ListNook

Ok-Swimmer-2634 1 day ago +331

Insane how oil prices went down after the "ceasefire" as though oil infrastructure in the Middle East won't be devastated for years to come

331

lastpassonright 1 day ago +120

Those are paper prices, the physical price is much much higher.

120

ariveyd 1 day ago +33

Could you please elaborate a bit more?

33

lastpassonright 1 day ago +73

The paper price is what you'll see if you look up the price. This is simply a futures contract. The physical or spot price is what someone actually buying a barrel of oil pays. That price was in the 130+ already and won't go down as much because of the lower supply available.

73

xxxxxxxsandos 1 day ago +25

What? The owner of the future is the one buying the barrel and that is not for spot price, they pay whatever the future contract says they pay. Has nothing to do with the current spot price. If you’re holding a future saying you have to trade at $100 a barrel and spot is $0.01, you still gotta do it. If you mean the guy buying the barrel from the guy buying the barrel, then yes. I think what you’re trying to say is people already bought barrels at $130, so current spot being $x does not mean prices go down immediately as the foreseeable future is already locked in at higher prices, and likewise futures being down doesn’t mean spot is down (it’s up like you’re saying, about $125) as spot is reflecting previous futures.

25

lastpassonright 1 day ago +18

I don't see how that's different from what I said. Someone buying oil today is not paying 97$ a barrel. That futures price for May and June is also fantasy given that oil is now flowing at a reduced rate and not at all out of the Strait.

18

scroogesscrotum 1 day ago +10

But if you buy the $97 future today then you have a right at that price when it comes due so how is it a fantasy? Unless you just mean the price is artificially low and will inevitably increase in the near future then I agree

10

Aelig_ 1 day ago +5

If the oil doesn't exist you can huff and puff all you want, you're not getting it. Instead you'll have to buy it at the spot price.

5

scroogesscrotum 1 day ago -5

That’s not how contracts work. Maybe the throughput is fucked, but if you write a contract you better be able to deliver.

-5

Aelig_ 1 day ago +6

That's cute and all but when your delivery guy gets killed you're not getting the thing you ordered so you need to buy it from someone else.

6

[deleted] 1 day ago +1

[removed]

1

scroogesscrotum 1 day ago +1

I’m not sure what your argument even is? On one side I have some guy saying the futures contracts are worthless if they somehow run out of oil to deliver, and on the other I have you saying most people don’t take delivery based on futures contracts. The answer is you’re right, most contracts aren’t delivered they’re just paper traded. But that only proves my point. If you purchase the futures with the intent to take delivery then you have every right to do so and in no realistic world will there not be oil to deliver on those contracts. The US strategic oil reserves alone are 400 million barrels. Thats doesn’t include current throughput. So in what world would the US allow their futures markets to not fulfill a contract? It would delegitimize our markets.. Plus I’m sure if we did the math even in some unrealistic world where every contract required delivery then the US would have the capacity to cover it if it eliminated exports. These are obviously artificially low futures prices that will inevitably go up and the spot price is more realistic, but that doesn’t change the fact that the contract gives you the right to take delivery at those prices in the future.

1

DinosaursDidntExist 1 day ago +1

I'm not making an argument I'm asking a question. What people really care about here is how much will I as a consumer have to pay. Is the spot price or futures price more relevant? Or perhaps neither are a very good indicator. Because for one the futures market could be dominated by speculators sitting between the producer and the nation/company consuming, and so the retail consumer is not paying the futures price but either the spot or something closer to the spot price. Similarly the price paid by the direct consumer (ie you and me) could be dictated more by demand than current purchase price of a barrel of oil, so not necessarily related to either spot or purchase price. My point i suppose is that no one really cares about the price paid by the person fulfilling the contract, we care about the price we will have to pay to consume the product.

1

takesthebiscuit 1 day ago +1

The point is someone may hold a $97 future but that needs to be satisfied with someone on the other side of that bet that needs to find oil and deliver it for that $97 or less or they make a loss. That person who sold the future is having to buy oil at >$130 a barrel and take the L. But if no oil is available maybe it’s all moot and the future goes to 0. But the person who owns the future may sell that $97 for $100 make $3 and lock in the return

1

G-T-L-3 1 day ago +3

The price paid wholesale is what is in the contract. In asia it’s MOPS or MOPAG and those are forward values and paid by LC on delivery because it takes time to transit. So it’s not like you or I going to a station and paying “spot” price.

3

danisindeedfat 1 day ago +1

You guys make me feel like I know nothing about finance.

1

xxxxxxxsandos 1 day ago +1

Wholesale to who though. Futures are just going to confuse everyone. If you’re not the party on the contract and you want to buy a barrel of oil, you’re paying what’s called the _cash_ price, and it’s way higher than whatever the future was and whatever current spot is. Cash price today was like $130/barrel iirc.

1

G-T-L-3 1 day ago +2

Many physical oil cargoes in Singapore are traded on a **floating price basis**, meaning the final price is not known at the time of the trade. Instead, it is determined by a standard formula: **Physical Value = MOPS + Premium (or D*******)**. * **MOPS component:** This represents the base market value of the commodity as assessed by Platts during the "future" loading window (typically 15–30 days forward from the assessment date)

2

ag3ntz3r0 1 day ago +1

Just to add, ideally the both should be close. If not, theres something big about to happen/happening.

1

takesthebiscuit 1 day ago +2

The oil that started its journey pre war is still slowly making its way to refineries Once that’s burned into the atmosphere there is no more coming for a long time

2

Lancestrike 1 day ago +1

There are ious of oil. That will get called in, they were already sold and bought, they're kinda chill. The fact we're seeing infrastructure go boom means further down the line prices will be big sad

1

BOPSurfcasting 1 day ago +8

Tell me about it, diesel has increased where I'm at by 111% compared to just before the war. Driving now is only if absolutely essential. I can't escape the food prices though.

8

mr_birkenblatt 1 day ago +2

We'll there is no physical price for april because there exist no delivery that you could buy at the moment

2

r2k-in-the-vortex 1 day ago +16

Futures prices. These are heavily traded by companies which will never take physical delivery.

16

Blueberryburntpie 1 day ago +6

I recall back in the early months of COVID when oil price went negative due to extreme over-supply from collapsed demand (somewhere around March-April 2020). Some idiot (probably on the wallstreetbets sublistnook) bought those oil contracts thinking he just found free money. And then was told he had to take physical delivery or have someone else take the oil, or he would be fined for violating the contracts. Panic ensued.

6

r2k-in-the-vortex 1 day ago +5

There is a legend making rounds of a financial company that had their offices quay side, and a ship full of coal showed up one morning because someone failed to sell a futures contract in time.

5

Soggy_otter 1 day ago +1

Yeah its real. It happened15-20 years ago. I was skeptical but it has come up on NPR's planet money a couple of times so assume it would have been fact checked as a real event.

1

TheModWhoShaggedMe 1 day ago

Gas prices haven't gone down though.

0

klingma 1 day ago +2

Right, because your typical gas station buys gasoline around once a week, so they're caught with old inventory at the old price before any price shifting. The next delivery/order will show the price shift.

2

dennis-w220 1 day ago

Like stocks, it is more about "projection". Right or not, the reasoning is "the worst has been left behind".

0

Blueberryburntpie 1 day ago +30

For those who haven't read the article, it discusses that the oil pipeline infrastructure leading to the Red Sea ports was hit. Iran is trying to kinetically discourage Saudi Arabia's oil trade from bypassing the Strait of Hormuz.

30

down_vote_magnet_ 1 day ago +52

The attack has cut throughput in the pipeline by 700,000 barrels per day.

52

down_vote_magnet_ 1 day ago +41

It looks like it happened on the day of the ceasefire.

41

oss1215 1 day ago +36

Yeah i live there currently, the day of the ceasefire was f****** wild. Got woken up by a missile alarm at 2:55am telling me to take shelter immediately. Mental health has been shot since the war started and decided to just say f*** it and went back to bed, if i die i die there's nothing i can do about it really. Woke up and basically there were alerts all over the country even in places that havent been targeted that much before. Then the ceasefire happened. I guess it was a last volley before it took effect

36

AnastasiaWookieTits 1 day ago +55

All of this because Trump was too stupid to even know how stupid he is and so thought this was going to be quick and easy.

55

BenTramer 1 day ago +19

He is stupid beyond belief and that’s why his handlers have no problem controlling him. All this is benefiting them, perfectly executed plan.

19

IntelArtiGen 1 day ago -9

Well it was quick. He said 4~5 weeks when it began, and it was almost that. For a war it's really short (I mean if it doesn't start again). With that said he reached perhaps ~30% of his goals, so it can't be a big success for him for now. The United States also suffered heavy losses in military equipment, but managed to limit casualties among its soldiers. Clearly it wasn't "easy".

-9

math2ndperiod 1 day ago +6

I don't think it makes a ton of sense to call a task "quick" if you just stop before completing it.

