Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable

"This is yet another example of a government intruding into areas it never should have. In fact, it has no Constitutional authority to intrude."

Objective Voice said:

Yes it does. It's called "interstate commerce".

Click to expand...

That became the result but the power is not found in the Constitution nor is it in the Debates. This was an invention of the Courts. The Constitution as ratified had no role for the federal government in national industrial policy. The interstate commerce clause was intended to make sure the states did not wage economic war upon one another.

This is another example of the growing tyranny of any government. All governments tend toward tyranny. That is why they all eventually fall. We are no different.

cpwill said:

and that that somehow means that therefore the Saudi's are not making oil production decisions in response to prices falling and American production...

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure why you are so discounting the idea that the Saudis could be acting in concert with the US to break Putin, after all it just might be history repeating, ala 1985.

cpwill said:

Now this is an interesting list. I started looking into it, mostly because I was surprised to see Kissingers' name up there.

I cannot find a single instance of Kissinger stating that a U.S. intervention in Ukraine would have meant or could have meant a nuclear war. All I can find him saying is that we risk sliding back into another Cold War in general, given degrading relations.

Click to expand...

It is rather amazing that not only do you display a profound lack of the ability to read the words of others, but you also don't even know what you have said because back at post #113 YOU DID NOT ASK EXCLUSIVELY FOR A LIST OF PEOPLE THAT THOUGHT WE RISKED NUCLEAR WAR. Here is exactly what you said:

cpwill said:

Alright, please post all of these very reasonable people who thought that we risked nuclear war over Crimea, or that we even dangerously confronted Russia there.

Click to expand...

So again, what you have posted is another wives tale. The reason Kissinger's name is on the list is because his remarks can be seen in the context of the US dangerously confronting Russia over Crimea. To see why this is the case let's look at what Kissinger said in his Der Spiegel interview

SPIEGEL: What you're saying is that the West has at least a kind of responsibility for the escalation?

Kissinger: Yes, I am saying that. Europe and America did not understand the impact of these events, starting with the negotiations about Ukraine's economic relations with the European Union and culminating in the demonstrations in Kiev.

Kissinger: Certainly. But Ukraine has always had a special significance for Russia. It was a mistake not to realize that.

SPIEGEL: Relations between the West and Russia are tenser now than they have been in decades. Should we be concerned about the prospects of a new Cold War?

Kissinger: There clearly is this danger, and we must not ignore it.
I think a resumption of the Cold War would be a historic tragedy. If a conflict is avoidable, on a basis reflecting morality and security, one should try to avoid it.

Click to expand...

Here Kissinger clearly states that the US was partly responsible for the ESCALATION WITH REGARDS TO CRIMEA because the US did not properly understand the impact of the events that started with the negotiations over the future of Ukraine's economic relations with the EU and culminated in the demonstrations in Kiev. The negotiations included the EU association agreement, Russia's response with at more attractive offer, and Yanukovich's inclination to accept Russia's more attractive offer. Instead of making a more attractive offer, US President Barack Obama, through the Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, CONFRONTED RUSSIA BY FOMENTING STREET PROTEST AGAINST THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED HEAD OF THE UKRAINIAN STATE AND THREATENING AKHMETOV, A VERY INFLUENTIAL UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH. To confront Russia in this way over Ukraine, was indeed to confront Russia over Crimea because even a lay follower of foreign policy would know that Crimea is a vital military interest of Russia and because Crimea was part of Ukraine, control of Ukraine was control of Crimea. That said OBAMA PERSONALLY was likely not so much directly concerned over Russian control over it's base at Sevastopol when he, though Nuland, instigated this confrontation because the US can contain Russian naval power in the Black Sea through NATO member Turkey. What he was likely concerned over was Russian attempts to form a Eurasian economic union which would have included Ukraine, and would have one day been indeed an economic rival to the US in a new multi polar world order. That is not to say that there are not any influential people in the US who would indeed like to see Russia pushed out Sevastopol. But it is to say that because is was well known in the US Russian concerns over their naval base at Sevastopol, Obama likely thought that although the US was confronting Russia in this way, he could assuage Russian fears over it's naval base by giving them assurances that they would be able to keep it, while at the same time obstructing Russian attempts to create a powerful economic union that would rival the economic power of the US as the dollar's power starts to fade. What Kissinger appears to be saying is that this was a mistake because it did not adequately take into account Russian concerns. This is so because it would have required Russia to bet it's ability to project naval power on US assurances, and Putin, quite correctly in my opinion, judged that he could not trust mere promises from Obama, because the US in the past reneged on promises it made to Russia not to expand NATO. So Kissinger's remarks can be seen in the light the US confronting Russia over Crimea, and a dangerous one because Kissinger says that the prospects for a new cold war are indeed dangerous.

