Oil Prices Jump Most on Record After Saudi Strike | Hacker News Reader

Oil Prices Jump Most on Record After Saudi Strike

bloomberg.com

24 pointsdivbyzer062 comments

I can't wait for electric vehicles to be more widespread so we would be more independent from the sh*tshow in the Middle East

It's coming, electric cars are going to murder oil profits.

This is why all the clever oil companies have been pivoting investment into renewables.

They seem to be shifting more into energy in general, so grids, storage, charging, and energy production.

We’re just entering into a cycle which will vastly reduce the importance of the oil market. If the price goes up more people switch irretrievably to electric vehicles, if the price goes down investment suffers. And every year the cost of batteries falls by 20%. BNP Paribas recently estimated that over 25 years oil will have to come down to $9 per barrel to compete with the cost of delivering the same amount of energy to vehicles using batteries and electricity. Oil is just going to become one chemical feedstock amongst many, important but no more so than other major commodities.

Until we figure out better alternatives to plastic (or rather are more incentivised to use alternatives), and other by-products, then we will be stuck with our total dependence on petrochemicals.

True, more use of EVs will reduce oil demand somewhat and lower prices. Though that again just means less investment in exploration and research, and temporarily seal low yield oil fields, we will still pump more or less the same enormous amount of oil we do today, if not more due to ever-increasing Earth population.

Petrochemical feedstock only makes up 10-20% of oil demand, and road transportation 50%. And there are multiple different sources for those feedstocks. As I say, oil will remain an important commodity, but its days as the pre-eminent commodity, and a key driver of geopolitics, are already numbered.

Then you will be dependant on whatever country helps first world countries to make batteries or whatever is involved in electric cars.

This shitshow is actually widely supported and created by US and Europe, btw.

> This shitshow is actually widely supported and created by US and Europe, btw.

True but incomplete: In Europe we also finance the Russian shitshow by buying their natural gas.

As long as there is cheap production in the Middle East and elsewhere, a large decrease in the demand for gas due to electric cars or any other reason will result in lower priced gas and thus more disruption during a price spike.

Supply and demand: lower demand, lower prices.

To use a more specific economic law, the price of a commodity is the cost of the marginal unit. Right now there is so much demand that the world uses all the $10 Saudi oil it can, all the Norwegian oil, all the fracked oil, but not all of the Canadian tar sands oil. That costs about $60 per barrel to extract and transport. Thus the current price.

At $59.7 WTI is just back to where it was in early July, and some distance away from the highs of April ($65.x). And the futures curve is in backwardation - markets are pricing Jun 2020 futures at $55.55 with a mere $2.83 jump because of these attacks.

If it was really a drone attack, it shows that’s drones are unstoppable. There should be a huge market opportunity for anti drone equipment right now. Looks like, that soft solutions as https://www.rohde-schwarz.com/lv/solutions/aerospace-defense... do not really work. Maybe it’s time for commercial version of Israel’s Iron Dome. Or something from USA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

There is a commercialized version of iron-dome, baring the noninteresting name drone-dome [0]

And there are multitude of other players in this field* [1]

* examples are from Israel because I already know the names so the search is faster, surely there are multiple global providers of similar systems

[0] https://www.rafael.co.il/worlds/air-missile-defense/c-uas-co...

[1] https://convexum.com

But is there enough laser energy to change the course of fixed wing drone? I am afraid, that such drone shot by laser will still deliver explosives to intended location. Of course, quadcopter has no chance against it.

Re-engineer the plants to run on Victorian technology and have regular massive emp pulses to cover the facility? Let's face it, out of any industry this one has a tonne of cash to throw at solutions.

Might be cheaper to surround it with a colossal chain link dome, if money is no object.

Or build it underground.

If by 'drone' you mean 'cruise missile', sure: [1]. Of course the interest in this area are so intermingled that literally anyone could lie behind this, from the Saudis themselves (who need the oil price to go up to at least $80/barrel for their budget to stay in the black) to the Iranian regime (who are actively sponsoring opposition to the Saudi regime as well as many other regimes in the region) to the myriad of islamic militant groups which sprang out of the myriad of conflicts in the area.

