What is happening with oil prices ?
Posted by Big Gav on July 7, 2008 - 7:00pm in TOD: Australia/New Zealand
Topic: Economics/Finance
Tags: oil prices, original, peak oil [list all tags]
"Oil is an incredible, irreplaceable gift of nature which packs energy in a dense, easily transportable form." - Jérôme Guillet – Energy
Industry Investment Banker
The hard facts
- The world price of oil in US dollars has doubled in the last year (June 2007 to June 2008) from US$67/barrel to over US$135/barrel
- The world price has gone up by 6 times in 6 years, from US$20/barrel in 2002 to over US$135/barrel by mid 2008
- With hindsight we can see that the great cheap oil era lasted 16 years from 1986 to 2002 when the price was mostly in the range $15 – 25/barrel, coming off a $39 peak during the "oil shock" of 1980 (equivalent to about US$95/barrel in 2008 money). The short sharp spike seen at the end of 1990 was due to the first Gulf War.
Within Australia we have been somewhat insulated from the latest sequence of price rises by the falling value of the US$, so our petrol and diesel prices have risen by comparatively less as the A$ has climbed to around US95 cents, as shown in the chart below.
In Australian dollar terms we have seen the price of oil rise by "only" 3½ times in 6 years.
Obvious questions raised by the price rises are:
1. What has caused the startling rise over the last 12 months?
2. Why has the price risen steadily for the past 6 years?
3. Why shouldn't we get back to the $20/barrel we enjoyed in the 1990's?
4. What caused the noticeable dip in price from mid 2006 to early 2007?
5. Why does the oil price seem to be going up at an accelerating rate since the dip in 2007?
6. Has the price stopped going up yet?
7. What prices might we expect over the next 1, 3 or even 5 years to come?
Source: 1986 onwards - EIA monthly WTI spot price in money-of-the-day
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav
Pre 1986 EIA Refiner Acquisition Cost of Imported Crude Oil in money-of-the-day
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu
Starting with Questions 1 and 2, the accelerating curve of recent price rises is due to the growth in oil supply not keeping up with steadily growing demand around the world.
Oil is getting more expensive because surplus production capacity has diminished and continues to diminish, as shown in the chart on the next page. Oil industry volumes are of enormous scale (86 million barrels per day – a barrel is 159 litres), and the costs of supply infrastructure are in the billions and trillions of dollars.
Lead times for new industry infrastructure are typically 3 to 10 years. All new mega-projects on the production
side are well known out as far as 2012, and few seem likely to boost global supply by enough to overcome declines in old oil fields. See
the comprehensive listing of oil megaprojects at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Rapid demand growth is often blamed for rising prices – demand growth in developing countries, particularly
China and India, and in key oil supplying nations such as Saudi Arabia and Russia. But the decline of mature oil fields throughout the world
is an even greater source of demand for new oil supplies than the growth of end user demand. Declining fields are losing 5.2% of total oil production per year thus requiring about 3.5 million barrels/day of new oil each year for the global oil supply to stay the same. (Nobuo Tanaka, International Energy Agency) http://www.iea.org/Textbase
The balance between growing capacity from new infrastructure investments and declining output from old infrastructure has seen global production capacity climb at a slower rate than consumption for the past 25 years, as shown in the following chart.
Source: Goldman Sachs based on EIA data
Convergence of the two curves shown above indicates serious supply tightness over the last 2 years which explains much of the recent price surge, with perhaps $5 – 10 per barrel in volatility added by an influx of investment funds seeking a safe haven from the falling US$.
The analysis by Goldman Sachs in the next chart below suggests that price rises to date have already destroyed demand amounting to about 5 million barrels/day or 6% of current world consumption. Any further price rises may be expected to cause further demand destruction and consequent hardship for those being priced out of the fuel market.

This brings us to Question 3 – Why shouldn't we get back to the $20/barrel we enjoyed in the 1990's?
It's simple – the world has used up practically all the easy "light sweet" crude oil that used to pour out of desert sands for $3 – 4/barrel and be easily refined into saleable products. Discovery of oil peaked more than 40 years ago – see the chart below.

