Hello,
I wanted somewhere else but landed here and since I'm or was at least more or less active in German wikipedia and a bit in English... I understand this article is about the very short Russia-Saudi oil price war, but still things like the historic record cuts (the cuts represent the global end ww2 oil consumption/production) were not made by them alone but by OPEC+ as even the sources all are talking about ("OPEC and its allies led by Russia...." for this one).
OPEC+ earlier (1st passage):
The price war was triggered by a break-up in dialogue between the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and Russia over proposed oil-production cuts in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.[1] Russia walked out of the agreement, leading to the fall of the OPEC+ alliance.
As we should always assume that someone is reading the articles or sentences who has absolutely no deeper knowledge about the topic, than the OPEC and Russia did meet and because Russia walked out of the "dialogue" and that lead to the "fall" of OPEC+? So OPEC+ means OPEC + Russia only? For me dialogue also would be a sign as in most cases you take the word if 2 parties are talking, but ofc its not wrong also in this context, but talks and written that OPEC+ (at least there are some other important parties except Russia, Azerbaijan with an extreme important oil history, Kazakhstan with a huge potential in increasing oil production beyond 2 or even 3 mbpd, Mexico only is losing importance since Cantarell peaked in 2004 but is still the I think 2nd largest crude source for the US and for that reimports large amounts of gasoline.
What exactly does: leading to the fall of OPEC+ alliance. means? For me with bad English it sounds like the end of the alliance and not like they did other meetings where the largest problem to finish the deal was not Russia or no OPEC Member but Mexico which should reduce output by afair 400,000 bpd (or even 500k?) but only offered 100k because that would really have been a catastrophy for Mexican. Trump did offer to take 250kbpd from reductions in the Gulf of Mexico, but these reduction in that size were going to happen anyway and Trump had almost nothing he could do against this, at least not for free, but the worst president in US history in the 20th and 21st Century is another story. OPEC+ does very well looking at the deal in total, means cut were reached by more than 99% and thanks to largely Saudi but also other Persian Gulf states sometimes over 101% and the duration was increased many times, saving the world from even much higher filled tanks. That Venezuela, Libya and Iran because of sanctions, (civil) war, sanctions does not count is maybe a thing for another article... and that the cuts reached "only" between over 99% and over 101% or 102% was and is the fault of countries like Iraq, Nigeria, Angola and the small new OPEC members like Gabon. For Ecuador that agreement would have been the reason to leave immediately if they wouldn't already have done that just shortly before...
So shouldn't this "war" and the article be limited to March?! In April they hammered out that record cut of 9.7 million bpd, while the US continued to produce as long as they could over 13, than 12 and so on million barrels per day, doesn't sound for me like Russians leaving the meeting lead to "fall", without them it wouldn't have been "only" 106 companies from the Oil sector going bankrupt in the US in 2020 and their recorded deficit is as low as it only has been in 1 year before and for 2021 the first profit (so far a 363 billion(!) USD deficit was reported for shale oil companies, with or without other newest technologies like Fracking, but most use what ever they can, and only the high prices with extreme reduced drilling and other costs allowed them to get as low as 35$ per barrel or even a bit less to operate without losses...) Just some ideas Kilon22 (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