[1] https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/09/article/saudi-oil-facility...

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but some people are going to make a lot of money from this. Who makes the most? Unclear. Even Saudi Arabia benefits, if it results in persistently higher prices and greater geopolitical support.

What you said is entirely meaningless. Someone is always making a lot of money. Any situation results in winners and losers.

By your logic no one should ever question the financial motivations of anyone, ever. It seems completely reasonable to me to question who stands to gain the most from something like this.

I was replying to the first statement. You are talking about the second and putting words in my mouth.

Considering that the actors causing the attack are unknown, it makes sense to consider who would benefit from it. Can you explain why you view this as "entirely meaningless"?

That's only 5% though at ~$70/barrel. Didn't it use to be $100/barrel and civilization didn't end?

Seems to me to be sensationalism to get clicks.

And to gather support for a war against Iran.

Yes, American media is pro-war nowadays for some reason, so that's entirely possible to me.

What "American media" is "for" a war with Iran? I had the impression that the decision to stop the nuclear treaty was received with rather mixed feelings.

The driving force behind any such development is Donald Trump, his administration and somehow the Israeli government that seems strangely eager to encourage Iran to start working on nukes again.

Actually, Trump was advised by Bolton to attack Iran after they shot down the unmanned drone a few weeks ago, and was heavily criticized by the press for not killing 100 people over a drone.

Then you need to pay better attention. Most of the criticism was directed at the way he waffled about the decision.

We don't know what actually happened in the brain of the president. On a good day he is lying, corrupt and lazy. On a bad day he has obvious cognitive deficiencies. So we can't know if he intended to follow through on the attack or if it was just a show. We don't know how certain he and his people are about Iran attacking the drone.

I see.

I wonder though, he is lazy and has cognitive deficiencies you say, but he made billions and is the president of the United States. How do you account for that?

For one thing, nobody knows how much money he had or has, let alone "made". We do know that he inherited about $400 Million through illegal schemes. Over a few decades, invested in the stock market, or almost anything else really, he could have been a totally unskilled billionaire. What he actually did, however, was to lose billions. There is indeed no apparent way he could have "earned" even a single billion, between all his failures. And no proof he ever personally owned a billion. He certainly seems in no rush to prove otherwise.

And you don't want to get me started on what lead to his electoral win. It certainly wasn't his smarts.

LOL, that's pretty delusional.

However, whatever makes you happy.

Trump was heavily criticized because he claimed that he stopped an attack he had authorized, when he learned people would die.

His reason for stopping the attack was either transparent BS, or he was sleeping through the initial briefing when he authorized the attack in the first place, because there is absolutely no way that they realized only after the attack was in motion, that people would die.

The more likely reason he stopped the attack was he watched criticism of a possible attack on Fox News, right after he had authorized it, since there was a segment around that time where Fox News hosts were discussing how it would negatively impact his polling to start a war against Iran.

Exactly. I don't understand why everybody in the US seems to just accept that there needs to be a war against Iran. How is the US endangered by Iran?

These strikes were on oil production facilities of the Saudi kingdom, which is known for beheading people, murdering journalists, and supporting the 9/11 attacks. The US is one of the top oil producers and has its own oil, as well as strategic reserves. Why does everyone accept that the US has to "retaliate" or wage war against Iran? Why is Iran even being named at this point?

I think it is sad that we are allowing this to happen. Instead of making sure we don't completely destroy our planet and go extinct, we accept our politicians' war-drumming as a fact of life.

I don't think "everybody" in the US thinks there needs to be a war with Iran, in fact I would expect (based on listening to Podcasts such as Pod Save the World which is produced by some former Obama admin folks) that even much of the establishment is against it.

I do have to say, I would have thought the rhetoric we're seeing would have cooled down now that Bolton is out.

