Why Citi Thinks Oil Is Going To $20

Tyler Durden's picture

The recent rally in crude prices looks more like a head-fake than a sustainable turning point, suggests Citi's Ed Morse, noting that short-term market factors are more bearish, pointing to more price pressure for the next couple of months and beyond. While the shape of the oil price recovery is unlikely to be 'L'-shaped in their view (more likely 'U', 'V', or 'W'-shaped recovery), Citi warns the oil market should bottom sometime between the end of Q1 and beginning of Q2 at a significantly lower price level in the $40 range (perhaps as low as the $20 range for a while) - after which markets should start to balance, first with an end to inventory builds and later on with a period of sustained inventory draws.


Via Citi,

The recent rally in crude prices looks more like a head-fake than a sustainable turning point — The drop in US rig count, continuing cuts in upstream capex, the reading of technical charts, and investor short position-covering sustained the end-January 8.1% jump in Brent and 5.8% jump in WTI into the first week of February.


Short-term market factors are more bearish, pointing to more price pressure for the next couple of months and beyond — Not only is the market oversupplied, but the consequent inventory build looks likely to continue toward storage tank tops. As on-land storage fills and covers the carry of the monthly spreads at ~$0.75/bbl, the forward curve has to steepen to accommodate a monthly carry closer to $1.20, putting downward pressure on prompt prices. As floating storage reaches its limits, there should be downward price pressure to shut in production.


The oil market should bottom sometime between the end of Q1 and beginning of Q2 at a significantly lower price level in the $40 range — after which markets should start to balance, first with an end to inventory builds and later on with a period of sustained inventory draws. It’s impossible to call a bottom point, which could, as a result of oversupply and the economics of storage, fall well below $40 a barrel for WTI, perhaps as low as the $20 range for a while.

Is a 'new oil order' replacing the old order?

Markets have, in Citi’s view, correctly depicted the heart of the lower price oil environment as a result of a conflict between markets and marketing influence, or more directly between the impacts of the shale revolution on OPEC’s ability to drive a significant “permanent” wedge well above production costs to maximize revenues for OPEC and other oil producing countries. No matter what the ultimate outcome, it looks exceedingly unlikely for OPEC to return to its old way of doing business. While many analysts have seen in past market crises “the end of OPEC”, this time around might well be different.

*  *  *

There are three critical factors in the future: supply, demand and inventories.

How rapidly is supply likely to adjust to low prices?

From a supply perspective, $50-or-even-60/bbl is unsustainable in the medium-term as not enough future oil supply is generated to meet future oil consumption:

1) up to half the world’s future projects are uneconomical at oil prices below $50/bbl;


2) corporate cash flow generated at $50/bbl is not enough to meet debt, shareholder and capex requirements and pullbacks on brownfield spending should accelerate existing decline rates; and


3) $50/bbl cuts government revenue budgets, up to half in some cases, and with domestic spending hard to cut meaningfully, hence NOC investment has to be revised down sharply. This means supply cuts are on the way, and the lower and longer oil prices stay, the more deferred supply will be curtailed, especially given the myriad implications this has for geopolitics. Lower prices, in short, create greater political risk of supply disruption in distressed economies, including among other Nigeria and Venezuela. By 2016, we expect non-OPEC supply to be declining y/y, by ~0.2-m b/d, from a combination of US shale curtailment and accelerated current field depletion.

For now however, crude supply has significant momentum as prices above operating costs mean there is little reason to pull back output. US production is still growing at 1.1-m b/d y/y, Atlantic Basin waterborne loadings are up 665-k b/d y/y to 9.6-m b/d in January-February, and Brazil and Russian output reached record levels in December, of 2.5-m b/d and 10.7-m b/d respectively, with Russia maintaining this level for January. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran continue to cut their Official Selling Prices (OSPs) to Asia in a bid to retain market share meaning supplies out of the Persian Gulf aren’t expected to decline (by choice) soon. Iraq exported a record 2.7-m b/d in December from Basrah, and Federal and Kurdish exports are growing in the North, reaching 300-k b/d in January. This wave of supplies has been depressing prompt prices and a pullback isn’t expected until 3Q’15, or 2Q’15 in our “V” scenario where oil may need to price down to $30/bbl to shut-in current production.