Not only is it costing much, much more to find and extract each new barrel of oil (typically $60/barrel for new deep offshore wells) but most of the oil we can now get is shifting towards "heavy" and/or "sour" grades that require billions of dollars of new investment in refineries to process them.
"The oil is getting harder to extract. Most oil comes from ageing, waning giant fields discovered long ago. There are no more giant fields to find, only lots of small ones, difficult ones or fields deep under the ocean. The remaining crude oil is heavier, thicker, dirtier, quite simply cruder! It's difficult to get out, expensive to get out, slower to get out. So, the rate of oil extraction will decrease." Michael Lardelli on Perspective, ABC Radio National, 26 June 2008
There is no going back to $20/barrel
short of a world recession that shuts down demand for oil, and for everything
else.
Now let's look at recent price volatility. Question 4 – What caused the noticeable dip in price from mid 2006 to early 2007?
Prices climbed during 2005 due to Hurricane Katrina and fears of war with Iran, then kept on climbing until August 2006.
"Oil was in a bit of a bubble
in July 2006. The way you could tell it was in a bit of a bubble was
that speculators were net long by a large number of contracts (115,000)
and inventories were high. . . . The oil situation now is very different.
Speculators are now net short. Inventories are very low of the products
and types of oil in demand." http://www.theoildrum.com/node
When the 2006 hurricane season passed
without incident and oil supplies remained marginally ahead of demand
the market appeared to decide that risks had been over-priced, and prices
fell by $10 - $15/barrel for the start of 2007. Then they began rising
again.
Is our situation getting worse? Question 5 - Why does the oil price seem to be going up at an accelerating rate since mid 2007?
Actual oil prices are set by refiners bidding to buy tanker-loads. Recent media fuss about speculators refers largely to oil futures prices rather than actual spot prices for which a buyer and a seller have to actually exchange funds for a tanker-load of crude oil costing between US$100 and US$400 million. Not many speculators have this sort of cash or know what to do with a 250,000 tonne tanker.
This year many refineries have been finding it harder to buy oil of a grade they can economically refine, especially the 50% of US refineries located in the Gulf of Mexico who are suffering steep declines in overseas supply from their nearby sources in Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria.
Mexico is in oil-induced political and financial turmoil because its one massive oilfield Cantarell has gone
into rapid decline for geological reasons while Mexico's (subsidised) domestic oil consumption is growing. Mexico is seeing its largest single
source of foreign income decline every month, while domestic demand for oil is growing at a pace that will see Mexico become an oil importer by 2014 according to some estimates. (http://www.theoildrum.com/node
Mexico’s Oil Production is Collapsing

At the same time
- Venezuela's output is declining, partly due to Hugo Chavez's ejection of foreign oil companies.
- Nigeria's output has been reduced to its lowest level in 25 years by terrorist attacks from local guerrillas
- Russia's output (which is only exceeded by Saudi Arabia's) has unexpectedly declined by 0.9% this year
- Britain's North Sea oil peaked in 1999 and is declining at 5% - 8% per year.
The table on the following page shows, for oil exporting nations, net export declines accelerating from 2006 to 2007. Monthly data for 2008 shows that the overall downward trend is continuing. It is the declining volume of tradeable oil on global markets that is causing steep price rises this year when we are seeing only moderate abatement of growth in global demand.
More buyers are pursuing a tightening supply of exported oil, so small variations in availability are all that is needed to push deal prices upward. For example, on 28th June Bangladesh, hard-hit by energy shortages, was reported to have struck a deal with Kuwait for supply "at a premium price".
If declines in the supply of tradeable oil were not enough to create a tight market, buyers are reacting nervously to talk of attacks on Iran by Israel or the USA, and it only takes a rumour to send oil prices on another upward jump.

Source: datamunger at http://www.theoildrum.com/node
Units – thousands of barrels per day
Critically, Saudi Arabia appears now unable to perform the role of market stabiliser that it played from the 1980's until the 2000's on the basis of its known ability to pump up to 20% extra volume at short notice. Depletion of Saudi Arabia's giant oil fields appears to have taken away its ability to help the world in this way, though the Saudis will not directly admit they no longer have this power.