My conspiracy theory is that it's a false flag op, I'm guessing Saudi, Israel, and a few other players would love a diminished Iran so they can fill the power vacuum in the ME (or just feel more secure from not having a large power near them) and having America come in with a wrecking ball is a great way to accomplish their strategic objectives without getting their hands dirty. And many of those lobbies (Netanyahu, MBS, etc.) have strong voices in the current admin

> I don't think "everybody" in the US thinks there needs to be a war with Iran

I used the word "accept". The media is all about war and there is no public outcry, not even a strong dissenting voice. The discussions are mostly about when and how, not about why. It seems inevitable and obvious that a war is what must happen. This is what I find bizarre.

Helpful to point out to Americans that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost 2.4 trillion. Also helpful to point out that's approximately 100 times the cost of the Apollo program.

Trump killed the Iran deal. Iran has to get out of their sanctions somehow, so they have to start their nuclear program again. And before they finish their first bomb, or immediately after the first successful test, Israel has to attack them. And if the US doesn't want Iran to crush Israel (Iran probably wouldn't win, but they can devastate Israel), the US (and others) have to help Israel.

Trump had a choice, the rest of the path to war is almost inevitable.

Israel has to do nothing of the sort, they have more then enough submarines carrying nuclear weapons to scare off any first strike. Its the sole reason why Germany sold them at a highly subsidized price in the first place. Neither does the US have to support yet another war of aggression. The only thing nuclear weapons for Iran would change is that they wont be the victim of yet another illegal "intervention" in the region. Northkorea showed that rather clearly. Looking at the despots, warcriminals and aggressors in the region who openly talk about annihilating Iran, not forgetting the attrocities of the Irak Iran war, its a rather reasonable idea.

Lets please not sugarcoat or justify warcrimes and remember that a lot of the people at Nurnberg were there for starting a war of aggression.

In reality there is a large international consensus that Iran must not get nukes, and that such weapons would be an existential threat to Israel. The Israelis definitely see it that way, and it's hard to blame them. The question of who is the aggressor is pretty muddled because Iran has threatened to annihilate Israel and is attacking all sorts country's assets, territory or people all the time anyway.

Deterrence is a nice idea. When the opponent is rational, and the weapons in question are not likely to depopulate the region. The Mullahs in Iran can not be counted on to be rational actors. They also can't be counted on to keep in power.

I'd have much preferred the old solution of delaying their nuclear breakout, all the while their prosperity and development reaches a point where the Mullahs lose their power.

>In reality there is a large international consensus that Iran must not get nukes

As long as its not based on a resolution of the UN security council that means nothing. Might makes right isnt part of international law of war. Just because we have actors who cant be held responsible for their illegal behavior at the moment doesnt mean we should just ignore international law altogether. Starting a war of aggression is still wrong and voters shouldnt be complicit in such actions by authorizing politicians to do so. Our continuous failure to do so in democracys sets an absolute horrible precedent, in which the voting population of a country is responsible for warcrimes. Might I remind everyone that that was the pretext for atrocities like the British punitive bombardments of German cities during WW2 or, since we had the anniversary last week, al Quaidas pretext for 9/11?

Ignoring international law sets a horrible precedent. If your side isnt adhering to it, the opposite side will neither. This warmongering risks yet again the few achievements we as humanity have made in the last century. I myself really dont want to see a future where i have to worry about state sponsored bio terrorism in response to a neocolonial might is right approach of my government.

Even a resolution of the UN security council means nothing.

I wasn't talking about international law. Israel is willing to go to the mat on this, and apparently convinced this is a life-or-death issue. A lot of other countries, including the only superpower, NATO and the EU agree or at the very least don't want to let Israel be destroyed if Israel chose to stop Iran's nuclear program. As far as international consensus goes, that's pretty strong.

"Aggression" is quite an arbitrary definition. Iran has threatened Israel with annihilation for decades, and occasionally they tried. They do/did have a nuclear program, they certainly have chemical weapons. They keep attacking shipping and causing further armed conflict around the region...

"International Law", which today mainly consists of Russia and China sabotaging everyone else, is not going to stop Israel from defending itself.

>I wasn't talking about international law.

I know, I was. I dont care much for the semantics of how warcrimes are tried to be painted as "the right thing to do".

