Oil Prices...Fundamentals or Not?

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
This is an open thread to discuss whether oil prices are justified based on fundamentals or largely a result of speculation and manipulation.  I think everyone knows where I stand on the issue, but I am trying to keep my mind open.  Try to convince me that supply and demand do not justify the price. 

< Meet the Press, June 15 | Bring it down a notch, Cenk >

Poll

Is the Oil price largely a reflection of supply and demand?
Yes, mostly fundamentals 26%
No, mostly speculation/manipulation 73%

Votes: 15
Results | Other Polls
 Display:

Let's see...since January, supply is up, demand is down. Free Marketers would have you believe that this leads to LOWER prices. Evidence is readily available at every pump about how well this is working out.

Yes, "largely a result of speculation and manipulation" seems to fit quite nicely, thank you.

by MedfordTim on 06/16/2008 09:50:08 AM EST


I think most of the talk of speculation is due to the psychology of looking for someone to blame, which I think is mostly rooted in the need to have some control over the situation. If someone else is to blame for the problem, then at least it means that this isn't permanent, and the problem could be corrected with prosecution, legislation, etc. If, on the other hand, we're dealing with a diminishing resource that's just going to get more expensive... well, that means change.

That said, I also think that there are too many ways to leverage small amounts of money into high-risk speculation in the oil markets, which should be more regulated. Is that causing the sudden rise? Partially. I think speculation is anywhere from 10% to 30% of the overhead cost right now, but I just don't know.

I figured this was coming many years ago. We bought hybrids and insulated our house. The human race is going to run out of oil, and it's going to be in my lifetime. Better get used to it.

by peteplace on 06/16/2008 09:51:16 AM EST


If it were "speculation" there's no way it could go on this long.  Someone, somewhere would start dumping it at a lower price to stiff the competition and that would be the end of that.  We're simply at that point where world production can barely sustain world demand.  That's why "speculators" are keeping the prices high.  No one really knows anything except that it's not going down to a significant degree, probably ever again.

I think from here on out we'll see a bit of a stair-step pattern.  Prices will rise and demand will fall off somewhat and then prices will descend slightly.  Then demand will rise again and prices will follow it up.  It will continue this pattern until something creates a real honest-to-God shortage.  Then it will spike off the chart.  

If there is a bad hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico look for serious price spikes.   Specifically, if a large storm were to strike Port Fourchon directly, which is due south of the center of Lake Pontchartrain, the shit would really hit the proverbial fan.  Then the nation would fully understand why Louisiana is so jittery about coastal erosion. 

Also, if I were the Saudis, I'd be doubling and tripling security on their production and transportation facilities. If ever there were a ripe time for a terrorist strike against Saudi production,  this is it.  I hope they've got their eyes, ears and noses wide open.

by bfaul on 06/16/2008 10:02:38 AM EST


While there is certianly a large amount of additional money in commodities markets, unlike stocks that does not automatically lead to higher prices, only higher volitility.  At the end of every contract speculators must either take delivery of the commodity or sell to someone else who is willing to take delivery.  Because of this, the final price is still set by buyers taking physical delivery of the oil.  The only way for speculators and hedge funds to affect the actual demand would be to buy up large quantities of physical oil and hold it off the market.  I have not yet seen any evidence that this is occuring, but if anyone has some evidence of this I'd be interested in seeing it. 

by alphasigmookie on 06/16/2008 03:41:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
He's long petro, and he's thinking about flipping, and now he's analyzing the move.

The Saudis are jawboning the market down by talking about a new field. It is definitely not in their best interest to create a global recession or widespread global conversion to alternatives.

We all know that the world can get by on 50% less oil if something doesn't happen soon with oil prices. Change of behavior quickly follows pain. This happened back in 1980, and it sent oil prices to record lows for many years.

The Saudis have given permission to the rest of OPEC to increase production. If you're an OPEC country today, you can sell your black goo at $130/bbl if you open up the spigot.

Mookie now has a golden opportunity to test his view of the oil market. If global production increases to meet the spike in prices, then he is wrong. If production cannot increase, then he is correct.

By the way, it's not really a spigot. It takes time to drill wells and increase the flow. Wait and watch. Wait and watch. Wait and watch.

by KenTX on 06/16/2008 10:22:20 AM EST


Actually I'll probably start lightening up on my oil exposure the day you sell your hummer.  I am however waiting for a pull back to the $100-110/ barrel to increase my holdings. 

by alphasigmookie on 06/16/2008 03:29:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]

According to latest EIA figures, oil consumption worldwide went down last year from 2006:

 mbpd:

2006:84,726,000

2007:83,980,000

net:-746,000

Supply and Demand?