The biggest revision to oil supply growth is coming out of the US, with recent growth rates of over 1-m b/d y/y for crude output overwhelming global oil markets. While there could be a range of responses, we expect that shale producers may end up cutting rigs by around 50%, while some 0.2-m b/d of marginal oil wells could see shut-ins. (By itself, this could mean US crude production growth could slow to ~0.6-m b/d y/y in 2015, or ~0.8-m b/d y/y for crude and NGLs together, and down to 0.25-m b/d y/y in 2016 for crude output growth, or ~0.45-m b/d for crude plus NGLs.) But given prices might drop significantly in 2Q’15 as US storage tanks near critical levels, US shale producers may also drill but not completing wells in 2Q, building an inventory of drilled-but-not-completed wells. These could be brought back in 2016, or when futures prices recover and could be hedged out.

Falling oil prices have led to parallel processes of supply adjustment. First, US shale producers were cashflow negative on aggregate, with capex higher than cashflows, with high-yield debt bridging much of this gap. As production volumes grow quickly, the industry was set to move to a cashflow neutral position in 2014, and was expecting to go increasingly cashflow positive in 2015 and onwards. The oil price drop scuppered that outlook. Capex has therefore been cut back to defend balance sheets. Second, as the oil price fell, less productive shale acreage became uneconomic. Taken together, company announcements to reduce drilling activity in 2015 and onwards, and focusing remaining activity in the most productive core areas of the major shale plays makes sense. See “Is the falling US oil rig count really driving an oil price turnaround?”, where the rig cuts seen so far in 2015 are meaningful, but not so much as to bring US production growth to anywhere near zero, let alone negative, particularly if productivity gains are substantial.

In our report, “Catching the Knife – call on shale is a new balancer for oil markets”, we explored the level of capex/rig cuts to get the US oil and gas industry as a whole to cashflow neutral. We found that with only modest productivity gains, a ~50% rig cut could bring the industry to cashflow neutral in 2015, moving to cashflow positive in 2016 as production volumes continued to grow, and prices could recover. With such a 50% rig cut, US oil production growth could still be +0.6-m b/d y/y in 2015, flat y/y in 2016, and growing again in 2017. So far, company-announced capex cuts look in the 20-40% range, and so far, total active US oil rigs are down 30% from the peak, though most of the falls have been in vertical and directional rigs.

But given the lagged supply response, storage is needed to bridge the gap until the supply-demand overhang shrinks and reverses. This looks like it will be a major obstacle in 2Q’15, and could cause a production crunch in the US. When crude storage tank-tops look like there are within range of being hit, WTI is likely to move into steep contango, and the Brent-WTI price differential should blow out to reject foreign crude imports and incentivize US crude exports – this would be unless the Atlantic Basin struggles to absorb more barrels, but it looks like more floating storage is available with tanker rates taking a breather in 2Q due to refinery maintenance.

Aside from shale’s curtailment, the pullback of brownfield and maintenance capex is expected to accelerate global decline rates for current conventional production. Citi’s latest estimate for cuts to brownfield and maintenance capex is ~15% for Big Oil and with current decline rates of 5-6% we see global depletion rates increasing by ~1% by the end of 2015. A pull-back on maintenance capex feeds through to accelerated decline rates as spending is diverted away from more mature fields which are abandoned earlier than previously planned, lifting the aggregate amount of lost oil from producing wells. In mature conventional plays such as the North Sea, where inflating costs and high taxation are already an issue, this should be particularly impactful, and we expect 100-k b/d declines this year and the next, compared to flat growth at $100/bbl.

Meanwhile, the US has significant numbers of marginal oil wells that could be impacted by low oil prices, particularly in 2Q’15. There are now some 500,000 wells in the US that produce less than 15 b/d, averaging around 2 b/d, and altogether accounting for ~1-m b/d of the US’s over 9-m b/d of oil production. These are particularly concentrated in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and California, but are also spread widely amongst other states (see table below). We factor in some 200-k b/d of US marginal well production that could be at risk of shut-in, though this could end up being higher.