It seems likely that since 2007 OPEC has lost effective cartel power because few of its members have the ability to pump more oil. This means the cartel as a whole can do practically nothing to bring down prices even though key members like Saudi Arabia have much of their wealth tied up in Western economies and are clearly concerned about damage to their own interests if oil prices go any higher – thus the Saudi conference held on the 22nd of June 2008.
So what happens next? Questions 6 and 7 – Has the price stopped rising and what prices might we expect over short-term and medium-term planning horizons?
Price rises did indeed pause in mid-June after an astonishing $11 run-up on Friday 6th June. Traders may have been waiting for an outcome from the Saudi conference on 22nd June, which was soon seen to have provided little new knowledge or cause for optimism.
Game on. Futures topped $140 for the first time on 26th June.
So what will next week, next month and next year bring?
"Predictions are always difficult, especially about the future."
Niels Bohr
There are essentially two patterns of oil price prediction being made by informed pundits:
- Ongoing steady price rises driven by the continuing supply-demand squeeze
- A big discontinuity caused by demand destruction of a major sort, followed by a short period of lower prices then a resumption of ongoing steady price rises driven by the continuing supply-demand squeeze.
Pattern A – Ongoing steady price rises
Proponents of ongoing price rises are betting on geopolitical and economic stability and the ability of a resilient world to keep steadily adjusting to rising oil prices, as we have done for the past six years.
Typical projections of this type are from Jeff Rubin, Chief Economist at Canada's CIBC World Markets. The following table is from Jeff Rubin's April 2008 report http://research.cibcwm.com

Two months later Rubin has revised his April price projections drastically upwards in CIBC WM's June 2008 report http://research.cibcwm.com
He explains "We are compelled to once again raise our target prices for oil. We are lifting our target for West Texas Intermediate by $20 per barrel to an average price of $150 next year and by $50 per barrel to an average price of $200 per barrel by 2010."
Pattern B – Price moves down then up on a rising trend
The other school of oil price projections makes the common-sense point that serious demand reduction and perhaps economic recession in some countries will be triggered when oil prices reach a critical level – when "demand destruction" becomes really destructive. Proponents suggest that such a free-fall in demand from one or more larger consuming countries such as the USA will be dramatic enough to drop price back to, say, US$100/barrel for a period of time.
Some writers guess that the critical price point to cause such sudden and significant demand destruction may be US$200 - 300/barrel, based on percentages of world GDP, but the accompanying analysis is weak and the arguments published to date do not convincingly pinpoint a critical price for oil above which it cannot go.
A graphic example of the "dramatic recession" school of price projections is shown below. Given the great variety of geopolitical events and economic factors that could influence actual supply, demand and price there is little hope for more precise forecasting of price and timing than the indicative story set out below.

Conclusion:
Stay awake, expect oil prices to be in dynamic movement.
Conservatively, plan for US$200/barrel by 2010, but don't be surprised if a recession somewhere drops price back to US$100, for a short while, or sudden war in the Middle East sends prices skyrocketing.
Expect the fundamentals of fading supply growth and growing demand to push prices ever higher in the 5 year horizon, perhaps well beyond US$300/barrel.
The implications in terms of Australian pump prices in A$/litre are shown in the table below. These pump price estimates are made on the basis of some reasonable assumptions:
- Current excise and GST rules stay the same, keeping Australia's fuel taxes significantly lower than any other OECD country except the USA, Canada and Mexico
- Australia's prices continue to be driven by average Singapore refined product prices. Singapore product prices are most influenced by the price of Malaysian Tapis crude which normally sells for a few dollars more than US West Texas Intermediate
- Freight, insurance, wharfage and wholesale and retail margins rise only moderately with world oil price
- A$/US$ exchange rate moves up from the current 95 cents to parity due to continued weakness in the US$ compared with commodity-driven support for the A$
- No net impacts from the Emissions Trading Scheme which starts in 2010 and might add another 10 cents/litre.
