Saudi makes oil for less than $10 a barrel. They and other low-cost producers are the only ones that will be able to compete after significant demand destruction occurs.
Some of them are in the low $20s.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia needs oil to be >$80 in order to balance its budget: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-arabia-imf/saudi-ar...
For instance,the Exxon refinery in Baytown can refine darn near anything.
The EIA has a page to track it and he different types of crude oil here: https://www.eia.gov/opendata/qb.php?category=1292755
We can refine anything, but other places can not, so they pay more than we would for the nicer oil. We used to mainly get oil from Venezuela, which is extremely sour. Saudi Arabia affects our prices due to the world market, but we have never gotten much oil from there because of the long shipping distance.
Shale breakeven on the other hand has only gotten lower and lower. It’s not long ago that people were predicting break even at $75, now it’s probably $35-$40.
"Oil Demand for Cars Is Already Falling: Electric vehicles are displacing hundreds of thousands of barrels a day, exceeding expectations."
"China just re-shaped the future of the global car market" (the sales growth of ICE vehicles has now peaked in China)
China produces enough electric busses to replace London's entire fleet every 5 weeks.
Too much wind/solar/nuclear in the grid? Shunt that power towards oil operations equipped for on-demand oil extraction... /s
I'm not really sure what their long term strategy is considering they keep reducing supply to raise prices while the US is soaking up that supply and their total profits have to be going down since oil prices are not increasing drastically while their production drops while still selling at the presumably the same margin.
Interesting especially since the first oil production occurred in the US and we played a big role in funding many of the big producers.
Fundamentally, there's nothing wrong with burning oil. There are certain applications where it will continue to be the best energy choice.
More important is (a) taxing oil consumption to offset the negative environmental effects & (b) transitioning away from oil where it makes sense.
The most important thing we can do to transition off of oil and fossil fuels is to maximize the intensity at which we utilize renewable resources which directly substitute for them.
We maximize the intensity at which urban land is utilized by phasing in a 100-1200% national or global land value tax over the next century on the appraised market price which all land is expected to sell for if cleared of improvements.
We can also promote the development of a national, inter-state, zero-emission, passenger & freight rapid-transit market several times faster than automobile highways by allowing private rail and hyper-loop operators to deduct qualified ticket sales from their land value tax liabilities.
Urbanizing is a noble goal, but not realistic in the decades timeframe the necessary solutions demand. Build more solar , wind , energy storage, and electric transportation now, rebuild cities over time. Everything I mention above can be scaled in a massively parallel fashion.
https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank (Project Drawdown: Summary of Solutions by Overall Rank)
 https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/01/22/solar-will-rebound-th... (Solar will rebound this year with more than 100 GW of new capacity)
 https://nawindpower.com/eia-2019-to-be-biggest-year-for-new-... (EIA: 2019 To Be Biggest Year For New Wind Capacity Since 2012)
This would be a really quick way to force working class people to live even further away from the city than they already are.
We need to stop pretending roads are free and trains/trams are subsidized. Government plays an essential role in transportation. People should pay for the roads they drive, income adjusted. That's healthier capitalism, because the prices are clear and better mobility = better markets.
And do what with the money raised with those taxes? I don't trust the people in charge to do what's needed to be done. The only positive thing from taxing oil consumption, would be to make it so expensive that people seek alternatives. When US gas prices were near $5/gallon, people sold their gas guzzlers and switched to fuel efficient choices. Once gas went back down, cars were sold off and guzzlers became the choice again. If Americans paid the similar prices to EU prices, things would be a lot different.
I mean you can just put it in the general fund as a way of discouraging use, like you said. I think that would work just fine.
Then, anyone who can reduce their usage will end up paying less tax, but still getting back nearly the same amount, and therefore profiting from their reduction.
That ideal is hard to achieve, but tends to be done roughly. For example, putting a tax on gas, but then equally subsidising something else related to cars, like car insurance, or the purchase price of new cars, would hit mostly the same people.
The the surface of the earth has temperature X. We can measure measure X with some degree of precision.
Any theory of physics that makes a prediction about the earth's temperature can be checked against the measured value of X.
All widely accepted theories that predict a temperature near X rely on the role of greenhouse gases and CO2 in particular to yield that temperature. And they all agree, more or less, that every doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration will result in an equal additive increase in our equilibrium temperature (so equilibrium temp grows as the log of the CO2 content).
Granted, to make _very precise_ predictions, you need to add forcing factors and feedback mechanisms that are hard to measure and hard to model and that's where computer simulations run into trouble. But the theory is sound and widely accepted.
I got most of the above a few years ago from some version of this class: https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming
Also the instructor's book, and the IPCC report from a few years ago.
It's not as if we're going to wind up with an inhabitable planet if we keep burning fossil fuels.
"Ebola is spreading at an exponential rate. There will be 200 million deaths by next year."
"Soviet GDP is growing 10% per year. Their economy will be the largest in the world in 15 years."
"Japanese GDP is growing 7% per year. Their economy will be the largest in the world in 20 years."
"The world's population increases at 2% per year. We'll have 50 billion people in 2100."
I also think that if there is a reinforcing temperature feedback loop, this isn't likely to happen to happen fast enough--at least through behavior changes. So we should focus most of our resources on developing better methods of energy production, increasing energy efficiency, and developing technology/methods to mitigate the damage of rising temperatures to human civilization.
Due to a combination of technological ingenuity and externalities in the form of current and future environmental degradation, we've been able to so far avoid the point where oil cannot be profitably produced for a price that consumers can afford to pay.