Russia remains a special case, with the added complication of sanctions on drilling technologies and external debt financing along with previously anticipated Western Siberian field declines. In and of itself the oil price isn’t expected to directly hit Russian production given that the Ruble depreciation and Ruble-based costs of a large number of Russian oil firms act as a counterweight. External debt financing is an issue though, especially for Rosneft which has large short-term US dollar debt commitments and recent Ruble-based debt issuance has precipitated further Ruble depreciation in anticipation that the cash raised will be used to buy US dollars. A combination of decreasing oil (and gas) revenues, access issues to drilling rigs needed to maintain current production levels, difficulties in managing the acquisitions of BP-TNK and Bashneft, and Rosneft field declines lead us to expect Russian output to drop by 200-k b/d y/y in 2015. Further sanctions also can’t be discounted meaning further risks to this number to the downside.


Petrobras, along with a host of management issues, could see spending cut as much as 30% this year and Brazilian production growth is expected to slow to ~100-k b/d y/y. And Colombian production is expected to decline by ~100-k b/d due to investment grinding to a halt, a situation Venezuela also finds itself in.


Canadian production growth is also expected to slow, especially given where oil sands projects sit on the cost curve, but with the Sunrise energy project, Kearl’s expansion and the Nabiye project all coming online this year, output is still expected to grow by 110-k b/d y/y with perhaps another 50-k b/d next year. China is also likely to struggle with 30-40-k b/d declines in the Daqing field set for 2015 due to the high cost of development of the field.


Several OPEC suppliers are expected to have y/y declines as a result of the price drop. Venezuela and Nigeria, who rely so heavily on oil revenues, are hurting from the 50% decline in oil prices, particularly as they lack the FX reserves of the GCC and Russia. Venezuela, in particular, with a chronic lack of investment in up- and-downstream, is expected to see a 200-k b/d decline in output by year-end. The status quo remains in Libya with supplies likely to bounce around in the 0.3-0.5-m b/d range whilst Algerian production is expected to be down another 100-k b/d y/y. Iraq is the shining light in OPEC, and despite issues with ISIS and southern field and port infrastructure, output can grow by 300-400-k b/d y/y in 2015. This is predicated on the fact that relations between the Kurds and Baghdad at least stay as they are, allowing both Federal and KRG exports to rise from Ceyhan to perhaps 400-500-k b/d this year. Record Basrah loadings in December give cause for optimism but January data show declines of ~300-k b/d to 2.5-m b/d highlighting a consistency issue that has plagued Iraq.

How far can demand growth move the needle on global balances? 

Just as low prices have a negative impact on supply, so too do they have a positive impact on demand, both directly through lower prices on petroleum products and indirectly through positive impacts on GDP. But the impact is likely to be muted and not nearly as robust as historical experience would indicate due to one-time and structural changes happening in the market. Citi expects oil demand growth to reach 1.3-m b/d y/y in 2015, with OECD growing by 0.12-m b/d and non-OECD growing by 1.19-m b/d; in 2016, demand could rise by 1.2-m b/d, as OECD demand could resume falling after a price increase y/y, down 0.15-m b/d y/y, partly offsetting stronger growth in non-OECD countries.

The net positive impact on global GDP could be sizeable, adding to the potentially stimulative effect of a number of looser monetary policies globally announced in January. The low oil price impact on economic performance should be stronger on consuming countries, more than offsetting challenges faced by producing countries. Even with the sharp drop in prices starting in the middle of 2014, Brent prices still averaged $99.5/bbl last year. Hence, a nearly 50% drop in price in a more than $3 trillion market is expected to raise consumers’ disposable income, lower input costs and ease government finances for those with large-scale demand-side subsidies. Economic performance later on could exceed current forecasts. The negative impact on producers may not have as sizeable an effect as subsidies or support tend not to be cut immediately, while the slowdown in petrodollar recycling, which is mainly channeled through the asset markets, also has less of an immediate effect on consumption. However, a currency war due to competitive devaluation and further monetary stimulation could start to weigh on the global economy. Nonetheless, at this point, impacts from oil and monetary loosening still look to be positive.

Taken together, a sharply lower oil price level should boost demand through two channels: (A) the direct impact of lower prices, and (B) the support given to global economic activities as a result of lower fuel costs.

(A) Direct impact on oil demand: transportation fuel consumption, especially in countries with no or very small subsidies, should see a greater rebound in demand, as the cost savings are directly passed to consumers. OECD countries are major beneficiaries, especially those in North America. In contrast, some non-OECD countries have retail price controls or provide subsidies that enable consumers to be partially shielded from higher prices in recent years; with the oil price drop, some countries have only reduced retail product prices by a smaller magnitude, so that governments could cut subsidies and reduce their fiscal burden. Non-transportation fuels could see smaller growth y/y as a direct result of lower prices, where sectors such as industrials, power generation and other miscellaneous uses dominate this segment of oil demand. These sectors would only use as much oil as needed to meet the ultimate demand of their own products (or electricity generated.) Hence, lower oil prices could stimulate a slight, but not large increase in demand from these sectors.