Indicative Estimates of Pump Price
|
Tapis price
US$/barrel |
Australian capital city pump price A$/litre |
| $140 (today) | $1.68 |
| $200 | $2.07 |
| $250 | $2.45 |
| $300 | $2.80 |
| $500 | $4.30 |
"When you think a litre of petrol costs too much, ask yourself how much you would have to pay someone to push your car 10 kilometres."
Finally, let's look on the bright side. There is plenty to like about moderately higher oil prices, if communities, businesses and economies take heed and get time and help to adjust.
Less traffic, less congestion and less pollution would be a big plus for most of us.
New business opportunities should spring up in areas such as energy conservation, Natural Gas conversions, cleantech industries, electric vehicles and freight optimisation.
Having the world place a higher value on energy from oil will change a lot of business decisions, improving our resource efficiency and enhancing sustainability.
Anawhata comments: The above is my effort to explain the recent history and possible outlook for oil prices to non-TOD audiences who lack awareness or understanding of peak oil. I think all of us know how tricky it is to explain these big issues to intelligent people who simply lack the basic knowledge we take for granted about peak oil. I have chosen to focus this piece specifically on prices, with the minimum possible mention of related causes like oil field reserves, depletion rates, the export land model and so on. Most of these topics underlie my argument, but are not highlighted because I will lose the audience if I stray too far away from the central topic of prices. I have anchored the whole argument around the undeniable facts of recent oil price history.
You will see TOD contributors' fingerprints and exact words throughout, and I hope I have credited key people correctly and sufficiently. In any case, TOD thought leaders, you know who you are. Thank you for educating and informing me and so many others. I welcome suggestions to clarify and improve the story, remembering that I have to keep it as simple as possible for a lay audience. In particular please help me correct any errors of fact or understanding on my part.




As PG would say, thanks for your support:
http://www.reddit.com/info/6qkze/comments/
This is an excellent introduction to peak oil. I hope that you can update it at appropriate intervals over the next couple of years.
I have already dawn it to the attention of those friends and relatives whom I have so far not been able to persuade that peak oil is real.
Great read! I shared this with "Family First" Senator Fielding (Australia), for what it's worth. Afterall, he should be made aware of the concept of PO, shouldn't he?
Regards, Matt B
It'd be the first thing he's aware of, ever!
He is aware of "Recycling" (Although apparently not "Reducing" or "Reusing"...)
In the following pic, he has recycled the Black Knight costume from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

electricity can power a car just like oil can
Amen brother. I'm glad most electricity comes from fairies and not something like coal.
"Amen brother. I'm glad most electricity comes from fairies and not something like coal."
just coal?
Yup, just coal and other fossil fuels. You see, solar thermal, wind, and whathaveyou in the renewable sector clearly aren't suitable for electric vehicles because instead of spending a few seconds plugging them in when we get home at night to charge over a 8-12 hour window, we would actually spend an extra ten or fifteen minutes going to a fast charging station, which would have to be built, just so we could whine about how we can't power a car with renewables due to problems with intermittency. ;)
Are you being sarcastic?
Electric motorcycle recharged from Solar PV...
http://www.zevutah.com/page/motorcycle.htm
Sounds "suitable" enough to me.
;-)
Just a bit. Besides, it's unpossible I tell you, unpossible! ^_^
John15, why do you keep harping about irrelancies?
Nobody denies electricity cannot theoretically power cars in spades in the future.
Further, it is theoretically possible that we can generate most of our electricity from non-fossil fuels in the future.
However, we do not live in the future. We live in now.
Now 99% of our car fleet in the world runs on fossil fuels.
Now, more than 60% of our electricity generation worldwide comes from fossils, most of that from coal.
The problem as you very well know is getting from now to the theoretical future in very rapid steps in a time of potentially declining net energy availability and restricted mobility due to decline in available oil.
Have you any idea about energy project finance costs, project completion times, finance deprecation times, car fleet replacement rates, PHEV mass-manufacturing capacities or electricity grid challenges in the real world?
Talking about a theoretical future where everybody is happy when we have 'such and such technology' generating us an abundance of cheap, non-polluting electricity, which we power our PEVs with is not only misleading, it is intellectually dishonest.