cpwill said:

Even Russian propaganda is not attempting to put the words in his mouth that you are. What I suspect you have done is taken a list of people who generally think that US intervention in Ukraine could go badly, and treated it as a list of people who support the ridiculous claim that sending lethal aid to the Ukrainians (for example, as we did to the Afghan fighters who were opposing the Soviets) would result in a nuclear conflagration.

Click to expand...

What I would suggest is that in the future, before you start spinning wives tales is that you read more carefully and recall properly what you have said. If you did these two things, it would greatly increase the chances that you would not post such garbage, unless you are deliberately posting deceitful sophistry.

cpwill said:

It's also worth noting that Caldicott is a global anti-nuke activist who is not actually a Nobel recipient - but was rather part of an organization (the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) that was.

Click to expand...

That is true. One source that I saw listed her as a Nobel recipient and it was not my intent to mislead anyone. That said she was indeed a part of an organization that won the Noble prize, is a physician, and qualifies as a reasonable person which justifies her inclusion on the list.

cpwill said:

A random university professor is, well, sort of laughable. I see you and raise you one Warren Churchill.

Click to expand...

A suppose a sophist snob would not be able to view a university professor who has written with clarity on the events as a reasonable person. To bad, he qualifies to be on the list nonetheless.

cpwill said:

Jack Matlock doesn't seem to have said that the response would have been nuclear war, either (in fact he thinks Russia should leave Crimea)

Click to expand...

First of all again, you did not ask for the risk of nuclear war exclusively. That said the reason he is on the list because he said

And one can, you know, talk all one wishes about how impermissible it is for Russia to intervene, but the fact is they are going to intervene until they are certain that there is no prospect of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. And all of the threats by NATO and so on to sort of increase defenses elsewhere is simply provocative to the Russians. Now, I’m not saying that’s right, but I am saying that’s the way Russia is going to react. And frankly, this is all predictable. And those of us who helped negotiate the end of the Cold War almost unanimously said in the 1990s, "Do not expand NATO eastward. Find a different way to protect eastern Europe, a way that includes Russia. Otherwise, eventually there’s going to be a confrontation, because there is a red line, as far as any Russian government is concerned, when it comes to Ukraine and Georgia and other former republics of the Soviet Union."

Click to expand...

AND

Well, it does seem to me that, practically speaking, there needs to be an understanding between Russia and the Ukrainians as to how to solve this problem. It is not going to be solved militarily. So the idea that we should be giving more help to the Ukrainian government in a military sense simply exacerbates the problem.
....

And most of the—I would say, the influence of the West in trying to help the Ukrainians by, I would say, defending them against the Russians tends to be provocative, because—you know, Putin is right: If he decided, he could take Kiev. Russia is a nuclear power. And Russia feels that we have ignored that, that we have insulted them time and time again, and that we are out to turn Ukraine into an American puppet that surrounds them.

Click to expand...

AND

Ukraine is not a member of NATO. And why we react as if it is and has any claim on our cooperation in defending them from Russia, this is simply not the case. These are different cases. And, you know, by saying we have to increase our military presence in the Baltic states, this just reinforced the Russian perception that they must, and at all costs, keep Ukraine from that happening, or else they’ll have American bases in Ukraine, they’ll have American naval bases on the Black Sea. This is the fear. And it seems to me that it is not necessary to protect the Baltics, which are not being threatened by Russia, and it is apt to make the Russians even more demanding toward the Ukrainians when it comes to Ukraine. However, you know, we’re on that course...

Click to expand...

Here Matlock acknowledges that we have created the perception in the mind of a nuclear power that we are out to surround them with a puppet state in Ukraine AND that US attempts to defend Ukraine against the Russian are provocative, i.e. A DANGEROUS CONFRONTATION. So yeah, Matlock qualifies to be on the list, and you have spun another wives tale.

Gimmesometruth said:

I'm not quite sure why you are so discounting the idea that the Saudis could be acting in concert with the US to break Putin, after all it just might be history repeating, ala 1985.

Click to expand...