However, as Citi expects Brent prices to rise from $54/bbl in 2015 to $69/bbl in 2016 in our base case, the decline in OECD demand could partially resume. The initial phase of nuclear restarts in Japan should also reduce fuel oil demand more than LNG demand. This explains why global oil demand growth should be smaller in 2016 versus 2015.


(B) Indirect impact on oil demand: Lower oil prices should provide a boost to economic performance globally by reducing the cost of fuel and feedstock through two transmission mechanisms. First, it generally takes time for better economic performance to progress through to increases in real oil demand. Although the increase in consumer disposable income should lead to a more immediate increase in the consumption part of the GDP equation, the price impact on GDP and GDP-induced oil demand gain is expected to be stronger in 2016 than in 2015. Consumers could adopt new habits in oil demand; businesses, after seeing possibly stronger consumer sentiment and lower cost structures, should look to raise production and investment, especially in countries with strong manufacturing/industrial/export sectors. This benefits many non-OECD countries. The wait for industries to ramp up is also where the delay in oil prices impact on GDP comes in, but this also means that the ripple effect on the economy from lower oil prices could last for many quarters with stable prices.

Beyond secondary and tertiary stocks, primary crude storage should play a central role in how prices could rebound. Just as an oversupplied market shifts prices to incentivize storage, a rebalancing market that starts to draw on inventories will also affect prices in its own right. As markets work through stored barrels and unwind the storage trade, the reverse dynamics apply. Prompt prices should rise to close the storage arb, collapsing the contango curve structure. This dynamic can create the conditions for a V-shaped recovery as oversupply wanes and demand catches up.

Thus, in our balances, global oil inventories are on the rise into 2Q’15, but begin to draw down from 3Q’15 onwards as summer demand kicks in, and as supply pulls back sharply from 4Q’15.

In the US, 2Q’15 sees tank-tops potentially challenged, though prices likely move to forestall this, which could adjust US production, imports and exports to draw down stocks, and should correspond with a widening of the Brent-WTI spread as both Brent-LLS and LLS-WTI widen to flush out stocks from Cushing to the Gulf Coast, and from the Gulf Coast out into the Atlantic Basin.

*  *  *

In short, it looks as though there should be a sharp recovery in prices by winter 2015/16, and as a result of that, there should be an enhanced stimulus for US shale production growth going forward. This could well overwhelm demand growth and bring prices down again, in a ‘W’ shape.

This is the first experiment with dealing with shale supply, and the first time in which the world is getting used to a new oil order, with a “call on shale” replacing a “call on OPEC” as a new market benchmark. As a result, the likelihood is that the sharp price recovery should stimulate more production growth in North America again, and all other things being equal, bring about another decline in prices, after which US production growth is likely to moderate.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
wallstreetaposteriori's picture

take it to zero if that is what its takes to leave la la land.

thamnosma's picture

Free oil!!  Free refined gasoline!!!  It's so NICE of the industry to do that for us.

Publicus's picture

Thank the Fed for printing!

Pinto Currency's picture



Why listen to a bank that has repeatedly gone bankrupt?

LawsofPhysics's picture

More to the point, why the fuck is such a bank still in business?!?

Pinto Currency's picture



Robin Williams had it right:

"My man, I just need $805 billion - by Tuesday....

Common baby! This is not like the other time! 

Help me out here."


Ying-Yang's picture

Should sweet oil drop that low.....

Why not add to our SPR, currently around 691 million barrels. Average price paid is $28 per barrel. Currently we have storage for 727 million barrels. We could use more sweet oil in storage as the total we have, only 262mil is sweet.


Setup more salt domes and buy cheap. Better than buying futures?


new game's picture


truck and corolla(driving the corolla when chev truck gets low) 20 here, 20 there.

thamnosma's picture

That's such a good idea that there's no way Rome, D.C. will do it.

Handful of Dust's picture
Texas rig count falling by the hundreds as OPEC cuts U.S. forecast


More than 200 drilling rigs were taken out of service in Texas in the past two weeks as crude oil prices hovered between $45 to $50 a barrel, according to Baker Hughes Inc.


Falling prices have already led to thousands of job cuts from oilfield services companies, such as Houston-based Baker Hughes, Halliburton and Schlumberger. These companies are hit first when there's a slowdown because they actually man the rigs.



Dubaibanker's picture

I suggested on Jan 7, 2015 that oil will go close to USD 10......http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-07/first-shale-casualty-wbh-energy...

What's with this Citi dude trying to steal my thunder?

My logic is different.....but conclusion is the same. Until, US oil production comes down dramatically, oil will keep plunging because Saudi will keep reducing it's price, no matter what. 

Saudi Arabia Deepens Asia Oil Discount to Record Low
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

If you tell me why the Dow is over 17,000, I will gladly tell you why that bank is still in business.

RafterManFMJ's picture

Well, I'm convinced; I'm done with buying gas till late May.

disabledvet's picture

Yeah...nothin wrong with that dollar neither.


Don't worry about a thing! Everything going according to plan.


How about those huge happy faces someone painted on those two huge nuclear reactor cooling towers?  

l1b3rty's picture

David Morgan, Silver Investor, on oil....


"I think energy is an important sector, especially for those looking for income. If you do your research you can find companies that are viable outside of fracking that will be able to pay dividends to their shareholders. Energy (oil) is still the most important of all commodities because nothing happens without energy. I also look at the technology sector, this is where we did quite well early on adapting to the cell phone industry before most people even knew they existed."

Ruffmuff's picture

Shity bank can't get above being a shitty bank, Who gives a fuck what they say. 

Id fight Gandhi's picture

"Recovery" of oil prices to above 70-80 is built on the premise that shale productions are reduced to nil. Which means all that infrastructure and debt obligations fold.

Yao's picture

If production from shale is "reduced to nil" oil will be closer to $200 - 250 than $70 - 80.   

Id fight Gandhi's picture

Right. Point was they're running the price of oil up 30% in a week based on the idea they're shutting down shale rigs, production. Shutting them down has consequences for the industry and the economy. Not something to celebrate and run up equities in oil/spx correlations.

Yao's picture

Perhaps the market had already overshot the present clearing price to the downside.  The supply / demand mismatch is, after all, quite small in relation to the size of the market.

bid the soldiers shoot's picture

either that

"Recovery" of oil prices to above 70-80 is built on the premise that shale productions are reduced to nil.

or that the 'triple dip recession' will end before the polar ice caps melt and the sun becomes a red giant.


KRUZER's picture

,,,,,,,ya ya ,and the Boston Bruin will wim the Sanley Cup.

Carpenter1's picture

Shale is now the swing supplier that caps prices and is ultimately self defeating.

Osmium's picture

Keep the price down until spring.  i need some blacktop.

wmbz's picture

I'm happy to see oil prices down along with gas at the pump, but damn if the price for a quart of motor oil has dropped.

In fact it has edged up, at least in my part of the world.

Hohum's picture

Ah, Ed Morse.  He of the "fracking will expand as far as the eye can see."

farmboy's picture

I gladly take the other side of this trade. Anyhow who is Citi? A bancrupt company without intervention from the US

KnuckleDragger-X's picture

Everybody as a wild-assed guess but no matter which direction it goes, the sheep will be shorn.

yogibear's picture

Shale can break even til $35/barrrel. And it has to stay well below $35/barrel to kill the shale producers for many months.


Hohum's picture

Is that so?



At $35/barrel, that's, to be generous, about $250M marginal revenue from November 2013 to November 2014.  A little less than 2000 new wells in operation; let's call it 1900.  I hope each well costs less than $132,000 in the Bakken.


KnuckleDragger-X's picture

Depends on where your drilling. Some can be drilled cheap but if your going deep and/or through hard rock, costs can go up a lot.

Carpenter1's picture

Either you're a fucking idiot or you think we're fucking idiots, or both.

People on this blog are pretty well informed, too well informed to fall for your load of BS.

dreadnaught's picture

ha ha ha where do you get that.? ive read Shale companies say they need at least $50-60.......youre not a pump monkey are you?

nakki's picture

I'm wondering if back in 2007-2008 anybody at Citibank put a sell recommendation on their stock? You know right before it went from $50 to $2. Of course its trading $50 again, after that 1 for 10 split.

farmboy's picture

Major shareholder then was Saudi prince Camel Brain. Now he knows why he was suckered into Citi.

