Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Shorting Oil, Hedging Tesla

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Re-Aramco

There are differing theories or opinions as to why?

my opinion is that the Saudi want access to cheap credit, and the cheapest credit is to use Aramco as security. If the price is not high enough, they simply will scale back the IPO, the intent is to set the highest bar possible for optimizing Aramco to demonstrate Saudi credit worthiness, not to actually lose ownership or control of Aramco.

Shortcut to revolution is to lose control of Aramco at a price which their general populace believes is less than fair value.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Boomer19 and jhm
Re-Aramco

There are differing theories or opinions as to why?

my opinion is that the Saudi want access to cheap credit, and the cheapest credit is to use Aramco as security. If the price is not high enough, they simply will scale back the IPO, the intent is to set the highest bar possible for optimizing Aramco to demonstrate Saudi credit worthiness, not to actually lose ownership or control of Aramco.

Shortcut to revolution is to lose control of Aramco at a price which their general populace believes is less than fair value.
This political vulnerability in your second paragraph is interesting. If the price of Aramco stock were to plummet, could that create a political crisis for the regime? What are the political risks if the stock lose serious value? If the political stakes are high enough, then certain entities would have an interest in supporting the price. For example, the government could buy back shares. This could be an interesting investment for someone who is particularly astute about Saudi politics. Not me, for sure.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Boomer19
Re-Aramco

There are differing theories or opinions as to why?

my opinion is that the Saudi want access to cheap credit, and the cheapest credit is to use Aramco as security. If the price is not high enough, they simply will scale back the IPO, the intent is to set the highest bar possible for optimizing Aramco to demonstrate Saudi credit worthiness, not to actually lose ownership or control of Aramco.

Shortcut to revolution is to lose control of Aramco at a price which their general populace believes is less than fair value.

I concur.

The Saudi just want the people to believe that the regime sits on enormous wealth, which totally secures House of Saud's future.

To convince the Western world of that, they just need a figure that can be used to value their wealth. A share price which people would blindly multiply by a number, and deduce a pseudo-tangible estimate: so they'll put the stock on the open market and obtain a figure to tout to the media, who's naive enough to consider this the only reliable figure that can describe the Saudi's wealth/power.

Of course, a tiny fraction of the company will be exchanged so they can pump it whenever they want, at a minimal cost. They can do that themselves ("it's okay, lots of companies do buybacks these days") or they can forcing their partners (in crime): geopolitical allies, family members, KSA citizens who needs pardon, banks, , investors who associates with KSA, auto-manufacturers, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doggydogworld
Tighter production targets have failed to lift the price of oil
Demand has risen more slowly than at any time since the financial crisis

[...]

Global demand for oil has been unexpectedly anaemic this year (see chart ). Sanford C. Bernstein, a research firm, estimates that it may have risen by just 0.8%, the slowest pace since the financial crisis. opec and its allies, led by Russia, are due to meet in Vienna on December 5th and 6th. The first question is whether they will announce a new plan to support the oil price. If they do, the second question is whether they will stick to it.

[...]

One reason is that America’s frackers have continued to pump more oil. The country’s daily output in September was 12% above last year’s average. It is also because economic growth has slowed, with oil demand suffering not just in Japan but in India and South-East Asia, where it was expected to grow strongly.

 
  • Like
Reactions: jhm
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
God has spoken.
“There’s a non-zero chance that by 2030, we will see a plateauing or decline in global oil consumption,” the former hedge fund manager said at an industry event in New York. “It’ll happen because of technology, electric cars, renewable energy.”
“If the world fully transitions to renewable energy, what is the role of a fossil fuel company?” he said. “I think renewables is the new oil.”
“Could we see $100 oil again? Absolutely,” Hall told Bloomberg News. “That would only be temporary and hasten the ultimate demise.”
 
We should make a peak oil demand dashboard to run pricing scenarios.

total max capacity per nation/entity
current production rate
ability to ramp production (economic)
ability to slow production (political or economic)
dependence on oil (GDP or political)
disruption likelihood

I'd really like to see what the totals look like for production if Saudi is disrupted in 2021 and can only produce at 50%. Do we even have a round figure for how much dispatch-able capacity is there in total right now?

I'm still of the general belief that all these nations/companies will default to pumping like mad now that the end is in sight. XOM isn't gonna just transition to women's undergarments, they gotta produce oil and gas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhm and mspohr
I've started thinking that oil & gas is getting into a heads we win, tails they lose kind of situation. If oil spikes to $100/barrel, it'll be party time for a short time for the industry, and that'll bring lots of new supply into the market and the price will crash.

Or if oil falls sharply, then companies will go bankrupt, fail to make debt payments, and otherwise persuade investors to be way more picky about providing capital to the industry, hastening the downfall.

