I believe it was April 2, the date of my post. I did not check the date of the paper, so it could have been April first.
A NYT article sees higher VLCC oil tanker rates on low oil prices due to longer routes caused by cheaper oil and storage of oil purchased at low prices in Asia.. The suezmax taner rates will rise with VLCC rates.
Dennis Garmin was bullish on tankers this morning on CNBC because of need for more oil storage. Although this involves VLCCs more than suezmax, it will positively the latter's rates as VLCC rates go up.
An oil increase due to unavailability from a big supplier means that oil must be supplied/tranported from other places and that increases demand for tankers. Should put upward pressure on rates.
The cost of oil vaires greatly according to location, with saudi oil the cheapest. But with WTI oil now cheap, it can be transported to compete against cheap saudi oil. This necessarily requires more transport of oil to new markets,
thus pressuring tanker rates upward.
That sounds like an overstatement . I'll bet that some storage uses suezmax tankers from time to time and place to place.
article about storage tanks.
There is lack of transparency as to how revenues will be deployed: dividends, more vessels, or more to NAO.
A big dividend will bring the buyers.
Link is about company with a big european bulk oil storage capacity and its increasing business, toward the bottom of the piece.http://seekingalpha.com/article/2935656-inter-pipeline-delivers-a-44-percent-total-return-in-2014-look-for-25minus-30-percent-in-2015-on-back-of-transport-mega-projects-and-contango-in-bulk-storage?ifp=0
Storage rates will vary by location; not all the oil can be stored at Cushing, or even the US.
really? a vessel cannot book until its voyage ends ? only vessels not under contract are available for a future booking? If so, that would lead to an inefficient market and an underutilization of vessel time. i think that a ship can be booked for a future date even if it is presently under contract.
The rigs closed down are those with low production, so their closure will have smaller effect on production
than might appear. i.e. a 10% rig closure will not result in 10% less production. Also, new rigs will be drilled (or completed drilling) as long as it they are anticipated to be profitable (i.e. in very rich fields or with low costs).
Cramer reiterated his anti-tanker position again last night, although he did not mention NAT. no particular reason given.
You would no longer see Cramer on cnbc, probably with no reason given. Commentators like Cramer cannot personally trade in stocks because it would be such an egregious conflict of interest. Cramer himself has stated that he cannot take equity positions. Do you really not get that?