It is obvious that it is due to financial speculation, oil and other commodities (remember all sorts of commodities not just oil) are facing huge inflationary pressures that nothing, or little to do with "fundamentals". Prices for goods do not increase at these levels with a clear scarcity of goods, like a famine or oil supply-side shock.

To quote:

"Yet Big Oil has been very reluctant to invest in major exploration projects or additional refining capacity, fearing that prices will drop as the economy slows in
the next few years. Since 2005, the big five have handed back $170 billion to their shareholders through share buy-backs rather than invest these profits in more
capacity -
or renewable energy sources."
--------------------------- --------------------------- ---
"While low interest rates have reduced the return from some other financial assets, the rise in crude oil and other commodity prices offer the prospect of big gains from commodity futures."
--------------------------- --------------------------- -
Speculators, on the other hand, treat commodities as a financial asset. They buy futures on the expectation that, on the due date, the consignment will be worth more than they actually paid for it under the future contract, so they can sell it at a profit. Even if the price difference is relatively small, speculators can make big profits if they trade on a large scale.
--------------------------- --------------------------- ---
The capital flowing into major commodity funds shot up from $13 billion in 2003 to $260 billion today. Not surprisingly, hedge funds (unregulated, private clubs of
hyper-rich speculators) and investment banks are involved, using huge sums of borrowed cash to speculate in futures and other complex financial instruments,
such as options and swaps.
--------------------------- --------------------------- -------
In 2000, the US government, in response to lobbying by energy traders like Enron, relaxed the regulations on trading in commodity markets. Since then, there has
been a six-fold surge in trading volume.
"Over the last five years, investors have become such a force on commodity markets that their appetite for oil contracts has been equal to China's increase in demand over the same period, said a hedge fund manager who testified before Congress ... last month..." (Washington Post, 6
June 2008)
--------------------------- ------------------------
Source: Oil price shock - the chaos of capitalism: Lynn Walsh



Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/16/2008 11:00:33 AM EST


I'm not finding those worldwide consumption figures. Here's what I was able to find on the EIA site: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu /steo/pub/xls/Fig5.xls

There's a definite increase from 84.622 to 85.385 mbd from '06 to '07. Same basic trend for 2008. Growth is slowing, but the overall consumption is rising pretty steadily. Looks like growth will kick back up in '08.

by peteplace on 06/16/2008 11:44:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]

to download the latest figures that are available on the website which are not projections...which are for 2006. Then I went to the countries here:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/co untry/index.cfm

Where 2007 figures are available, added them up and I got that figure. You can it yourself if are so desirous. The figures you show go to 2009...those are projections. I am  not saying their figures are wrong, but they are at odds with the figures they present in other parts of teh site. Very confusing.

 

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/16/2008 01:05:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]

this website sometimes is annoying:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/co untry/index.cfm

"/country/"

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/16/2008 01:07:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Learn to use the link function. Its not hard.

by KenTX on 06/16/2008 01:43:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
are you going to take that swipe?!

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/16/2008 04:26:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Nick

Just copy the web link address.  Then, when you reply or post a new topic, simply highlight the text in your post that you would like to associate the link with and click the little chain icon at the bottom of the posting box.  Copy the link address in the "link URL" box that pops up, click the "insert" button and your done.  I also like to make the link text bold so it stands out a little.

You do have to allow popups for the young turks site for this to work. 

by bfaul on 06/16/2008 09:58:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know but I was in a rush...I had to go to a ceremony today. I just got on to see what was going on.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/17/2008 12:09:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Mostly" can be technically pretty vague.  Let's say I come up with a magic formula and argue that supply and demand is responsible for 60%. Sure, that constitutes "mostly" but I'd say that other 40% is pretty damn important, and a very high number.

Obviously no one can know for sure, and the conversation should be about how to use less gas and how to get off oil, not just how to temporarily lower the prices by 30 cents a gallon or whatever.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are 2 things that millions of employers could do virtually overnight (not exactly but pretty damn close compared to waiting for alternative energy/transportation infrastructure):

1. Move to a 4 day work week. Different employees have a different day off each week, etc.

2. Let people work from their home PC rather than commuting to their office job if possible. The fact is, this IS possible for millions of people and it requires very little investment generally speaking. And look, even if it means people work from home 1, 2 or 3 days a week and go into the office the other days for certain tasks, training or meetings, great, it still has an enormous impact.

I realize it's not practical for many, but I'm also intimately familiar with this process and know it can work and provide great benefits for the employer and employee, not to mention the fact that it would take an insane number of cars off the road which has plenty of other practical/financial benefits.

