Canada needs to be building mega-projects. It is also preferable to take a war-time approach; fund it via fiscal policy, ONLY via tax-advantage CAD bonds, ONLY eligible to CAD residents. Canadian patriotism finding an outlet via bond purchases, interest earned staying at home, and the whole country benefiting from confederation type renewal projects. Total cost applied to Canada's NATO defence spending, as we can now deliver fuel and weapons, in scale, on both coasts. Helpful if Canada ALSO produces NATO artillery shells and fuels, delivered from east coast ports. Defence spending doesn't have to be bullets, rockets, ships/planes, troops on the ground, etc ..... and if it results in NATO being able to diversify its North American ordnance production in the process ... so much the better for everyone. Sticking it to the US, a bonus SD Edited Monday at 03:43 AM by SharperDingaan
yesman182 Posted Monday at 01:21 PM Posted Monday at 01:21 PM 13 hours ago, SharperDingaan said: It will be interesting to see how US tariffs actually get applied to Canada's oil. Canada's main refinery is located in Sarnia (Ontario), and is fed from WCS travelling cross country via the Enbridge mainline. As oil/gas within North America is fully integrated; to get around the Great Lakes, the Enbridge mainline travels south into the US, from which two branches come together in Michigan, and the refinery feed stock re-enters Canada at Sarnia. Two ways the tariff on this supply could go. 1) Sarnia bound crude is exempted as it wasn't exported by Canada, it's just passing through the US. It reflects NA oil/gas integration, and there is essentially no change. 2) All the mainline crude is tariffed, all users pay more for the feed-stock, and both expanded rail and the Energy East pipeline get built as mega-projects. All pipe in Canada, all built by Canadian steel and labour only, and all US involvement intentionally shut out wherever practical. We need the work, and we don't need you .... The attractions are that most inter-provincial trade barriers have now been removed, and to get the benefits Canada needs to be building mega-projects. It is also preferable to take a war-time approach; fund it via fiscal policy, ONLY via tax-advantage CAD bonds, ONLY eligible to CAD residents. Canadian patriotism finding an outlet via bond purchases, interest earned staying at home, and the whole country benefiting from confederation type renewal projects. Total cost applied to Canada's NATO defence spending, as we can now deliver fuel and weapons, in scale, on both coasts. Helpful if Canada ALSO produces NATO artillery shells and fuels, delivered from east coast ports. Defence spending doesn't have to be bullets, rockets, ships/planes, troops on the ground, etc ..... and if it results in NATO being able to diversify its North American ordnance production in the process ... so much the better for everyone. Sticking it to the US, a bonus SD Why not build that northern pipeline and get more oil to tidewater ASAP. Seems like the sooner you can lower the differential the better. Not only does your tax revenue go up, but it makes investing in infrastructure more attractive. Hopefully they do both.
SharperDingaan Posted Tuesday at 01:07 AM Posted Tuesday at 01:07 AM 11 hours ago, yesman182 said: Why not build that northern pipeline and get more oil to tidewater ASAP. Seems like the sooner you can lower the differential the better. Not only does your tax revenue go up, but it makes investing in infrastructure more attractive. Hopefully they do both. It also costs a lot less, and is quicker to build, if it can terminate around Montreal and thereafter tankers transport it out via the St Lawrence Seaway. SD
rogermunibond Posted 20 hours ago Posted 20 hours ago If you're an oil and gas EP CEO, how are you feeling about the price of oil now? OPEC+ lifting production, possible lifting of Russian oil sanctions, with the breakeven at $50/barrel, they aren't adding rigs anytime soon.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now