You have to face the reality.
Even EIA projects coal to increase annually 1.7% p.a. until 2050.
If you have some magic scenario how we can remove all that coal generative capacity in 20 year or so and replace it with cheap, clean & abundant energy of your choice with minimal risks, low financing, while growing economies and ensuring a win-win for everybody, then I think World Bank, IMF, UN, OECD, EU, US, OPEC, and the Nobel committee are all ready to listen to you.
And don't you think we don't want that to happen? Don't you think people don't want these issues solved?
But harping about theoretical possibilities and not facing the hard realities is not going to get things solved.
Instead of heaping criticism on someone without providing any numbers of your own, why don't you sit down, do the calculations and show it can't be done ?
I've never seen anyone do this using present day cost figures for CSP, solar PV/thin film, wind, biogas, geothermal, hydro and ocean power options and taking into account projected changes over the next decade.
I suspect you haven't either - so instead you indulge in a whole lot of hand waving and tell people to face the (unquantified) "reality"...
<sigh>
Gav, Please read again very carefully what I wrote.
This is not an either-or issue, we both acknowledge that.
However, in any fair argumentation, the proof of burden is on the one making the claim. I did not see a single shred of proof from John15. I did provide latest EIA AEO 2008 assessment for coal use growth up to 2050.
And you are right that the only calculation that I can refer to is the only publicly available high level calculation in the world that I know of, that of Hirsch et al.
I never claim it cannot be done (100% certainty).
I'm claiming the scale issue is very, very large and the time available for completion appears to be very short based on oil depletion forecasts.
My main point is the obvious thing that claiming it is theoretically possible does not make it so.
Theoretical possibilities are not realities until built.
However, having studied energy companies locally, I can attest that the average 5 year permit process, 2-3 year financing process, 7-10 year build time and the 10-25 year depreciation time does not make things easier. Especially when the industry is made ever more so confusing by constantly changing political winds and legislation, the volatility in the CO2 emission trading market and primary fuel markets (gas, coal, oil).
Please do not mistake me for a dichotomic doomer, because I'm not one.
Now, I've provided one very big study reference in this post.
Let's see if John15 can post one that backs his claims. One that is based on physical/financial high level calculations - not just lab-tech breakthroughs about algae and back of the envelope musings about how cheap pv is going to be in 2020.
Just saying 'it can be done' is as silly as if I had said 'it can't be done' (which I didn't write, if you read carefully again what I wrote).
*PS as for real-world solution: I am consulting both energy companies and politicians locally on this. That's what I mean when I say mere assertions get very little done.
there are plenty of BEV in use right now as we speak. hybrids are electric and they are in use right now. it wasn't too long ago that people said hybrids were a joke and now they can't keep them on the lots!
did wind suffer from the huge drop in oil consumption in Denmark? those who offer answers won't suffer from from high energy prices because they are producers of energy.
And in the now there is still lots of fossil fuels available.
In the future is when fossil fuel availability will decline, meaning talking about what can be done in the future is exactly what we're already doing.
Why is it wrong to talk about near-future solutions to near-future problems?
Actually John, no it can't. Power a car, yes. Like oil, no.
I filled up my people carrier yesterday - tank takes 80 litres diesel. Incidently would have cost £106.40 at todays price of £1.33/Litre, US$210, A$220. Wasn't completely empty so I didn't quite achieve the magic £100 fill up (yet).
Anyway, the point is that today I will drive approximately 750 miles - from central Scotland to halfway through France - with a vehicle loaded with people and camping equipment, before having to stop for fuel, provided I keep the speed reasonable.
Please provide us all with details of the electric powered vehicle which is in production, or even on the distant horizon, which can even come close to providing that kind of utility. Then provide details of the investment required, and the roll out times for replacement of the current fleet.
the prius. probably a dozen or more hybrid and electric cars are going to be introduced in the next 3 years and that's not even including bikes and scooters.
who cares? people can just drive less if they have to. I also question whether the fleet needs to be turned over. one could just convert an ICE car to an electric.
high school kids did it.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/high_school_homework_make_an_ele...
ups is using the zap.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/11/ups_delivering_1.php
Just in case you may have been fooled by the smoke and mirrors ... in reply to the question
John15's only solution offered is "the prius" ... in fact, the Prius is powered by PETROL and emits 104g/km
http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/frame_start.jsp?id=MSR_PRIUS&C...
