Posted on 01/18/2009 11:05:53 AM PST by kellynla
When oil rocketed past $100 on its way to $147 a barrel last summer, analysts frequently commented that prices "were not supported by the fundamentals."
Now, with oil trading between $35 and $50 in recent weeks, a few questions keep crossing my mind.
Do the current "fundamentals" support $40 oil?
What price do the "fundamentals" support?
In 2009, with the world a different place after an economic meltdown, just what the heck are the modern "fundamentals" of the energy market?
I called John Olson, the co-manager of Houston Energy Partners, for some answers.
Olson told me that the fundamentals of pricing haven't changed. They remain supply and demand, with additional forces provided by Mother Nature, demographics, and global politics and related tensions.
"We're going through a down cycle right now," he said. "Things will sort themselves out in the next few months or quarters."
One thing is clear: Huge price swings bring huge problems. That's when fundamentals fly out the window, replaced by optimism and greed, or pessimism and fear.
"No one in the world could afford paying $147 a barrel for oil last July," he said. "And, in a different respect, no one can afford $38 oil now. Oklahoma can't afford it."
Sky-high crude helped bring on the global recession, while cheap oil hurts the energy industry, Olson noted.
While the average consumer may not tear up over oil companies reporting lower profits, those businesses do need to be able to drill the wells that will produce tomorrow's gasoline and other products.
'Drilling already is being cut back," Olson said. "The situation is that we produce about 86 million barrels a day, but the rate of decline now is about 6 percent. So, that's five million barrels a day we need to replace."
Every year, that decline curve will get steeper, he predicted. And, it will be more costly to reach the newer reserves.
Along with supply issues, a glance at the other fundamentals indicates that sub-$40 oil may not be around too long.
Mother Nature, Olson said, will affect supplies at some point. The global population still is growing. China and other countries continue to add large amounts of infrastructure. And, the recession will end eventually.
"Also, the world remains a dangerous place," Olson said, noting that an incident could restrict output from large producers.
Oil futures traders seem to recognize these fundamentals, he pointed out. Oil on long-term contracts ranges from $63 a barrel for the full-year 2009 to $74 in 2013. Some analysts even have predicted a return to $80 to $90 oil by 2011.
Speculators already are beginning to circle like sharks. In fact, they are out in the water right now, swimming around huge tankers they've leased and filled with cheap crude, waiting for prices to rebound.
"Circumstances have created some of the strangest spending cycles ever," Olson said. "The market is going to be sloppy and messy for a while."
Just watch out for those fins.
The inevitable fallback of the oil company apologist: the ad hominem attack.
Your point is?
WWII showed us that wars can be won or lost not on the strength of one's army, but on the might of a nation's industry. AND the ability to deliver that materiel to where it is needed.
Patton's tanks ran out of gas as he was pushing toward the Rhine in 1944. Hitler suffered chronic shortages of fuel, which hampered his efforts to prosecute the war on every front. When the Allies looked for strategic targets to bomb, the Ploesti oil fields were at the top of the list.
We should have learned our lesson then, and said "Never again." Never again will this country be put at risk because we lack adequate fuel. And if we can't get that fuel from oil, which apparently we can't -- at least in sufficient quantities to control the prices to any reasonable extent -- then we need to get it somewhere else. ANYWHERE else.
If I remember correctly an article I saw last year in “The Economist”, uk, said that the “seven sisters” oil companies now control a much smaller percentage of oil resources than they once did. I am only guessing from memory, by I think the figure was less than 20%. The biggest players are now the countries: Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, etc. The tools that can be used to influence countries are rather different than those possible with corporations.
I hope that clears things up.
L
Your vehicle runs on oil? Mine runs on gasoline.
L
“The inevitable fallback of the oil company apologist: the ad hominem attack.”
I clearly attacked your analysis, not your self.
1 Saudi Aramco
2 NIOC
3 INOC
4 KPC
5 PDV
6 Adnoc
7 Libya NOC
8 NNPC
9 Pemex
10 Lukoil
11 Gazprom
12 Exxon Mobil
13 Yukos
14 PetroChina
15 Qatar Petroleum
16 Sonatrach
17 BP
18 Petrobras
19 ChevronTexaco/Unocal
20 Total
21 Royal Dutch/Shell
22 Petronas
23 Surgutneftgas
24 ConocoPhillips/Burlington
25 Pertamina
Understanding Todays Crude Oil and Product Markets
http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/upload/OilPrimer.pdf
Think again. Maybe they'll have a 'special' camp for the folks in the oil patch. Liberals are rare as lizard fur coats out here.
Yes, this means the ExxonMobil is equavilent to that economic powerhouse of the World, Bulgaria. It edged out the world renowed economic master of Lithuania.
A rather meaningless number. How many individuals around the world are stock holders are in ExxonMobil? I would guess it may exceed the population of these countries as well.
At the same time, ExxonMobil paid over $105 Billion in Taxes. Where do the taxes paid ranked compare as countries GDP? Moves quite a bit farther up the list.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf
As I said, that figure is true for Exxon Mobil ALONE. Combine it with the other “Big Five” and the economic clout these megaliths swing is on par with an industrialized nation. Add in the state-owned oil powerhouses and it is arguable that the oil industry commands economic power in excess of most nations on earth.
That doesn’t exactly contravene my argument. It simply means that the breadth of these shadow nations can be measured in human, as well as economic, terms.
I don’t know...based on the article, I may lose the first 50% of increase in oil prices, due to that upslope curve on futures. However, if this means that I’m now hedging at $50 per barrel, that’s still ok with me. My real fear is a more like a tenfold increase due to either:
1) Increased world demand, again
2) Supply disruption
3) Dollar crash...or just overall currency inflation
I think #1 is years off, but I’m in for the long term. I consider #2 likely soon, as Obama pushes Israel into taking matters into their own hands. And I consider #3 as a given, once we see how expensive it is to service our national debt...after it doubles due to our “stimulii” and bailouts. We will have to print money and devalue our debt...no other choice.
I think the ETF route is still a good option, overall, even with somewhat of a loss.
“Your vehicle runs on oil? Mine runs on gasoline.”
Naa, but my gasoline needs oil as its source, and oil is still the most expensive component (at least for now).
But you said you bought oil futures. How would being able to take delivery of a few barrels of oil possibly help to run your car?
You haven’t seen my garage.
Seriously, it’s not futures...it’s an index that (more or less) tracks the price of oil...but it trades like a stock. They index managers have to deal with the futures and have to remember to sell them prior to delivery and then buy the next round, or they’ll have a Superfund site at their office.
I am just amazed that you believe 5 companies that control less than 4% of the world’s oil supplies dictate the market.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.