I'd like to hear Obama at least make these suggestions to employers across America.

by ihavenobias on 06/16/2008 12:40:17 PM EST


Raise the drivers license age to 18.  Put the highschool kids back on the bus.  I predict we'll see this when the shortages begin.

by bfaul on 06/16/2008 01:32:25 PM EST


I have yet to meet the 16 year old who is mature enough to drive a car. They should not be allowed to acclerate a ton of metal at speeds of 70 mph on the Houston freeways.

by KenTX on 06/16/2008 01:41:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]

The difference in traffic between Summer and Fall is unreal in my city.  I can tell when school lets out without ever needing to glance at the calender because the streets are so quiet.

Also, think of the insurance savings people would enjoy.  I wouldn't want to be the one to publicly make this decision though, those kids would never stop rolling the house in toilet paper.

by bfaul on 06/16/2008 02:37:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
people start to work at 16, and that can be really complicated when mom and dad (and whoever else) work or are busy and can't drive those kids.

Of course considering how good the public transportation is in most of America this is a non-issue, so never mind.*








*Yes, that was sarcasm. At any rate, investing heavily in new train lines and more bus service is another no-brainer. Hell, the buses could be brought online relatively quickly in many places (you need signs, schedules and some admin/staffing changes, but it's still a hell of a lot faster than waiting for the currently impractical miracle technologies).

by ihavenobias on 06/16/2008 10:08:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We just got light rail this year. We tried to pass it repeatedly but the gas companies and car dealerships spent millions to lobby against it.  A few years ago it lost in a recount (if I recall).  Now it runs from downtown to the Norhwest and everyone is bitching its not in their neighborhood.  In six-ten months it will reach out towards (not all the way too) my part of suburbia and I am damn excited.

by ProfRich on 06/16/2008 11:24:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the car dealers and gas companies that killed it.

So many short-sighted, myopic people across America took a proverbial shit on public transportation by crying at the suggestion of even the slightest tax increase.  Now those same idiots are bitching about how expensive gas is for their daily commute.

Anyway, that's great news for Austin. When I go into the office one day a week (work remotely the other days), I take the train and then walk a mile which is fine and much cheaper than driving.

by ihavenobias on 06/16/2008 11:54:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
From Crooks & Liars full story at site

Petrol Bugs

There’s good news and bad news. The good news is that scientists in Silicon Valley have bred genetically modified bacteria that consumes agricultural waste and secrete crude petroleum oil.

That’s the good news. The bad news is…

I’m not quite sure. What about this pulling research and development away from cleaner renewable energy sources just to make more of the old stuff? Well, except… instead of pumping out more carbon into the atmosphere, this “Oil 2.0” is not only renewable but also carbon negative – it emits less carbon than is sucked from the atmosphere by the raw materials from which it is made. Oh, and the raw materials? Not going to be corn (so no more tortilla riots in Mexico City) nor palm oil (no more deforestation in the Amazon) – it eats wheat straw from California and woodchips from the timber industry in the South.

Well, how about everyone’s car having to be modified to burn the new stuff? Y’know, like hybrid and electric cars? Gee, um, nope. It’s completely interchangeable with fossil fuel oils we now suck out of the ground and refine. You wouldn’t even notice a change-over at the pumps… except for maybe the price once decoupled from OPEC.

How about cost? Hmm.

“Five to seven years ago, that process would have taken months and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Greg Pal, senior director of LS9, the company making this stuff, says. “Now it can take weeks and cost maybe $20,000.”

by MedfordTim on 06/16/2008 07:17:56 PM EST


http://www.timesonline.co.u k/tol/news/environment/arti cle4133668.ece

May be ok, but basically its just a different form of fermentation that produces a different hydrocarbon than ethanol.  You still need to produce large quantities of biological material to turn into fuel.  It is also not clear if they are to the point where they can actually work with waste materials without breaking it down with large quantities of expensive enzymes.  Capital costs look like they could be enormous as well. 

"However, to substitute America’s weekly oil consumption of 143 million barrels, you would need a facility that covered about 205 square miles, an area roughly the size of Chicago"

I don't mean to say the reasearch isn't extremely important...we need to be throwing money at every crazy idea that has even a 1% chance of producing a little bit of energy, but the scale of the problem is soooo huge its like trying to fill a swimming pool with a shot glass. 

by alphasigmookie on 06/16/2008 08:24:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Hey alphasigmookie,

I am not an economist but my take on it is that's is probably over-speculation at this point with retirement funds going to oil instead of real estate. However, in the long run, I think it's useful to see this as a warning. A second warning since the oil crisis of the late 70's, which was also not fundamentals per se: the supply did drop due to a political move by the oil-producing countries. While I may agree that some drilling (including domestic where it makes sense, i.e. not ANWR) could help for now, it's just a mid-term solution at best and we need to think of what's next. I am however an engineer and my take on *that* is that we should go for the solutions we know work: nuclear and photovoltaic solar while exploring other things that may or may not work such as algae-produced hydrocarbons and even fusion.

