Long term OIL

[criptix]

I'm curious if you actually read that piece

It basically says about transportation (plus administrative) costs as they stand for delivery to their nearest consumers. For Iran it would be China, for Iraq the EU. If Iran (or Saudi Arabia) had to transport their oil to the US, the transportation costs would rise massively. Nevertheless, your link confirms what I suspected, i.e. that the data in the quote you posted earlier is heavily distorted. The transportation costs are nowhere near 5-10% as the authors of that quote claimed. For example, for the KSA they are over 27%, for Iran over 29%, for Iraq over 23% per total cost of oil barrel. As to me, this is a huge percentage

Where does it say that this is the transportation cost to the nearest consumer?

The wsj is from 2016 so its obvious that numbers changed from 2008.
Like i said in my last post that nominal the transport cost is very similiar but because of differences in production cost it differs % wise.

For example look at the uk. Transportation+administration cost is just 9,7%.

In fact, I expected you to reply something to this tune

And it seems that you took to your old habit of severely distorting the facts. In this case, you deliberately forget that the UK is next to irrelevant as a crude oil exporter (with measly 2% of total oil exports). We are talking about top oil producers and not just producers but exporters at that, aren't we? And these are SA, Iraq and Iran (after lifting sanctions). Further, regarding nearest consumers, the article doesn't specifically mention that itself but it is common knowledge that China is the largest consumer of Russian, Iranian, and Saudi Arabian oil. Unsurprisingly, that these are the nearest suppliers territorially, so we could well expect that the costs calculated would mostly refer to this shortest route of oil trade

Besides the fact that brent is the most important kind of oil for europe you forgot the real life example which is the same for saudi arabia, iran and russia.
Please stop with your weird conjectures that you cant backup while ignoring real life examples and facts.
In short: you got no argument.

But well not astonishing for a guy that doesnt even know what a dynamo or regerative braking is ugh.


But lets take an real life example with an exact price from Sep. 2016:

The rates for shipping a tanker-load of crude oil by Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCC) from Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port for the throughput and storage of crude oil, to Singapore, the world’s largest crude oil transshipment center, have dropped another $200,000 since the last assessment, to $2.25 million, according to S&P Global Platts, the lowest level for that route since Platts started tracking VLCC data in 2006.

We have a distance of around 13.000 km (around the same distance from saudi arabia to the USA).
A VLCC usually transports 1,9 - 2,2 million barrels.
At 50$/bbl its worth 100 million $.
Transportation cost is 2,25 million $.

Edit

Btw. The book i quoted is up to date. The newest edition is from 2017.
It is also used in universities.

Edit 2

Shipping prices are extremely volatile. I just looked up the price difference to charter a VLCC between jan. 2016 and sep. 2016. It was a 60+% difference.
But to take the example above even if the shipping price was 4 times higher we would still just barely scratch the 10% mark for transportation cost.


I got a task for you though. Find out how much the transport over pipelines cost.

[deisik]

I'm curious if you actually read that piece

It basically says about transportation (plus administrative) costs as they stand for delivery to their nearest consumers. For Iran it would be China, for Iraq the EU. If Iran (or Saudi Arabia) had to transport their oil to the US, the transportation costs would rise massively. Nevertheless, your link confirms what I suspected, i.e. that the data in the quote you posted earlier is heavily distorted. The transportation costs are nowhere near 5-10% as the authors of that quote claimed. For example, for the KSA they are over 27%, for Iran over 29%, for Iraq over 23% per total cost of oil barrel. As to me, this is a huge percentage

Where does it say that this is the transportation cost to the nearest consumer?

The wsj is from 2016 so its obvious that numbers changed from 2008.
Like i said in my last post that nominal the transport cost is very similiar but because of differences in production cost it differs % wise.

For example look at the uk. Transportation+administration cost is just 9,7%.

In fact, I expected you to reply something to this tune

And it seems that you took to your old habit of severely distorting the facts. In this case, you deliberately forget that the UK is next to irrelevant as a crude oil exporter (with measly 2% of total oil exports). We are talking about top oil producers and not just producers but exporters at that, aren't we? And these are SA, Iraq and Iran (after lifting sanctions). Further, regarding nearest consumers, the article doesn't specifically mention that itself but it is common knowledge that China is the largest consumer of Russian, Iranian, and Saudi Arabian oil. Unsurprisingly, that these are the nearest suppliers territorially, so we could well expect that the costs calculated would mostly refer to this shortest route of oil trade

Besides the fact that brent is the most important kind of oil for europe you forgot the real life example which is the same for saudi arabia, iran and russia.
Please stop with your weird conjectures that you cant backup while ignoring real life examples and facts.
In short: you got no argument.

But well not astonishing for a guy that doesnt even know what a dynamo or regerative braking is ugh

You are obviously confusing me with someone else

But lets take an real life example with an exact price from Sep. 2016:

The rates for shipping a tanker-load of crude oil by Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCC) from Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port for the throughput and storage of crude oil, to Singapore, the world’s largest crude oil transshipment center, have dropped another $200,000 since the last assessment, to $2.25 million, according to S&P Global Platts, the lowest level for that route since Platts started tracking VLCC data in 2006.

We have a distance of around 13.000 km (around the same distance from saudi arabia to the USA).
A VLCC usually transports 1,9 - 2,2 million barrels.
At 50$/bbl its worth 100 million $.
Transportation cost is 2,25 million $.

I read that part from your post above

You are very predictable, I didn't address that point intentionally since I was testing whether would would raise this issue again. You did. I have to repeat that you are heavily distorting the facts. First, you take into account "Very Large" tankers (read scale of transportation). Second (and this is where you are being most dishonest), your arithmetic includes only shipping itself, i.e. basically the price of fuel that it takes to move the tanker plus wages for the crew. You don't take into account other costs involved, for example, loading all this amount of oil as well as transporting it to the oil terminal and storing it there (you can't just take and fill it up in half a jiffy). And don't forget the reverse process when the tanker arrives in the port of its destination

[criptix]

I'm curious if you actually read that piece

It basically says about transportation (plus administrative) costs as they stand for delivery to their nearest consumers. For Iran it would be China, for Iraq the EU. If Iran (or Saudi Arabia) had to transport their oil to the US, the transportation costs would rise massively. Nevertheless, your link confirms what I suspected, i.e. that the data in the quote you posted earlier is heavily distorted. The transportation costs are nowhere near 5-10% as the authors of that quote claimed. For example, for the KSA they are over 27%, for Iran over 29%, for Iraq over 23% per total cost of oil barrel. As to me, this is a huge percentage

Where does it say that this is the transportation cost to the nearest consumer?

The wsj is from 2016 so its obvious that numbers changed from 2008.
Like i said in my last post that nominal the transport cost is very similiar but because of differences in production cost it differs % wise.

For example look at the uk. Transportation+administration cost is just 9,7%.

In fact, I expected you to reply something to this tune

And it seems that you took to your old habit of severely distorting the facts. In this case, you deliberately forget that the UK is next to irrelevant as a crude oil exporter (with measly 2% of total oil exports). We are talking about top oil producers and not just producers but exporters at that, aren't we? And these are SA, Iraq and Iran (after lifting sanctions). Further, regarding nearest consumers, the article doesn't specifically mention that itself but it is common knowledge that China is the largest consumer of Russian, Iranian, and Saudi Arabian oil. Unsurprisingly, that these are the nearest suppliers territorially, so we could well expect that the costs calculated would mostly refer to this shortest route of oil trade

Besides the fact that brent is the most important kind of oil for europe you forgot the real life example which is the same for saudi arabia, iran and russia.
Please stop with your weird conjectures that you cant backup while ignoring real life examples and facts.
In short: you got no argument.

But well not astonishing for a guy that doesnt even know what a dynamo or regerative braking is ugh

You are obviously confusing me with someone else

But lets take an real life example with an exact price from Sep. 2016:

The rates for shipping a tanker-load of crude oil by Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCC) from Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port for the throughput and storage of crude oil, to Singapore, the world’s largest crude oil transshipment center, have dropped another $200,000 since the last assessment, to $2.25 million, according to S&P Global Platts, the lowest level for that route since Platts started tracking VLCC data in 2006.

We have a distance of around 13.000 km (around the same distance from saudi arabia to the USA).
A VLCC usually transports 1,9 - 2,2 million barrels.
At 50$/bbl its worth 100 million $.
Transportation cost is 2,25 million $.

I read that part from your post above

You are very predictable, I didn't address that point intentionally since I was testing whether would would raise this issue again. You did. I have to repeat that you are heavily distorting the facts. First, you take into account "Very Large" tankers (read scale of transportation). Second (and this is where you are being most dishonest), your arithmetic includes only shipping itself, i.e. basically the price of fuel that it takes to move the tanker plus wages for the crew. You don't take into account other costs involved, for example, loading all this amount of oil as well as transporting it to the oil terminal and storing it there (you can't just take and fill it up in half a jiffy). And don't forget the reverse process when the tanker arrives in the port of its destination

Majority of oil transportation over ocean is made by VLCC's the rest are ULCC's ( up to 4 million barrels).
It is pretty clear you got no clue about transportation on water.

Ok tell me how much loading processes cost and then we will see how much it add to transportation cost.
Cant run away

Something funny. People use VLCC's as mobile storage in times of oversupplies.

Edit

Ah i wonder why u just went offline

[criptix]

I think the 2.25 million $ includes loading and discharging because:

1) the charter price per day for a VLCC was less then 50.000$
2) normal speed of a VLCC is 25 km/h; max speed 30 km/h.
3) rotterdamn - singapore is 15.000 km

=> u need 25 days at normal speed => 1.25 million $

Lets say you drive for whatever reason just with 50% of the normal speed => 1,875 million $

The difference of 375.000 $ to 1.000.000 $ should be loading, discharging, port fees and similar.

Edit

Shipping distance rotterdam-singapore is actually 15.000 km.
I also looked up duration on sea and it is 25 days.

[guy_wonderful]

Hello people!
I see a nice (mid term) trade here.
Strong buy at about 55.94 on monday. with target to 63.20
Stop just low as 172 pips.At 54.22. Profit factor 4.2

[STT]

Saudi Arabia cannot sell the world its oil at $10 as this wont allow it a balanced budget.    The production might be this cheap but the country itself needs a higher price to balance spending elsewhere.
They are trying to reorganise on many fronts but its not there yet.  They are developing alternate power sources, even solar power.   They are moving to privatise parts of the largest oil company in the world.   I think in time they will stop selling in dollars, because ultimately the reason why they cant sell at $10 is Washington government has already handed out too many dollars to pay its own bills.   They have to create some demand in their oil price, probably selling in their own notes helps them balance trade better

[uneng]

Just a doubt. Why is oil still important? Isn't there easier and cheaper methods to generate energy? Like solar and eolic?
With much extraction of oil it can result in a big problem inside the earth and in the oceans. It's probable the oil will become worthless even more, losing value in the future. Do you agree?

The problem is not in generating electricity

I guess burning oil for producing electricity (e.g. by using diesel generators) is like burning dollar bills for producing heat. You won't get enough heat anyway but only waste your money. The cheapest mass scale large methods of producing electricity are hydroelectric stations and nuclear power plants. The major problem is not generating electricity as such. For example, at night, when there is less overall activity there is abundance of electricity (that's why governments often set different tariffs for day and night electricity consumption). The major problem is storing electricity (or rather energy as such), and this is where oil (and oil products such as gasoline) are beyond competition for most practical purposes

Ah, the issue is with energy storage. Technology should advance this way, thinking in long term we need renewable sources of energy. Oil won't last forever and may create problems in the nature.
A method to store the energy from lightning would be very useful too. I think the biggest currently problems are the costs to make this technology or to store this with the currently technology we have.

[deisik]

Majority of oil transportation over ocean is made by VLCC's the rest are ULCC's ( up to 4 million barrels).
It is pretty clear you got no clue about transportation on water.

Ok tell me how much loading processes cost and then we will see how much it add to transportation cost.
Cant run away

Something funny. People use VLCC's as mobile storage in times of oversupplies

I didn't think up anything

You brought up figures from the article in the WSJ newspaper which you apparently didn't thoroughly read yourself (since you can't even keep track who was asking what just a few days ago in this very thread), and these figures confirm my suspicions that the quote you gave was full of half-truths and deliberate distortions of facts (measuring the crude oil transportation costs by the price of gasoline at the pump was telling). I don't how much the loading and storing oil in oil terminals costs, but if what you say about shipping costs is true, then we should necessarily come to a conclusion that other transportation costs are pretty steep (that's why storing oil in tankers may be profitable). VLCC's can't enter many ports (due to their sheer size), and oil has to be piped into smaller tankers before final delivery onshore (which should be a hell of a job)

[Sithara007]

Saudi Arabia cannot sell the world its oil at $10 as this wont allow it a balanced budget.    The production might be this cheap but the country itself needs a higher price to balance spending elsewhere.

They are now in better shape, with crude stabilizing at around $55 per barrel. But unless the prices rise to around $80 per barrel, there will be a budget deficit. The sovereign wealth fund (worth more than $500 billion), and the Aramco IPO sale (the Saudis claim that a 50% stake sale will bring $1 trillion) can keep them afloat for another 15-20 years (assuming that the budget spending doesn't rise).

[criptix]

Majority of oil transportation over ocean is made by VLCC's the rest are ULCC's ( up to 4 million barrels).
It is pretty clear you got no clue about transportation on water.

Ok tell me how much loading processes cost and then we will see how much it add to transportation cost.
Cant run away

Something funny. People use VLCC's as mobile storage in times of oversupplies

I didn't think up anything

You brought up figures from the article in the WSJ newspaper which you apparently didn't thoroughly read yourself (since you can't even keep track who was asking what just a few days ago in this very thread), and these figures confirm my suspicions that the quote you gave was full of half-truths and deliberate distortions of facts (measuring the crude oil transportation costs by the price of gasoline at the pump was telling). I don't how much the loading and storing oil in oil terminals costs, but if what you say about shipping costs is true, then we should necessarily come to a conclusion that other transportation costs are pretty steep (that's why storing oil in tankers may be profitable). VLCC's can't enter many ports (due to their sheer size), and oil has to be piped into smaller tankers before final delivery onshore (which should be a hell of a job)

Where are your figures?
I explained everything but you just arent able to understand.

VLCC's are used since 1980. They can enter every important port that is why VLCC's are the main transportation vehicle over water for oil.

I even did a breakdown for a 15.000 km transport (main dinstance of the east-west and the inverse route).

You still got no figures and no argument except conjectures that are wrong

Dude 2.25 million of 100 million is 2.25%... you are really retarded.

Btw. Why the heck wouldnt you measure or compare the transportation against the production cost? This is what you do in cost accounting - this has nothing to do with distortions.


Also i confused you with sithara because both of you are very low quality posters. I try to keep the noise as low as possible so most of the time i just skip posts as yours.

[deisik]

Majority of oil transportation over ocean is made by VLCC's the rest are ULCC's ( up to 4 million barrels).
It is pretty clear you got no clue about transportation on water.

Ok tell me how much loading processes cost and then we will see how much it add to transportation cost.
Cant run away

Something funny. People use VLCC's as mobile storage in times of oversupplies

I didn't think up anything

You brought up figures from the article in the WSJ newspaper which you apparently didn't thoroughly read yourself (since you can't even keep track who was asking what just a few days ago in this very thread), and these figures confirm my suspicions that the quote you gave was full of half-truths and deliberate distortions of facts (measuring the crude oil transportation costs by the price of gasoline at the pump was telling). I don't how much the loading and storing oil in oil terminals costs, but if what you say about shipping costs is true, then we should necessarily come to a conclusion that other transportation costs are pretty steep (that's why storing oil in tankers may be profitable). VLCC's can't enter many ports (due to their sheer size), and oil has to be piped into smaller tankers before final delivery onshore (which should be a hell of a job)

Where are your figures?

These are not my figures, I took them from the link that you yourself posted before



But you seem to suffer from amnesia, dude (apart from a lot of other things)

I speak about transportation costs versus extracting costs since they make up the total cost. I explained that in my first post regarding this topic (I understand your pains). This is what we should use when comparing domestic production (in this case, how much oil produced by the US frackers costs) with costs than involve importing oil from the other side of the world. In case of frackers we can neglect transportation costs but we can't neglect them when we talk about crude oil imports from, say, Saudi Arabia to the US (provided there are any)

[criptix]

Majority of oil transportation over ocean is made by VLCC's the rest are ULCC's ( up to 4 million barrels).
It is pretty clear you got no clue about transportation on water.

Ok tell me how much loading processes cost and then we will see how much it add to transportation cost.
Cant run away

Something funny. People use VLCC's as mobile storage in times of oversupplies

I didn't think up anything

You brought up figures from the article in the WSJ newspaper which you apparently didn't thoroughly read yourself (since you can't even keep track who was asking what just a few days ago in this very thread), and these figures confirm my suspicions that the quote you gave was full of half-truths and deliberate distortions of facts (measuring the crude oil transportation costs by the price of gasoline at the pump was telling). I don't how much the loading and storing oil in oil terminals costs, but if what you say about shipping costs is true, then we should necessarily come to a conclusion that other transportation costs are pretty steep (that's why storing oil in tankers may be profitable). VLCC's can't enter many ports (due to their sheer size), and oil has to be piped into smaller tankers before final delivery onshore (which should be a hell of a job)

Where are your figures?

These are not my figures, I took them from the link that you yourself posted before



But you seem to suffer from amnesia, dude (apart from a lot of other things)

I speak about transportation costs versus extracting costs since they make up the total cost. I explained that in my first post regarding this topic (I understand your pains). This is what we should use when comparing domestic production (in this case, how much oil produced by the US frackers costs) with costs than involve importing oil from the other side of the world. In case of frackers we can neglect transportation costs but we can't neglect them when we talk about crude oil imports from, say, Saudi Arabia to the US (provided there are any)

Im talking about port fees, loading and discharging cost what you talked about.


And i already explained the comparison in my first post.

When production cost is low transportation cost gets higher %wise but nominal it is nearly the same everywhere.
That is why you get a 10% for high cost extraction (fracking deep sea) and 25% for low cost extraction (russia,saudi arabia, iran).

But it doesnt matter for the low cost producer because they sell it for 55$ per barrel anyway and not at 10$.

And i just broke down the transportation cost for you for the distance saudi arabia to the us. The transportation cost was just 2,5%.

So yeah what the academics in transporting systems say is still correct.

It is like you are a 12 year old kid or a sub 80 iq adult.
Are you by chance sub sahara african?

[STT]

They are now in better shape, with crude stabilizing at around $55 per barrel. But unless the prices rise to around $80 per barrel, there will be a budget deficit. The sovereign wealth fund (worth more than $500 billion), and the Aramco IPO sale (the Saudis claim that a 50% stake sale will bring $1 trillion) can keep them afloat for another 15-20 years (assuming that the budget spending doesn't rise).

I didnt think it was as high as 80 to balance their budget, hardly struggling exactly but Saudi Arabia is also issuing their own bonds.   I do think to do such things they might be better to demand payment in their own currency and if Trump continues his alteration of long term policies who knows.    I know Iran has big problems with higher costs, lack of investment for many decades.   BP is moving into Iran despite losing half their company there in the seventies, must be extreme.

Can the world afford 80 I wonder, it raises the cost of everything including food to have higher prices.   Its not that I think 80 is incorrect or expensive exactly but lower oil has masked many problems perhaps, inflation not yet realised or understood in economies.   When the thumb screws are tightened by higher oil, it might be painful for some which leads to changes.   Arguably the Arab spring came partly from this inflation problem, people struggling to work against costs rising faster then wages.   People in first world complain about this effect, imagine how much harder it is if you were already poor to begin with not well off and able to cut some luxury

[Sithara007]

I didnt think it was as high as 80 to balance their budget, hardly struggling exactly but Saudi Arabia is also issuing their own bonds.   I do think to do such things they might be better to demand payment in their own currency and if Trump continues his alteration of long term policies who knows.    I know Iran has big problems with higher costs, lack of investment for many decades.   BP is moving into Iran despite losing half their company there in the seventies, must be extreme.

Actually I was wrong. Saudi Arabia needs a crude oil price of $104 per barrel to balance its budget (perhaps they can adjust slightly by increasing the production). There is not a single oil producing country, which can survive at $55 per barrel in the long term. Check this:

[Taki]

Oil is limited source on the Earth and it's value is going down and price is going up. But people already creating alternative for the oil that will replace it in some years. So I think oil will cost a lot one day, cause of it's few value, but maybe that day the humanity will find good alternative to it and the demand for oil will not be so big.

[deisik]

But you seem to suffer from amnesia, dude (apart from a lot of other things)

I speak about transportation costs versus extracting costs since they make up the total cost. I explained that in my first post regarding this topic (I understand your pains). This is what we should use when comparing domestic production (in this case, how much oil produced by the US frackers costs) with costs than involve importing oil from the other side of the world. In case of frackers we can neglect transportation costs but we can't neglect them when we talk about crude oil imports from, say, Saudi Arabia to the US (provided there are any)

Im talking about port fees, loading and discharging cost what you talked about.


And i already explained the comparison in my first post.

When production cost is low transportation cost gets higher %wise but nominal it is nearly the same everywhere.
That is why you get a 10% for high cost extraction (fracking deep sea) and 25% for low cost extraction (russia,saudi arabia, iran)

You have to consult a physician with your memory issues

I have explained it to you that these transportation costs are obviously calculated in respect to these countries' consumers. And this is China. Russia and Saudi Arabia are competing between themselves to be the largest crude oil exporter to it (and now Iran is likely going to join them). Now take a map and see for yourself that all these exporters are very close to China. Why do you think SA is not exporting much oil to the US, i.e. almost 3 times less than Canada, even despite the fact that its oil is like 20 times cheaper to extract than Canadian? Your figures include only shipping costs but they apparently make up only a small (or even tiny) part of total transportation costs

Are you by chance sub sahara african?

What do you have against sub-Saharan Africans? Are you a Nazi or what? If so, you'd better shut the fuck up since you may not want to know where I am from

[tyz]

I was convinced for a long time that the price will recover after the crash and hit the $100 per barrel soon again.

However, in the meanwhile, I have come to the conclusion that the oil price will not recover in the medium term. It is mainly because of the election of Trump. It is very likely he will support fracking and the search for new oil resources. He has a lot of partners in the oil industry.

Also, I took a deeper look in the fracking issue and found some very interesting pictures on Google map. They show the whole extent of fracking.

Google Map

Each little dot is a fracking well. And this is just one region in western Texas. There are many more such regions.

[Theb]

I was convinced for a long time that the price will recover after the crash and hit the $100 per barrel soon again.

However, in the meanwhile, I have come to the conclusion that the oil price will not recover in the medium term. It is mainly because of the election of Trump. It is very likely he will support fracking and the search for new oil resources. He has a lot of partners in the oil industry.

Also, I took a deeper look in the fracking issue and found some very interesting pictures on Google map. They show the whole extent of fracking.

Google Map

Each little dot is a fracking well. And this is just one region in western Texas. There are many more such regions.

The problem is that the countries of Big Oil Producers all have agreed to limit or even stop production of new oils that is why oil prices have increase. The reason why Oil got cheaper in the first place it because of it being oversupplied by all the countries. Oil price increase today is a good sign for out future, it insures as that we still have enough oil to produce in the long run.

[Sithara007]

I was convinced for a long time that the price will recover after the crash and hit the $100 per barrel soon again.

However, in the meanwhile, I have come to the conclusion that the oil price will not recover in the medium term. It is mainly because of the election of Trump. It is very likely he will support fracking and the search for new oil resources. He has a lot of partners in the oil industry.

Also, I took a deeper look in the fracking issue and found some very interesting pictures on Google map. They show the whole extent of fracking.

Google Map

Each little dot is a fracking well. And this is just one region in western Texas. There are many more such regions.

The election of Trump has nothing to do with this. Historically, the American shale oil production has never been affected by the political changes. This will change though, if Trump permits drilling in the national parks.

[criptix]

But you seem to suffer from amnesia, dude (apart from a lot of other things)

I speak about transportation costs versus extracting costs since they make up the total cost. I explained that in my first post regarding this topic (I understand your pains). This is what we should use when comparing domestic production (in this case, how much oil produced by the US frackers costs) with costs than involve importing oil from the other side of the world. In case of frackers we can neglect transportation costs but we can't neglect them when we talk about crude oil imports from, say, Saudi Arabia to the US (provided there are any)

Im talking about port fees, loading and discharging cost what you talked about.


And i already explained the comparison in my first post.

When production cost is low transportation cost gets higher %wise but nominal it is nearly the same everywhere.
That is why you get a 10% for high cost extraction (fracking deep sea) and 25% for low cost extraction (russia,saudi arabia, iran)

Your figures include only shipping costs but they apparently make up only a small (or even tiny) part of total transportation costs

All right. So what are the cost? Tell us.

So how much on top of the 2.25 million $ do they to have to pay for a 15.000 km sea transport of 2 milion barrels? My example makes it clear that the cost was 2,25% for sep. 2016.

Feel free to post cost figures until now all you said is that you believe the transportation cost to be higher lol


Sub sahara african have an avg iq of 60-80 so it would be not surprising that they dont understand that close to everyone (in the western world) pays the exchange price of 55$ - doenst matter if for canadian, russian, saudi arabian or iranian oil.

Btw in 2005 close the one decade ago the US imported over 60% of their crude oil.
Why you ask? Maybe you need to consult a physician with your memory issues?

120$/barrel and fracking which is now profitable at 40$ (before at 60$)?

Fucking braindead idiot.