6

emmer 1 day ago -27

Damn I can’t believe he made a country which has been terrorizing the region for decades carry out a terrorist attack

-27

xxdarkslidexx 1 day ago +12

Yeah I’m sure this would have happened without the bombing of Iran. Let’s all blame Iran for oil prices rising not my precious Trump

12

emmer 1 day ago -7

Oh for sure, there was zero terrorism in the region before last month. And honestly what other option does Iran have than to threaten to destroy any peaceful merchant ship for no other reason than they can?

-7

iLuvRachetPussy 1 day ago +10

The way you speak is confusing. The sarcasm just muddles your argument. Are you saying that ships weren’t transiting through the strait before the war? Are you saying lng and oil infrastructure was getting bombed before the war? Is that what you’re saying? That’s what I think you’re saying. Please feel free to clarify straightforwardly.

10

emmer 1 day ago -11

Sure, here you go - However you feel about Trump, it’s absurd to believe that anything he did could justify Iran’s decision to attack civilian ships transiting the Straight. It’s like saying you punched me, but you’re bigger than me, so I had to punch a random person who had nothing to do with it. It makes zero sense. Or even that “all this” is because of Trump, without placing any blame on Iran which has been terrorizing the region for years, supplying and directing attacks in other neighboring countries via their proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, and providing the Houthis in Yemen with anti ship missiles they used to fire at civilian vessels in 2022. The reality is the region has been a shitshow for years, and people acting like this is unexpected or out of the blue either haven’t been paying attention or have been getting their news from the Listnook comment section, which is probably worse between the two.

-11

EarballsAgain 1 day ago +3

From the Iranian Leadership's perspective theyre fighting a war for theor own survival. They don't care about justifying anything. It doesn't matter if you're just walking by a cornered animal will lash out at you if it thinks that will help it survive.

3

Guest_0_ 1 day ago +5

This is out of the blue. The US has been war gaming this for decades, in fact it lost its own war game scenario in 2002 where it simulated a naval invasion of Iran. As a result no US president has been stupid enough to do what Trump has done and moreover he did it with no clear goals or objectives. Analysts have been predicting Iran would do exactly what it's done for 40 years now and Trump is trying to act like everyone's surprised.

5

[deleted] 1 day ago -2

[deleted]

-2

EvenJesusCantSaveYou 1 day ago +2

I mean I’m not going to run defense for an oppressive theocracy but Iran didnt chose this course of action; Bibi and the Trump chose to start the war and create this disaster.

2

Any_Parsnip2585 1 day ago +4

Wouldn’t have happened if they weren’t attacked.

4

sigmund14 1 day ago +10

The thing is that this was a retaliation for Israel bombing Lebanon. Iran sees "not attacking Lebanon" as a core of ceasefire deal, while USA and Israel consider Lebanon to not be a part of a ceasefire deal.

10

klingma 1 day ago +9

And Hezbollah said they don't care one way or the other, they're going to continue doing what they want. There's no functional truce if there's a party actively antagonizing and going against any potential truce.

9

Pseudanonymius 1 day ago +1

Hezbollah stopped for like a day after the ceasefire. You can't blame Hezbollah for not keeping the ceasefire when they were continually attacked by Israel.

1

chaotic_goody 1 day ago +1

I do not think the word retaliation is appropriate in this context

1

dave_gormen_3 1 day ago +1

Iran considers Lebanon as family, and made this very clear, so it kinda like saying if someone hurts your child, you will mess them up in retaliation.

1

chaotic_goody 1 day ago +1

Isn’t this more like someone hurting my child and then me punching my neighbour?

1

dave_gormen_3 1 day ago +1

thats a good point. I too am not sure why Iran isn't bombing Israel more. I guess they know that Israel is not likely to back down, but going through USA military bases might pressure USA to try reign in Israel (if that's even possible). But yes, I see your point, retaliation is being used incorrectly. Maybe "response" would have been more accurate.

1

chaotic_goody 1 day ago +1

I agree! sorry. I was shooting off messages while doomscrolling, and I could’ve done better with presenting my position at first and saved you some time!

1

manniesalado 1 day ago +1

The NERVE of those Iranians! Don't they know the Saudis are friends of Donald Trump???

1

TheModWhoShaggedMe 1 day ago -7

This ceasefire will be about as clean as Israel's with Palestinians (as in, non-existent, they will continue to kill at a slower pace). \*thousands of Palestinian women and children have been slaughtered in 2026 already, *what ceasefire?*

-7

Iran attacks on crucial Saudi pipeline and production facilities slash kingdom's oil output

💬 Send a Message

58 Comments