OPEC oil ministers know that very high oil prices (120+) is against their interest as it will effect long term demand and accelerate decarbonisation efforts.
Yes, and that agreement is set to 'expire' next month. "Starting in May 2020, the OPEC+ agreement called for a decrease in crude oil output by an initial 9.7 million barrels per day (b/d) that gradually tapers through April 2022, the end of the current agreement period."[0]
Neither part of that is true. If you sell French fries which cost you $1, and you sell them for $2, your profit is $1. If you can raise the price to $3 then you’ve doubled your profits. But your customers know that French fries are bad for their health, and so year after year they promise themselves that someday they will quit French fries completely. When you raise the price to $3, that is when they decide they can really quit.
I like that the HN title is (right now): "Oil plunges as much as 17% as UAE says support output hike"
Whereas the real title is: "Oil records worst day since pandemic as UAE calls for output hike"
It really rubs me the wrong way they use the word "worst" because it implies that it's inherently bad. And we all know that it's neither good nor bad but complicated.
19 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 53.9 ms ] thread[0] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45236
It's the same as charging 1 customer $1m vs charging a million customers $1.
Normally UAE is the most timid gulf country in front of Saudi influence.
Kuwaitis, Bahrainis, and even Qataris are still holding the Saudi line now.
Whereas the real title is: "Oil records worst day since pandemic as UAE calls for output hike"
It really rubs me the wrong way they use the word "worst" because it implies that it's inherently bad. And we all know that it's neither good nor bad but complicated.
HN headline is much more accurate
> Oil prices fall most in 2 years as UAE supports output hike
but also, headlines like this get A/B tested. It's possible OP used the headline they saw.