I really think this is something conservatives and liberals can get together on. One of my conservatives friends was making fun of my hybrid car but then had to admit than even if you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, we can all agree that reducing dependence on foreign oil would be good for this country overall. 

Best,

by posthoc on 06/17/2008 01:28:53 AM EST


Irrational exuberance comes to mind, probably a bit of both I would think. The speculators feed off the reports that show lower than expected stocks , whatever, that in turn drive more speculation raising the price...

The only advice I'll ever give you is ignore Ken, he predicted that oil would be 20$ a barrel again.

However, I have been getting a lot of calls and emails from "investment brokers" selling oil futures in one form or another. Most are legitimate , registered dealers. I think the conventional wisdom is that when the hype gets down to this level, meaning poor slobs like me, its probably over.

I have also be seeing a few whispers about an "oil" bubble..Best guesses from some of the "gurus" are a fall back to the 80-90 range. Some even called 60$

However, one hurricane or Iranian attack could change all of that. 

by MRFred on 06/17/2008 02:32:21 AM EST


I don't know much about oil prices and markets or energy and how and where we can get it.  A lot of y'all know a lot more than me on this stuff.

Here are my thoughts on how the election of Obama might impact oil prices.  Tell me where and why I'm wrong and where I might be on to something.

1) It seems clear that at least part of what is determining oil prices is futures.  Futures are clearly being affected by what people predict will happen in the middle east.  I know that every time tension with Iran increases, oil shoots up.  If Iraq appears to be going to hell, oil prices shoot up.  

If Obama dismisses the notion of war with Iran, won't that drop oil futures?  I am just assuming this, since increasing talk of war with Iran clearly raises them.

2)Bush has been extremely irresponsible with our money, borrowing trillions to pay for his tax cuts and war.  This has destroyed the value of the dollar and hurt our ability to buy oil.  IF (and it is an if) Obama can help the dollar rebound, won't that help the price of oil.

3) I know this a pet theory of mine, but OPEC has made comments that have led some analysts to believe that Iran and Venezuela are leading a push for artificially high prices to punish the U.S. for our agressive foriegn policy.

If we withdraw from Iraq, back off Iran and stop making cheap, stupid jokes about Hugo Chavez, won't they drop the price?

Attack away (except Ken because I don't think he can do so seriously and objectively). 

by ProfRich on 06/17/2008 02:19:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think there is some truth to 1 and 2, but I wouldn't bet on 3.  Oil prices to a degree elevated due to the lack of any spare capacity in the system.  This means that if there is an event that would cause a significant amount of oil to be taken off the market (~5% in the case of Iran) buyers who need oil no matter what are willing to pay a bit of a premium to ensure that they can get it at todays price rather than the highly elevated price in the future.  In the past there has been a large overhang of spare capacity that could kick in to cushion an event like this.  However, for the past few years oil producers have been pumping every last drop because of high prices and increased demand (except for some Saudi heavy crude that is so difficult and expensive to refine that most wont accept it).  Because of this any extended loss of significant supply would likely lead to huge spikes in the price. 

The decline in the dollar is significant cause of the increase in oil and other commodities, but oil has been increasing in every major currency lately so the effects might not be as great as hoped.  I'm also not sure how much Obama can really do to save the dollar.  We've got decades of built up irrisponsible fiscal policy to work through, Obama is no miracle man. 

I disagree with this.  Although it may be a goal and they may cheer high prices I am of the theory that OPEC no longer has any control over oil prices.  In order to have control they must have both spare capacity and the will to cut production.  I dont' think they have either anymore.  As discussed above the small amount of spare capacity they have is oil that no one really wants.  In addition very few OPEC members can willingly cut production since they are heavily dependent upon the huge revenue stream to keep their economies running and their populations from chopping off their heads!  As much as Ajob and Chavez hate America they love power even more. 

by alphasigmookie on 06/17/2008 03:07:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you for your informed, reasoned response.

by ProfRich on 06/17/2008 03:10:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]

"If Obama dismisses the notion of war with Iran"

...and therein lies the rub...

"And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran.  Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world’s most tragic history."
"In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric."

"The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."

 - Barack Obama,
AIPAC convention, 2008

Certainly, the overall tone of the speech was a moderate's call for peace, but I don't want ANYONE being able to say, "no one could have anticipated..." ever again.

by MedfordTim on 06/17/2008 03:35:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]

but I play one on message boards, and the main reason oil is so high is that we have a weak dollar policy

I can only Hope (&Change) that Obama will have the foresight to reverse this trend.  Maybe he'll get Robert Reich or some other wicked smaht guy on his team of economic advisors.   

by schmoab on 06/17/2008 12:03:43 PM EST


 Display: