Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on October 30, 2014

Bookmark and Share

Oil – A Question of Economics

Consumption

Despite the political instability in parts of the MENA region, supply has managed to keep up with demand. This is largely due to the emergence of shale oil in the United States, which has ramped up its production to 8.7 mbd, which is 1 mbd more than last year. Some commentators even suggest that US oil production may reach up to 12 mbd by 2015. Meanwhile, Russia has also been putting record volumes of crude oil on to the market.

The recent debate over falling oil prices has become an over simplified economic question of supply and demand, ignoring other interrelated economic theories. Despite the global recession and, oil demand has remained at 90-91 million barrels per day (mbd) over the past 5 years. However, due to the recession, Western nations have slowly reduced their demand. Meanwhile low growth, fuel efficiency, and demand in Asia has risen to compensate for this fall. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has reduced its growth forecasts for 2015 suggesting that demand may grow modestly by a 1 mbd to nearly 93 mbd.

A decrease in demand and an increase of supply has caused oil prices to fall over the past five years from an average of $110 to $85 per barrel this year. The oil & gas media are full of doom and gloom about how these prices are unaffordable for the Middle Eastern nations who will now rack up budget deficits if the current price level persists. Some media outlets have even placed the blame of the price fall on OPEC’s shoulders, citing the revival in production in Libya and Iraq for the current demise. OPEC has consistently produced around 30 mbd, reaching a peak in 2012 of 31 mbd and remains near to that today. However, the largest increase in world supply was brought on by the US and its drive for self-sufficiency. The US’s investment in shale oil has lead to an ever increasing supply coming on stream. This ultimately reduces the US’s need for high priced imports, and leaves large quantities of West African oil looking for buyers. Under these conditions, the US may soon be exporting oil into the market, although many commentators remain skeptical that the US export ban will be lifted any time in the near future. Yet with or without the ban, the US is already exporting record amounts of refined products and incidental condensates from its shale oil, leaving great impacts on prices in the oil markets.

With western media suggesting OPEC should reduce production and avoid deficit financing, there seems to be an issue of double standards arising. Should we ask the US to abandon plans to export oil? Surely, the MENA countries could follow America’s lead and ask China to finance its deficit as well and allow market capitalism to run its full course. The competition theory in economics tells us that high costs and inefficient producers will be driven out of the market as prices fall. Doing so would eventually drive out the high cost and environmentally threatening deep water, arctic, tar sands and shale oil fields. In the long run, higher output at lower prices will finance and in due time reduce the deficit of the low cost oil producers. In addition to this, the true cost benefit analysis of these environmentally threatening, high cost shale oil fields might be recognised if we follow this path.

Many economic commentators are failing to see the benefits of lower oil prices. Virtually all businesses will benefit from lower transportation costs by expanding their profit margins or passing the benefit to consumers at lower prices. The lower income groups, who spend a higher proportion of their incomes on transport, will see their disposable incomes rise, benefiting retailers who serve their needs and thereby increasing demand in the economy. Food prices are also likely to fall, as food production, processing and sales distribution are energy intensive activities, thereby benefiting lower income groups further. Increased consumption will stimulate aggregate demand, creating investment opportunities and economic growth. Governments in the west may also have the opportunity to increase fuel taxes to cover the real cost of the negative externalities of carbon emissions, or raise revenue to improve public transportation systems. Furthermore, governments in the Middle East and Asia will reduce spending on their fuel subsidies and may take the opportunity to improve the workings of market forces, which the IMF and Western powers have been seeking for them to do.

As many Western economies are seemingly slowing down again, with most of them still struggling with stubbornly high unemployment levels, they will only benefit from the current sharp drop in oil prices which will stimulate the global economy. Moreover, countries now have the opportunity to replenish stocks and protect themselves against future price hikes. Stockpiling begs the question: how long will prices remain relatively low compared to recent years? Will they fall further? $60 would certainly kick start substantial economic activity or will supply be rained back?
In the past, we have seen the US and its Western partners put pressure on OPEC, and the world’s only swing producer Saudi Arabia, to increase supply so as to lower prices or maintain price stability. Are we about to see them create further price fixing market imperfections by asking the Saudis to cut production so as to create a return to higher prices? Much of the Western economic commentaries are suggesting the Middle East will fall apart as falling oil revenues will create unaffordable budget deficits, cuts in government spending, and political uprisings amongst their populations and ultimately scare Middle Eastern governments into considering cutting back on OPEC supply.