Great post. He is likely pissed off because Obama refused to overthrow Assad at the behest of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Therefore he wants to paint Obama as weak, and if it is true that the Saudis are acting in that way at the behest of the President of the United States, Barack Obama, that discredits that whole narrative that the President is weak.

poweRob said:

Natural gas, wind and solar are in the process of driving demand down for crude. The only thing has realistically been keeping it up fuel prices are the speculators falsifying the market.

Click to expand...

Since when can you use natural gas or wind/solar energy to power a motor vehicle?

SouthernDemocrat said:

The biggest thing that has driven down the price of crude is decreased demand due to greater vehicular fleet fuel efficiency.

Click to expand...

Wrong...

The recent downturn in prices was the result of the growth in oil supplies, largely from the U.S., outpacing the growth in global demand.

Click to expand...

The strength of the U.S. dollar against other currencies around the world has widened compared to the Yen and the Euro. For American consumers this means they are experiencing a greater fall in crude oil prices than the citizens of Japan and Europe.

As oil prices have fallen around the world, the price decline has been greater for countries that have a strong currency like the U.S., but less for those that don’t.

Click to expand...

Gas Prices Explained

Μολὼν λαβέ;1064111167 said:

Since when can you use natural gas or wind/solar energy to power a motor vehicle?

Click to expand...

Disney has buses that run on natural gas.

"All our dreams can come true – if we have the courage to pursue them." – Walt Disney

Imagine a world where it is once again cheap to fill up your vehicle. It's also a world where greenhouse gas emissions are minimal and the fuel used to run the economy is homemade, not brought from enemy lands. Now, it's beginning to sound like a world that Walt Disney (NYSE: DIS ) might dream up.

That's why it's almost a bizarre plot twist to realize that this story is real. While Walt Disney and other well-known characters are at its heart, this story of American natural gas is no fantasy. Instead, it's becoming more real every day.

One of the evidences of this reality is actually found at Walt Disney's Disneyland in California. It is just one place where natural gas is making inroads as a transportation fuel. At Disneyland the year round guest transportation service to and from the theme parks, shopping, dining and parking areas features eco-friendly buses powered by cheap, abundant, clean American natural gas.

Disney of course isn't the only character in the plot shift toward natural gas. Lowes (NYSE: LOW ) recently launched its own fleet of natural gas powered trucks. The transition from diesel should enable Lowes to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% while also putting a lid on its fuel costs. Its goal is to replace all of its diesel-powered dedicated fleet trucks by 2017 with those fueled by natural gas.

If there is a hero in our story it's Clean Energy Fuels (NASDAQ: CLNE ) , which is working with Lowes and others to replace diesel with natural gas. For example, in order to support Lowe's shift to natural gas, Clean Energy Fuels will be opening a natural gas refueling station in Texas. That station is just one of the more than 400 that Clean Energy Fuels has built across the country to support the shift toward natural gas.

Click to expand...

Cleaner Transportation powered by natural gas

All over the country, public transportation systems move hundreds of thousands of riders on a daily basis. These fleets represent a significant portion of public dollars, largely due to the unpredictable price of fuel. But now public transit systems can rely on a cleaner and more economical fuel – natural gas – thanks to our abundant domestic supply.

Los Angeles made the transition to natural gas buses, and has seen significant benefits as a result. In fact, LA Metro is a prime example of the positive change that can come from adding natural gas to a region’s transportation sector. LA Metro has the largest fleet of clean compressed natural gas (CNG) buses in the nation—approximately 2,200.
After purchasing its first natural gas bus in 1995, the system retired its last diesel bus in 2011. Annually, LA Metro buses run about 1.5 billion miles a year and as of 2011, LA Metro estimates that its natural gas fleet has collectively driven more than one billion miles.

Click to expand...

Read more:

http://anga.us/blog/2013/5/16/cleaner-transportation-powered-with-natural-gas

MildSteel said:

......

Click to expand...

:yawn: I grow tired of endlessly demonstrating that your claims are incorrect, and so you can keep your zombie posts. That your own list of those you pathetically attempted to bring to bear A) didn't agree with you B) were twisted out of context or C) were laughable in that you had to reach so low in order to find concurrence is as telling as your refusal to now address the obvious fact that Saudi oil price reductions were not part of some kind of grand scheme with the U.S. to bring additional pressure to bear against Russia in return for our counter-ISIL strikes (which is why you are desperately attempting to pivot instead to the Ukraine).