Sort of seems like whatever happens, the demise (at least in something like coal industry terms where company market caps fall to zero, companies are making heavy use of bankruptcy court to continue operations, and heavy consolidation is going on to reduce costs and better yield cash for the investors that remain) is upon us and will be playing out over the next 5+ years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhm
I cannot make heads or tails of this IEA update report. Demand seems to have surged in 3Q, but then they drop in this quote.....

The IEA pointed to sluggish refining activity in the first three quarters of 2019 as contributing to a decline in crude oil demand of 300,000 barrels a day year-on-year, and the agency expects crude demand in 2019 as a whole to decline for the first time since 2009.
Huh? Did they just jump from a +900kb/d 2019 demandgrowth forecast to something negative?

Growth in global oil demand more than doubled in the third quarter, IEA reveals
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SebastianR
Don't forget that automobiles are not the only ultimate users of oil. Aviation will not be going electric any time soon. Petrochemicals now consume 14% of production and some think that it is this sector that will be largely responsible for maintaining demand out through 2050.
We've discussed this quite alot on this thread. Motor fuels are about 60% of oil consumption. Crude and condensates are only 83% of consumption. The rest is mostly NGLs from oil production and derived from natural gas and coal. There are also a small percentage of biofuels. So most of the actual crude oil is used for motor fuels. Petrochem is just as easily sourced from natural gas as from the lighter fractions of crude and condensates.

Moreover, gasoline and diesel are the primary drivers of refiners margins. There is not a whole lot a refiner can do economically to reduce gasoline and diesel in the production mix. Usining a different blend of crude can help a bit. This can alter the relative value of different grades of crude. Even so, as demand for gasoline and diesel falls, refiners will have problems maintaining health profit margins. What is more likely is that they will simply process less crude. Natural gas can readily make up the supply gap for petrochem feed gap. Biofuels can also focus production on jet fuel if that offers a higher margin than biodiesel or gasoline additives.

So the decline in gasoline and diesel production will have profound impact on the value of crude and how much and which kinds of crude refiners will process. The oil industry largely believes they have several decades to adjust to a different mix of product demand. The think the peak is out in the late 2030s and that the fall off in demand will be very gradual. Under these assumptions, it may be reasonable to believe that growing petrochem demand will give the industry plenty to work with.

But what they are not prepared for is a peak by 2025 that it could be followed by steep decline, gasoline and diesel demand falling as fast as 5% per year. In this scenario, the industry can be pushed beyond its ability to cope and adapt, too much change, too fast. They industry is just now starting to contemplate that peak crude demand could come by the end of the 2030s. But the question they should be asking is how fast and severe a disruption in demand are they prepared to handle.

Even those of us who are bullish on swift EV uptake are surprised to see things develops sooner than we optimistically expected. Specifically, total auto sales are going through a major slump. What none of us have solid data on is how much of this decline in ICE sales is a grand Osborne effect as people delay purchasing a vehicle that that they perceive will be quickly made obsolete. Increasingly a portion of car buys are becoming worried about ICE resale values. This Osborne effect may also apply to many existing EV models that now look inadequate compared to the Model 3 and other new production in the wings. For my part, the potential severity of this apparent Osborne effect is much bigger and sooner that what I had imagined beforehand.

But a grand Osborne effect could have a devastating impact on the oil industry. For several years drivers can stretch the average age of the fleet in lieu of buying so many new ICE vehicles. This need not mean that fuel demand falls now, but rather the pent up demand for EVs can mean that a smaller ICE fleet is more quickly replaced by EVs. To see why, consider the opposite. Suppose ICE sales were very high as EVs quietly ramp up production. All of these new ICE vehicles would lock in fuel demand for the next 15 to 20 years. Also EVs uptake competes against newer model vehicles allowing consumers the option to delay replacement with an EV. This bulk of new ICE gives the oil industry a soft landing. But the current decline in new car sales is eroding this soft landing years before a landing will be needed by the oil industry. So there are issues like this that could contribute to a more abrupt and severe transition than any of us might have imagined.

This post just recaps many of the issues we've debated for a couple of years. I think it is safe to say we'll all be surprised by how things actually play out.
 
Petrochem is just as easily sourced from natural gas as from the lighter fractions of crude and condensates.
But why go to that source if there be a glut of oil?

This can... is more likely ...can ......if ...
...largely believes .. The[y] think... it may be reasonable to believe...could be... What none of us have solid data on....may also... the potential severity...could have... can mean ... would...that could...
Wow! That's the kind of solid basis that I like to have underpinning my financial decisions. And it makes me very happy that I have financial advisers who are willing to wade through stuff like this so I don't have to. Gives me a headache!
 
But why go to that source if there be a glut of oil?