Id fight Gandhi's picture

Went to 97¢/share actually. And you're right, they did a 1-10 reverse split a year later. About 2010 the Pre stock split was in the 5s and never really did much better in the 5 years since.

I cringe when I hear personal finance gurus proclaim how putting money into the market is always the best deal because stocks go up. Even using the 2008/2009 crash as an example of just holding and buying low would've made you rich.

Problem is, end of world was in the air. We saw Lehman and BS disappear and citi could've easily been next. It wasnt a NO BRAINER buy. Even Ford at $1 was risky seeing the other 2 car makers go bankrupt.

Never take advice from people who haven't traded thru a business cycle (even a faux one like now).

Elliptico's picture

Why Oil Thinks Citi is Going to $20

The Shape's picture

Well that's a lot of blabber, but where's his analysis of jawboning?

What moved the market down most consistently - it was a some Saudi saying "we don't care if it's $20" or "we'll never see $100 again."

They ain't flapping their gums much anymore so we're probably bumbling around in the $50s until someone's pipeline explodes somwhere.

Conax's picture

They'll move it up and down.. It's the motion that pays off for them.  It will also alternatively relieve then batter the Russians til they go as half-mad as our beloved silver stackers.  Paper futures are a scheme from the bowels of hell!

Brought to you by

the original grifter-



foodstampbarry's picture

So long Canada, we hardly knew ye

bid the soldiers shoot's picture

When the depression of 2019 hits, oil will be under $10 dollars a barrel.  Until then the major producers will be selling as much oil as they can for any price.

At that point the ony buyers will be the armies of Ocenia, Eastasia, and Eurasia.  But eventually, they'll get tired of paying for it so they'll just take it.


Be sure and get a rat cage fitted to your face.  If you don't you won't get a book of food ration stamps.

Chad_the_short_seller's picture
Chad_the_short_seller (not verified) Feb 9, 2015 2:29 PM

I am continuing to buy UCO every day. The bottom is in. Let shitty keep talking their bs and i'll keep buying as it keeps going up. The gov't moves oil, not supply and demand. The us is trying to back out of the russia sanctions because eur is pissed because they realize they're hurting eur 10x more than russia. Get long as fuck oil.

Teamtc321's picture

Ah the good old 4th Qtr of 2015 or 1st Qtr of 2016 price will recover talking your book article. Let's cut to the chase, labor, contractors and small businesses are/will get hammered in the oil patch but the prepared Production Companies who hedged properly are smiling behind the scenes. Sample below after my rant.

Hope! Hope and Change!!!!!

"Based on the midpoint of its 2015 production guidance range, Halcon is 88% hedged on its estimated oil volumes at a weighted average price of $87.29/bbl and 86% hedged on its estimated natural gas volumes at an average of $4.00/MMBtu. Eighty-four percent of this year's production is expected to be oil, with 8% gas and 8% liquids."


NoWayJose's picture

And guess who is on the other side of those hedges -- maybe Citi?

NoWayJose's picture

All those words and charts just for Citi to say "We are way over-leveraged on our underwater short oil position so please don't push oil any higher!"

henry chucho's picture

What he forget to mention was that if oil goes down to $20 a barril,Citigroup stock will go down to $.20 cents a share..

noben's picture
noben (not verified) Feb 9, 2015 2:42 PM

I guess the Saudis must've sold their Citi shares, shorted the stock and then made this announcement?

Sell high now, buy low in the future.

NoWayJose's picture

There is only ONE WAY that we will see $20 oil -- and that is if all the Banksters are forced to take physical delivery! 

Meanwhile, banksters are just selling and re-selling paper oil, or the same oil that has been sitting in long term storage in Cushing, or off shore in tankers.

noben's picture
noben (not verified) Feb 9, 2015 2:50 PM

And THAT is why the BRIICS+ frikking MUST decouple from the USD. NOW!

This WON'T happen, since this is part of the Divide & Conquer strategy by TPTB in DC, NY, Riyadh, Tel Aviv:

Crush Russian, Iranian and Venezuelan oil revenues, while gifting China and India with low prices. Thus fracking the BRIICS real good. Japan benefits too. Devilishly simple and direct, but effective.