> War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

If you forgo international law in favor of might is right what you do is cultivating terrorism as the victims get radicalized and have no other way to left to respond. And thats not a new insight. Al Quaida was rather vocal about drone strikes and the atrocities in Abu-Ghuraib and Guantanamo being the best recruitment tools they could have ever asked for. And lets also not forget that the war on terror only recently cumulated into the emergence of ISIS, with the rank and file of Saddams dismantled army being there for the creation. People cant be so thick that they believe the phrase "They hate us for our Freedom". "They" hate us for invading their countries with our politicians and soldiers acting with impunity. I mean the US even sanctioned the ICC for gods sake. All those "necessary evils" breaking international law are only making the situation worse.

Nothing is "inevitable" and what you wrote still doesn't explain how exactly the US is threatened and needs to go to war against anyone.

I said "almost" inevitable. And if you are arguing that the US should not prevent annihilation of the Jewish state, or other allies, well, you are arguing a lost cause...

Israel is not going to accept a nuclear power that wants to destroy them, especially not if it can do something about that. The US (and I hope most of Europe) is not going to let Iran destroy Israel, either. The Iran is not going to stop meddling in the middle east, nor are they going to just accept economic starvation.

So what gives?

It seems to me that we have been conditioned into accepting certain theories as facts/truths. Most of the above is non-sequitur to me: how does bombing of oil production facilities in Saudi Arabia have anything to do with the "annihilation of the Jewish state", and how does this supposed anihilation automatically follow from anything? How did we get to Iran and Israel from Saudi Arabia? And why did you say "a lost cause"?

There are so many jumps here that they would be really hard to follow for someone who hasn't been soaked in official messaging for the last years.

Is it me or I read a while ago that there are vast reserves in the US and other places (accumulated when oil was cheap) and so, a little strike here and there should not be a problem ?

Or is it the price of the "futures" (if I get that concept right) that goes up ?

Given that there was a large jump and then a quick fall back to lower levels, a lot of it is probably speculators trying to make a quick buck, not actual worries that supply might be threatened.

Remember that the first time the oil price reached 100 USD it wasn't because of actual economic reasons, it was because a trader wanted to go down in history as the first person to buy a barrel for 100 USD.

> Brent Crude is a major trading classification of sweet light crude oil that serves as a benchmark price for purchases of oil worldwide.

> London’s Brent futures leapt almost $12 in the seconds after the open, the most in dollar terms since they were launched in 1988.

> Prices have since pulled back about half of that initial surge of almost 20%

> Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump PLENTY OF OIL!

> WTI crude surged 15% at the weekly opening bell

> Prices have since pulled back around half

Define "a problem".

At any point in time, prices will reflect not only the current supply and demand, but rather the future expected demand and supply.

Whenever the future supply is uncertain, there will be fluctuations.

It's not likely that there will even be a permanent reduction in capacity from this.

Only 5% of world oil supply is suspected to be affected but oil futures have gone up by 15%. This is the result of speculation that causes initial large spike and then subsequent oscillations to a stable value.

Is there a good source tallying up the (refined) oil reserves? How long until a 5% decrease in production really propagates to the supply?

The norm seems to be to have at least three months' worth of supplies, so the question is rather how quick can those sources return online?

If that is not poised to happen anytime soon, the prices should go up almost immediately.

So far I think we had a mixed response.

According to WSJ, Saudi Aramco says they will have 30% of lost capacity back on Monday.

Hope it helps Venezuela.

It would probably line the pockets of Venezuelan plutocrats rather than help Venezuelan people if it did have any affect.

So Yemeni fighters did more to fight climate change than Greta Thunberg, kudos

The oil is burning, however, releasing all the CO2 at once.

The fire was controlled within hours.

Then that oil will find its way into the economy anyway.

Only the oil that was already pumped out at the time of the fire was ever burning, and the fire is said to be under control.

Meanwhile 5mln bbls of oil daily don't make it out of the ground and won't again anytime soon.

My parents were born in Yemen in hebrew "Teimani"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com