Wow! That's the kind of solid basis that I like to have underpinning my financial decisions. And it makes me very happy that I have financial advisers who are willing to wade through stuff like this so I don't have to. Gives me a headache!
Sounds like you'd rather have simple answers to complex questions. I wouldn't trust any financial advice that didn't come with caveats.
"A fool and his money"
 
  • Like
Reactions: wnorris
Sounds like you'd rather have simple answers to complex questions.
Wouldn't we all! I remember a highly respected (throughout our industry) colleague of mine, in speaking of complex systems, opining that if you can't ultimately explain something on the back of a cocktail napkin it probably isn't worth doing. In my experience this has proven to be true many times over.

In fact, if you are familiar with any of my other posts, you would know that I love delving into the complexities but I know its a fruitless exercise where there is no basis in the science/engineering. And so this stuff seems to me. I have in the back of my head that the markets are like what engineers call a "whitening filter" which basically looks for correlations in data and if it finds any takes them out so that ultimately the output of the process is noise. But I know that there are those who enjoy delving into the tons and tons of financial data available today as much as I enjoy trying to figure out Clark transforms. I pay (handsomely) people like that to decide whether I should short oil (don't think I've ever done that as it has never come up) or hedge Tesla (they are all unanimous on that - don't).

I wouldn't trust any financial advice that didn't come with caveats.
It's my advisors' job to get it onto the back of the cocktail napkin and to make sure I understand the risks.
 
But why go to that source if there be a glut of oil?
As explained in the post, you can't simply shift from producing 70% fuels to something like half that and be even remotely profitable. It would require a reworking of the entire plant. Easier to just build a new cracker plant like the massive one we're building in Western PA to make plastics and other petrononsense from nat gas.

Wow! That's the kind of solid basis that I like to have underpinning my financial decisions. And it makes me very happy that I have financial advisers who are willing to wade through stuff like this so I don't have to. Gives me a headache!
It's unclear to me why you're participating in this discussion. It's evolved broadly into a thread about oil demand focusing on its potential peak. Do you disagree with some of the conclusions here? Engage in the conversation and provide data points.

People put time and effort into sharing their thoughts here, simply dismissing them on the basis of soft language without providing a counterpoint can come off as rude and doesn't add to the conversation.
 
Wouldn't we all! I remember a highly respected (throughout our industry) colleague of mine, in speaking of complex systems, opining that if you can't ultimately explain something on the back of a cocktail napkin it probably isn't worth doing. In my experience this has proven to be true many times over.

In fact, if you are familiar with any of my other posts, you would know that I love delving into the complexities but I know its a fruitless exercise where there is no basis in the science/engineering. And so this stuff seems to me. I have in the back of my head that the markets are like what engineers call a "whitening filter" which basically looks for correlations in data and if it finds any takes them out so that ultimately the output of the process is noise. But I know that there are those who enjoy delving into the tons and tons of financial data available today as much as I enjoy trying to figure out Clark transforms. I pay (handsomely) people like that to decide whether I should short oil (don't think I've ever done that as it has never come up) or hedge Tesla (they are all unanimous on that - don't).

It's my advisors' job to get it onto the back of the cocktail napkin and to make sure I understand the risks.
Here's your answer: Short oil, Hedge Tesla ! (Now!)
 
Cracking is breaking down long chains into shorter ones. In natural gas the molecules are short so to make useful things from them one needs to do the opposite e.g. polymerize.
So you're the petrochemicals market, it's 2024 and oil demand has peaked. Declines are slight, but demand looks certain to drop at 5% annually. Does it feel viable to you for traditional refiners to simply shift to a majority petrochemicals mix?

No one's going into crude refining today, it's gonna attract investors in this 2025 reality? Seems unlikely. Petrochemical pricing would need to triple or more for it to be viable. Gonna be a hot mess the next few years and certainly that points to the petrochemical market shrinking, not expanding. At least in the medium term.
 
But why go to that source if there be a glut of oil?

Wow! That's the kind of solid basis that I like to have underpinning my financial decisions. And it makes me very happy that I have financial advisers who are willing to wade through stuff like this so I don't have to. Gives me a headache!
Let's be clear, we are talking about competing scenario. It may give you a headache, but there really a lot of different ways the future can unfold. If you are looking for a simple story stated with certainty, please look somewhere else.

Regarding why source natural gas for petrochem while oil is in a glut, think through what you are suggesting. How long is this glut to persist? Yes, in the short run this would make sense, but not on the timescale if decades. If the oil market is oversupplied for decades, who the heck is making any money producing crude? What you are suggesting is not really a glut, but persistent low prices for oil. So yes, we could see oil persist around $20 a barrel while natural gas hangs out near $1/mmBtu. Under that sort of low price scenario, it doesn't matter whether petrochem sources oil or gas. But also under such a scenario, it is not possible to sustain production volumes. This is a die off scenario for oil and gas. Where's the bottom? While you contemplating this, you might want to think about what happens to the excess refinery capacity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oil4AsphaultOnly