The recent period of high but stable oil prices has induced an economic recovery in the US based on lower oil and energy prices, propped up Putin’s government and economy which has become more heavily dependent upon its oil revenues, and increased the sovereign wealth funds of the GCC countries of the Middle East. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has suffered economic malaise consigning a generation to a life of unemployment and it appears that some commentators may want to maintain this status quo. Lower oil prices would likely benefit all via economic growth, and not just a few nations self-interests. This brings us to ask: have we been sacrificing economic efficiency for US energy self-sufficiency?

If we can enjoy a period of sustained low oil prices where consumer disposable incomes rise and increase world aggregate demand, we may witness recovery in Europe and rising growth rates again in Asia. This would fuel economic activity at a time when a generation has been lost to unemployment, and maybe allow them to regain for a better future. In this case oil prices will either recover, or rise in demand may equally bring about a rise in supply, ultimately increasing the revenues of oil produces.

Economic theory suggests that a lower price delivered by lowest cost producers is economically efficient. The lower prices will either force high cost producers out of the market or encourage them to seek lower cost technological solutions to stay in the market. The economic solution to our energy requirements is to invest in low cost producers instead of preventing them from reaching the market by financing chaos in the Middle East and Africa. Instead, supporting the development of low cost oil reserves in the Middle East and Africa would benefit these populations. The wealth created from oil revenues could be used to develop infrastructure, education, and health systems, rather than being frittered away by corruption and cronyism. However, this requires international oil and gas companies as well as the US government to rethink their geopolitical strategies and adopt the capitalist model of economic efficiency, rather than supporting a model of imperfect competition and short term self-interest. As the world’s largest open economy, the US would benefit more in the long run from encouraging world economic growth, rather than trying to protect its high oil price by fair means or foul.

Brookings Institution



8 Comments on "Oil – A Question of Economics"

  1. Kenz300 on Fri, 31st Oct 2014 1:11 am 

    Lower oil prices are good for the world economy.

    Lower prices will help to speed up recovery from the Great Recession. That recovery and its increase in GDP, will lead to greater demand and higher oil prices.

    Enjoy the lower oil prices while they last.

  2. Davy on Fri, 31st Oct 2014 8:04 am 

    Geeze, here is a group that is supposed to know what they are talking about. Maybe they should avoid speaking about something they have not researched fully. They are using the same mentality that got us to where we are now. It is the usual academic BAU based analysis and thinking that has no future.

    The primary issue here is what Short continually mentions and that is the depletion of cheap oil and that diminishing effect on economies. Oil is the blood of the global system. You can’t diminish quantity and quality in a dynamic systematic sense and expect healthy growth. This is creating systematic drag and turbulence.

    What we have now is a society in a complex global system that must have increasing quantity and quality of the top two vital resources oil and food. This is needed to support the necessary ingredients for a growth based system using fiat currencies through debt to facilitate capital and exchange. A growing population needs increased liquid fuels and food that are affordable.

    This society and global system is clearly approaching limits of growth and a condition of diminishing returns. This condition is compounded by overpopulation contributing to broad resource overshoot and ecosystem degradation. Please tell me how this state of affairs has a happy ending like this article seems to think.

    I said this earlier that it is the BAU cornucopians who preach a doctrine of knowledge, technology, markets, and globalism will solve our problems. Predicaments are not recognized at all by these folks. This group is a broad based group of all those at the top who are in control.

    I will say this I imagine at the very top or the tip of the spear with who it really matters they understand these issues but have no interest on this info getting out. It is not in the “real” leadership interest because a proper plan B would mean their diminishment.

    A proper plan B would mean abandoning growth based policies and an attempt to manage the fall. The descent cannot be managed but the fall down the energy gradient can with mitigation policies. Predicaments cannot be manage like problems but they can be mitigated.

    MSM and academia is serving those at the very top as a means to an end. This end is their maintenance of power to the bitter end. They know the end is near and they are selfishly positioning themselves with available resources. They have no interest in disturbing the status quo.