John15 says "who cares?" ... I do for one, since it is important for me to know what the future can't be ... what is left is what might be.
Clearly, from John15's answers, an adequate number of affordable electric cars for the masses is unlikely in the immediate future.
IMO his other solution offered "just drive less" is much more likely (and is happening already) ... using less is otherwise known as a recession, it isn't BAU. Plan on that assumption.
OUCH!!!......John15 thats gotta really hurt!
A person asks what electric vehicle will travel 750
miles.....loaded with people and camping gear and luggage....and you say a Prius.
The example given is ridiculous - that particular requirement is a rare outlier compared to fundamental travel needs (though a Prius clearly can go 750 miles, and more fuel efficiently than a regular vehicle - though it isn't an EV).
Hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electic vehicles exist already and the car industry is rapidly shifting towards building them - true or false ?
Friends of mine have a Prius. They drove Brisbane to Sydney (913km) on 45L. That is great mileage of 4.6L/100km.
I just drove Melbourne to Sydney in a Prius. Similar distance, similar milage.
There's only ONE answer, TODAY.
We (the world) are, currently, producing about 15 Billion Gallons of Ethanol, annually. This production will power 30 Million Cars 300 BILLION MILES @ 20 mpg (500 gpy.)
That's TODAY! We can increase this by a facto or ten like rolling off a log.
What were those "TODAY" numbers for Electric, again?
Some concerns:
1) There were 600 million cars worldwide in 1997. Where do you get the 30 million number from?
2) even with 300 million cars needing power, fueling with ethanol gives 1000 miles per year per car. 83 miles/month. 19 miles/week. 3 miles/day. I cycle more than this.
3) Much ethanol production is dependent on fossil fuels for fertilizer and pesticide, and must compete with food production. Ethanol production is more likely to decrease by a factor of 10 rather than increase I think.
Ethanol can't be transported in pipelines, and freight railroads are already at capacity just keeping power plants supplied with coal and parts of California supplied with ethanol for 10% blends.
Sure it can. Morgan Kendrick is doing it in Florida, right now.
And making ethanol (even in the limited quantities available so far) has plunged 100 million people into deep poverty and created soaring food prices and made the danger of starvation real for millions more people.
Apart from that (and the fact it can only be scaled so far) its great.
I don't suppose you'd want to give sources for any of that would you?
Naw, I didn't think so.
I'd be happy to.
In the meantime please stop acting like a moronic troll - its a big challenge, but I hope you can rise to it.
Here you go:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableener...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.food
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/biofuels-push-30-million-into-po...
How many more would you like ?
In any case, with the world population rising to 9+ biullion people in the coming decades, you can be sure that using cropland to produce fuel instead of food will increasingly be seen as an anti-social act.
There are better ways - clean energy and electric transport than pursuing the foolishness of first generation biofuels (my mind remains about about next generation techniques, none of which exist at any meaningful scale as yet).
I don't agree with a word that the ethanol guys says, but don't feel that abuse is appropriate.
It is particularly concerning when it originates from a moderator.
The guy was dishing out shit. If you're gonna dish it out, you gotta be ready to take a bite yourself.
Dave - as you well know (having experienced it many times yourself), if you abuse me, I'll abuse you back.
If you keep doing it, I'll delete your comments, and if you persist furher, you'll be banned.
In addition, you personally are no position to criticise others (though your holier than thou attitude doesn't surprise me one little bit, having seen that many times before too) having crudely abused many commenters over the last 6 months, for which you have been warned repeatedly.
You really appear to have no sense of irony in your disregard of site rules.
You allegation of my abusing others are unfounded - perhaps you would care to substantiate by showing anywhere that I have called someone a 'moronic troll' because we disagreed?