The Saudi's trying to protect their market share against American Production says almost nothing at all good or bad about the President, except possibly implying that his attempts to forestall or reduce fracking have not succeeded as much as he probably wishes they had. Which is why your attempt to pivot to him is as telling as your attempt to pivot to the Ukraine. In the meantime, Cognitive Dissonance is rough, MS; it's going to help if you just go ahead and acknowledge even along with the growing number of Democrats who agree that the President is just weak on foreign policy and that's okay. :shrug: It's who he is. He just doesn't care.

Gimmesometruth said:

I'm not quite sure why you are so discounting the idea that the Saudis could be acting in concert with the US to break Putin, after all it just might be history repeating, ala 1985.

Click to expand...

Because there are no indications of it, the Saudi's have no reason to do so, (and quite a few reasons not to - people are underestimating the danger of the game they are playing), everyone involved, to include the Russians (who are one of the most deeply paranoid people on the planet) agree that the Saudi's move is directed at dealing with American production, and every theory that has been put forth so far to explain the mechanics of this secret-behind-the-door-maneuvering has been instantly falsified.


There is about as much evidence to support the idea that the Saudi's are secretly acting in concert to help the US harm Russia in return for our intervention against ISIL (as MS is arguing) as there is that the President was really born in Kenya. It's a conspiracy theory that depends upon non-falsifiability for survival - every piece of evidence discrediting it "only shows how deep the conspiracy goes". :roll: The Great Screwing of Russia is a happy side effect (for us), but not the intent of Saudi policy decision-making. If you want a nation that is really going to get messed over by the Saudi's decision to reduce oil prices, it's Nigeria.

cpwill said:

I grow tired of endlessly demonstrating that your claims are incorrect, and so you can keep your zombie posts.

Click to expand...

I bet you are tired because it must be taxing on your over inflated ego to openly demonstrate an inability to properly read sixth grade level material and to make a dementia like display of your inability to recall properly what has been said in this thread. Life must be tough for you.

cpwill said:

That your own list of those you pathetically attempted to bring to bear A) didn't agree with you B) were twisted out of context or C) were laughable in that you had to reach so low in order to find concurrence

Click to expand...

I would say that what is low is that after you have openly demonstrated a profound problem reading with comprehension AND a profound lack of the ability to follow properly what others and yourself have said in this thread, that you have the nerve to make a pathetic attempt to ascend to the the elevated seat of a pontiff and pontificate down an edict concerning what has transpired in this thread. It is rather disgusting, distasteful, and is befitting the standard of deceit that you constantly practice so much that it has become a habit and is likely why you are victimized by self-deception.

cpwill said:

is as telling as your refusal to now address the obvious fact that Saudi oil price reductions were not part of some kind of grand scheme with the U.S. to bring additional pressure to bear against Russia in return for our counter-ISIL strikes (which is why you are desperately attempting to pivot instead to the Ukraine).

Click to expand...

Your choice of the words "obvious fact" makes it clear to the discerning eye that indeed, as I said earlier, you are no more than a false pontiff who is bewildered by your own ego, envy and malice, because quite frankly there is nothing that is obviously factual about your claim.

cpwill said:

In the meantime, Cognitive Dissonance is rough, MS; it's going to help if you just go ahead and acknowledge even along with the growing number of Democrats who agree that the President is just weak on foreign policy and that's okay. It's who he is. He just doesn't care.

Click to expand...

I would say this, you are right cognitive dissonance is rather rough. You should know it because it must be rough to feel, as you have said, that you have excellent reading skills, but at the same time commit blatant errors in reading that even a person with sixth grade reading skills would not make. That must really hurt that big ego of yours. Cognitive dissonance indeed!

MildSteel said:

I bet you are tired because it must be taxing on your over inflated ego to openly demonstrate an inability to properly read sixth grade level material and to make a dementia like display of your inability to recall properly what has been said in this thread. Life must be tough for you.

I would say that what is low is that after you have openly demonstrated a profound problem reading with comprehension AND a profound lack of the ability to follow properly what others and yourself have said in this thread, that you have the nerve to make a pathetic attempt to ascend to the the elevated seat of a pontiff and pontificate down an edict concerning what has transpired in this thread. It is rather disgusting, distasteful, and is befitting the standard of deceit that you constantly practice so much that it has become a habit and is likely why you are victimized by self-deception.

Your choice of the words "obvious fact" makes it clear to the discerning eye that indeed, as I said earlier, you are no more than a false pontiff who is bewildered by your own ego, envy and malice, because quite frankly there is nothing that is obviously factual about your claim.

I would say this, you are right cognitive dissonance is rather rough. You should know it because it must be rough to feel, as you have said, that you have excellent reading skills, but at the same time commit blatant errors in reading that even a person with sixth grade reading skills would not make. That must really hurt that big ego of yours. Cognitive dissonance indeed!

Click to expand...

:yawn:

In the meantime, your dependence on trying to insult me (only really demonstrating your own incapability) only further highlights the fact that you were wrong. The Saudi's aren't part of any grand conspiracy to screw over Russia in order to get the U.S. into the anti-ISIL fight.

Kudos, however, on managing to accept critique and shift to a higher class of ad hominem. You're welcome for that correction.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1064111167 said:

Since when can you use natural gas or wind/solar energy to power a motor vehicle?

Click to expand...

Umm welll... cities have large fleets of buses that they are converting to CNG. That's compressed natural gas vehicles. Some cities also require taxi fleets that go to certain parts of the city to be CNG vehicles or zero emission vehicles. Or the assloads of school bus fleets going to CNG. Then of course there is United Parcel Service who is flipping a lot of their fleet. Then there is the United States Post Office which is pushing their fleet towards more and more alternative fuels which includes CNG and electric vehicles. Then there's the fact that full on electric or plug in hybrids are starting to become an option with almost every major car manufacturer.

Pretty much any company with large fleets is either running CNG and/or electric vehicles or are in the process of going to it.

I dunno man... do some googleing.

FedEx CEO: Truck Fleets to Shift to Natural Gas From Diesel

Procter & Gamble, General Mills And Frito-Lay Transition To Natural Gas Fleets

UPS, GE, and Waste Management: The 3 Most Important Companies in Natural Gas Vehicle Development?

UPS To Benefit From Fleet Running On Alternative Fuel

FedEx Express to Add Electric Vehicles to its Fleet in Brazil

100 Electric Vehicles Begin Their Journey to Save (United Parcel Service) 126,000 Gallons of Fuel Per Year

So I guess the answer to your question of "since when?"... would be... quite a while ago if you want to look at its beginning.

Misterveritis said:

Do you object to companies keeping more of their money?

Click to expand...

If they are making a profit then they dont need subsidies. "Subsidies" are not "their money."

DA60 said:

'With crude at $75 a barrel, the price Goldman Sachs Group Inc. says will be the average in the first three months of next year, 19 U.S. shale regions are no longer profitable, according to data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.'

Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable - Bloomberg

Shale Profits at Risk - Bloomberg


I (and others) have said for a while that shale oil is not the dream solution that the media is making it out to be.

Click to expand...

Only when oil is this low. Do you believe oil will stay this low indefinitely? I sure don't.

Fenton said:

Part of the reason the Saudi's are selling their product so cheap is to target the Russian economy.

Put Putin back in his place I suppose.

And yes, it would seem they're trying to put shale out of Bussinesses too.

Click to expand...

Why would the Saudi's care about Putin?

Fenton said:

Part of the reason the Saudi's are selling their product so cheap is to target the Russian economy.

Put Putin back in his place I suppose.

And yes, it would seem they're trying to put shale out of Bussinesses too.

Click to expand...

Why would they want to target the Russians?

This really has much more to do with US domestic shale production. This is a pretty good, well-sourced article. (Guess What Happened The Last Time The Price Of Oil Crashed Like This?...)

ocean515 said:

Of course it's a dream solution. The cost of crude will return to levels that will allow shale derived oil to return to profitability.

Click to expand...

Indeed. They will just stop producing until the price comes back up. It will tend to put a ceiling on the price of oil. In any case, peak oil as a concept is dead for the foreseeable future.

EnigmaO01 said:

Why would the Saudi's care about Putin?

Click to expand...

Well conspiratorially thinking... perhaps at our request?

Mr. Invisible said:

Why would they want to target the Russians?

This really has much more to do with US domestic shale production. This is a pretty good, well-sourced article. (Guess What Happened The Last Time The Price Of Oil Crashed Like This?...)

Click to expand...

I'm skepical of websites that are out to sell you something.

poweRob said:

Well conspiratorially thinking... perhaps at our request?

Click to expand...

Think about it. Is it worth shutting down American oil too?

poweRob said:

Well conspiratorially thinking... perhaps at our request?

Click to expand...

They're bringing you into line too.

" ...It is critical to remember that the Saudis have no compunction about imposing costs on other nations to maximize the value of their oil resource long term and hence the power they derive from it. The 1970s oil shock produced a nasty recession in the US and most other advanced economies and gave a further impetus to inflation, which was already hard to manage and dampened growth by discouraging investment.

The current alignment of factors gives the Saudis the opportunity to make life miserable for a long list of parties they would like to discipline, including the US.

The sharp rise in the dollar means that lowering the price of oil in dollar terms is unlikely to leave the desert kingdom worse off in local currency terms. But it undermines US energy development, both fracking and development in the Bakken, as well as more development by the majors, who were regularly criticized by analysts for how much they were spending on exploration when the math didn’t pencil out well at over $100 a barrel. Countries whose oil is output is mainly heavy, sour crude, like Iran and Venezuela, find it hard to sell their oil when prices are below $100 a barrel (or at least when the dollar was weaker, but the $80 price point, even with a strong dollar, may be low enough to cause discomfort).

In other words, this is a classic case of predatory pricing: set your price low enough long enough to do real damage to competitors, and reduce their market share, not just immediately, but in the middle to long term.

Now admittedly some pet targets may not be hurt as badly as hoped. Russia will suffer more of an opportunity loss than an actual cost from the price reduction, since the ruble has fallen significantly against the dollar. The Saudis may hope to partially displace Russia as a supplier of oil to Europe (now roughly 1/3 of the total) but refineries would need to be retooled to refine the Saudi’s light crude, so it isn’t clear whether even what amounts to bargain prices will offset this cost (and readers point out that Russian crude may also produced a better mix of distillates for European use, since they are much heavier users of diesel fuel than the US).... "

Saudis Deploy the Oil Price Weapon Against Syria, Iran, Russia, and the US | naked capitalism

EnigmaO01 said:

I'm skepical of websites that are out to sell you something.

Click to expand...

I hear where you are coming from, but I took a look at the article and the sources do check out.

EnigmaO01 said:

Think about it. Is it worth shutting down American oil too?

Click to expand...

Big oil isn't going to hurt. Its not permanent.

Manc Skipper said:

They're bringing you into line too.

" ...It is critical to remember that the Saudis have no compunction about imposing costs on other nations to maximize the value of their oil resource long term and hence the power they derive from it. The 1970s oil shock produced a nasty recession in the US and most other advanced economies and gave a further impetus to inflation, which was already hard to manage and dampened growth by discouraging investment.

The current alignment of factors gives the Saudis the opportunity to make life miserable for a long list of parties they would like to discipline, including the US.

The sharp rise in the dollar means that lowering the price of oil in dollar terms is unlikely to leave the desert kingdom worse off in local currency terms. But it undermines US energy development, both fracking and development in the Bakken, as well as more development by the majors, who were regularly criticized by analysts for how much they were spending on exploration when the math didn’t pencil out well at over $100 a barrel. Countries whose oil is output is mainly heavy, sour crude, like Iran and Venezuela, find it hard to sell their oil when prices are below $100 a barrel (or at least when the dollar was weaker, but the $80 price point, even with a strong dollar, may be low enough to cause discomfort).

In other words, this is a classic case of predatory pricing: set your price low enough long enough to do real damage to competitors, and reduce their market share, not just immediately, but in the middle to long term.

Now admittedly some pet targets may not be hurt as badly as hoped. Russia will suffer more of an opportunity loss than an actual cost from the price reduction, since the ruble has fallen significantly against the dollar. The Saudis may hope to partially displace Russia as a supplier of oil to Europe (now roughly 1/3 of the total) but refineries would need to be retooled to refine the Saudi’s light crude, so it isn’t clear whether even what amounts to bargain prices will offset this cost (and readers point out that Russian crude may also produced a better mix of distillates for European use, since they are much heavier users of diesel fuel than the US).... "

Saudis Deploy the Oil Price Weapon Against Syria, Iran, Russia, and the US | naked capitalism

Click to expand...

I was just postulating based on the question. But I personally think it's more of what you just cited. The Sunni nation of Saudi Arabia will do anything to destabilize the Shi'ite nation of Iran. The Saudi's are terrified of Iran's gaining strength in the middle east since Iraq flipped to Shi'ite control. The weakening of their competition in the US and in Russia is just icing on the cake for them.