  3. bobinget on Fri, 31st Oct 2014 10:10 am 

    Financial Hedging Caused Recent Oil Losses: MS — Market Talk

    Published: Oct 30, 2014

    There’s been a lot of murmuring in crude markets that large put option volume contributed to the selloff that has brought oil prices down about 25% in recent months. Now Morgan Stanley is out with a note to quantify that: The last $10 decline in oil prices was caused not by fundamental shifts in supply-demand balance but rather complex option trades that forced futures selling volume into the market. Banks and other traders sold puts to producers to help them guard against falling prices. As prices fell and those options came into the money, banks were forced to sell even more futures to hedge their position. “Options markets have distorted oil prices in recent months,” firm says. (christian.berthelsen@wsj.com

    http://www.firstenercastfinancial.com/news/story/60115-financial-hedging-caused-recent-oil-losses-ms-market-talk

  4. shortonoil on Fri, 31st Oct 2014 10:21 am 

    Well Davy, ever think of going to work for the the Brookings Institution? They could use someone with an IQ that is higher than their bowling average! I’ve been trying to get this page up at the site on the “Price of Oil” for the last two weeks, but it seems that everyone has taken off for the boondocks, or someplace. In the mean time, to keep you posted until either I get it done myself, or someone phases back into this universe, keep an eye out for Chart# 159. Chart# 159 shows the cost of a BTU from petroleum for the end consumer from 1960 to 2013. From 1960 to 2005, when conventional peaked, the cost only increased marginally. From 2005 to 2013 the cost has increased over 400%; from about 0.2 mil per BTU to over 0.8 mil per BTU. The curve is now looking more like a vertical line than a curve!

    The falling cost of oil is not going to do one dam thing for the economy. The price decline is merely a reflection of the effects of that vertical line. For the end consumer to be able to afford oil into the future, it will have to continue on down; and we know where that is going.

    Thanks for your support,

    The entire Hills Group today, shortonoil

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

  5. gordianus on Fri, 31st Oct 2014 11:52 am 

    Funny how the article implies that the only reason USA is not exporting oil is because of the export ban. If you read it quickly you might get the impression that USA is virtually self sufficient and about to become a net exporter of oil. That would be rather misleading, I think.

    And this is odd:
    “Meanwhile, the rest of the world has suffered economic malaise consigning a generation to a life of unemployment and it appears that some commentators may want to maintain this status quo”

    Why would the author feel the need to argue against what commentators ‘want’?

  6. Northwest Resident on Fri, 31st Oct 2014 12:06 pm 

    “…the very top or the tip of the spear…”

    “Tip of the spear! Edge of the knife! Crack of my ass…”

    From the movie “Edge of Tomorrow”.

    Great post, Davy. I love that line from Edge of Tomorrow — couldn’t help using this chance to re-quote it.

    I think that shortonoil should have said “The falling cost of oil is not going to do one damn GOOD thing for the economy.” What corny pinheads are now crowing about — the great benefit to the economy because of all that money that will be saved by happy motoring consumers in America with lower gas prices — is actually a knife in the back to the fracking industry and to many international exporters of oil. It’s like saying crack cocaine is good for your health because of that first euphoric rush you get with each hit. The systemic damage done by falling oil prices is anything BUT good for the economy, as will soon enough be revealed to all, no doubt.

  7. J-Gav on Fri, 31st Oct 2014 1:13 pm 

    Hey, good one Davy! And divided into paragraphs – much easier to read.

    As for my own take, I’ll repeat something I’ve said before: Fail to change the way the money works and you change essentially NOTHING!

    Money issuance, credit conditions and debt in general have moved from the tablet records of ancient times (think Sumer), rigorous but outside any profit-based, market economy, to what we have today where everything is being commoditized and financialized.

    What’s that got to do with energy? Plenty. It’s time we got beyond the Keynes or Hayek? impasse and (re)read Karl Polyani’s “The Great Transformation.”

    The recognition that economic activity is embedded in cultures and societies (rather than the opposite, Chicago-boy style) means that energy and resource extraction cannot sustainably be carried out in the absence of a relationship to nature, now only counted as an “externality.” I’ll leave it there for now with the hope that some of you catch my drift.

  8. Davy on Fri, 31st Oct 2014 2:41 pm 

    Gav, the writing style change was the will of the people Or IOW peer pressure. Davy’s bullet point word salad spew didn’t gain popularity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *