In our last poll five whole days ago, 30% of you predicted that CL would hit $91 in the front month before it hit $113, and 35% of you predicted that CL would hit $113 before $91.

This is the fourth straight poll where our readers have failed to predict a decline, yet oil has dropped over 10% four straight polls in a roll before the 60 days have expired.

Past performance is not a predictor of future values, YMMV, and as it says in the disclaimer, nothing here should be construed as investment advice.

If you were to flip a coin four times in a row, what are the odds that you would guess the result incorrectly all four times?

Maybe this poll shouldn't be taken as investment advice, but there is a lot to be learned from it.

If I were an oil investor, I would definitely use it as investment advice. Flipping a coin will make you more money than paying attention to the results of this poll. By a huge margin.

The big question I have is why the sentiment has now changed and participants are predicting lower prices only after being wrong the last four times. This is what I would like to see discussed.

What exactly has changed in the world of oil supply and demand that warrants this dramatic reversal of psychology?

The odds of guessing a coin flip wrong 4 times in four tosses is 1 in 16.

But, the polls don't get it wrong each time exactly since some people get it right and some get it wrong. Further, there are five choices not just two. In the last poll, 65% said the price won't go up so in that sense the poll got it right. A 35% plurality were wrong about that saying it would go up. I am suprised that anyone would pick the option of staying in a closed range given wars and rumors of wars these days, but people do and so we can cast the pole as those who think it won't go up, or those who think it won't go down with the middle group taking either side.

The thing that has changed that now has a 39% plurality (I haven't had all my usual 3 votes yet) voting with your guru now is that big banks are failing I think. This suggests that the third Bush recession may beat the other two. As an aside, even the properties of teflon defy providing any explanation of how one president could have two recessions if elected in an honest manner. That said, recall that your guru is only guessing that the price will go down and only based on a feeling that it has not gone down long enough. So, even though I've got more company now I'm on such thin ice here that my brief role as good guessing guru may be at an end.

Chris

"But, the polls don't get it wrong each time exactly since some people get it right and some get it wrong."

Not Exactly. I understand your point. Some people get it wrong, some right. "The Poll" gets it wrong, since it is represented by the largest voting block.

Bloomberg News runs this same scenario every week with a group of oil analysts. Its results are exactly as good as a coin flip.

1 in 16. Or 6%. Somehow Oil Drum respondents hit that 6% zone. I'm not sure how to describe this. Blind bad luck? If they hit 50% I'd say they were just normal opinions or guesses. If they were right all for times, I'd have to say they were brilliant analysts or at least knew what they were talking about. So what is the reason why they were so wrong? What mistakes did they make and why would I bother listening to them again?

Maybe a better way to do it would be to total the numbers of votes in each category (sorted by right or wrong) and then look at the results. Maybe you wouldn't get 6% percent, but a coin flip would still be a better judge of prices.

If you want to look at individuals, try T.Boone Pickens. Same results. In fact his have been horrible the last 6 months. His fund has lost investors millions. Not as bad as the banks, but a monkey could have made money in the energy margets the last few months. The banks were pre-disposed to lose.

Ironically, the investment bank/analysts who have constantly touted a return to $90 oil all spring and summer are Lehman Brothers.

We could say that the poll is just as good as a coin flip (taking the idea that there are only two real choices) if we take the last eight polls rather than the last four. In that realization the polls are half right and half wrong.

Chris

You could. But the key point there would be that the poll is never better than a coin flip.

There is still no proof that any of the "experts" here or anywhere else have ever had any actionable intelligence better than an inanimate object (the coin).

Look's to me as though we've given up on polls now. At $130/barrel right now we've missed two 10% steps: $110 and $122. Might miss $135 too....

Chris

I think the reason most oil drum readers expect the price of crude to rise is that, for the most part, we are looking at supply and demand. We have no access to specific statistics related to oil futures transactions--neither the quantity, nor the size. Why isn't that information public? Who knows and what do they know about the transactions that are affecting the price of crude? In my view, there should be transparency in these markets while anonymity could be preserved. We don't have that information and we are left guessing about what's going on. Are financial institutions, as many suspect, forced to dump holdings as their positions become compromised? Quite likely.

But besides that matter, we can consider the cost of production of a marginal barrel of oil. And on that basis, I suspect the price of oil is artificially low and will be shooting up as soon as we hit 'peak bankruptcy' of financial institutions holding commodities.

Are we having fun yet?

The cost of production of the marginal barrel of oil is pretty low if demand is low enough that ME crude can supply all of it. Somewhere around $5-15/barrel. It only gets high if you need tarsands and such to meet demand.

Chris

Chris,

You can't throw out numbers about ME cost of production because that is NOT the MARGINAL COST OF PRODUCTION of world supply. Instead, I would point you to a cost analysis of crude derived from tar sands in Canada to get a handle on what I'm talking about.

Demand is NOT falling as dramatically as you are suggesting--far from it. Remember--tar sands operations haven't ceased. WHY NOT? There is where you find the marginal cost of oil!

Recent Canadian news reports seem to suggest that Chris Skrebowski is probably more right than wrong. A November, 2007 Toronto Globe and Mail article titled High costs trim forecast for oil sands production suggests that the NEB (National Energy Board) is now projecting a maximum production level in 2015 of only 2.8 million b/d, 200,000b/d lower than their own commonly used 3-million, because of industry discomfort with capital and operating cost overruns of up to 100% on all current tar sands projects. Assuming that Chris Skrebowski is right about peaking in 2015-2020, that suggests tar sands production will never be ramped up beyond 3-million b/d.

What is the real situation with the tar sands? How can there be such a disparity in the estimates for future tar sands production?

In his interview with Julian Darley, Chris Skrebowski highlighted several challenges for the tar sands industry over the foreseeable future. Three that may or may not be soluble are;
* the availability of the high volumes of water needed for tar sands processing,
* the availability of gas or alternative means of heating the tar sands. Greg Stringham, a vice-president of CAPP (the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers), said the gas price used by the NEB for its main forecast – $7 per million BTU – is on the pessimistic side. "It would be too low to support investment in high-cost unconventional and tight gas projects and not high enough to reduce demand," he said.
* and; how vigorously the various levels of government choose to legislate and enforce environmental controls. Various parties, from the municipality of Fort MacMurray to a host of environmental organizations have called for a moratorium on new projects until environmental impact studies can be completed. Canadian governments have a dubious track record of allowing major projects to proceed before the required environmental assessments are completed only to find, when the studies are done, that they should have blocked the project. Having approved the go ahead they leave themselves with no option but to allow the project to continue.

The one challenge that Chris Skrebowski sees as insoluble, as it is a limit of geology, is that the tar sands have a wide variability in quality. Current operations are being conducted in the bitumen-rich central area of the tar sands deposits. Bitumen, not oil, is what the tar sands hold. It is a thick, tar-like substance which needs further, energy-intensive processing, after the energy-intensive extraction, to be converted into a synthetic liquid crude. In the central areas the tar sands contain about 12 percent bitumen, up to 14% in a few sweet spots. At that level of bitumen concentration tar sands oil production is economically profitable and also has a slightly positive EROEI for strip mining operations. Even in these areas, however, in situ production - which involves injecting steam into the tar sands to separate the bitumen from the sand so it can be pumped to the surface like crude oil - thus far has a negative EROEI because of the higher energy requirements and also because the bitumen concentrations, due to higher levels of biodegradation, are generally lower deeper in the tar sands deposits where in situ has to be used.

As the central areas currently being exploited are worked out, which Chris Skrebowski projects they will be by 2015-2020, operators will have to move out of these central areas into the periphery of the reserves. That is where the problem is. In these peripheral areas Skrebowski suggests the bitumen content drops off to about 8 percent. He sees an open question whether operations will continue to be profitable and have a positive EROEI at these much lower bitumen concentrations.

More here.

What's missing in this article is that tar sands are profitable at a certain threshold for the price of crude oil. What is that threshold? There's the bottom line.

If we reduce demand to the point where the ME could, in principle, provide all the oil that is now coming from expensive sources, then the price will get back to $20/barrel. A barrel from tarsands is not marginal if there is plenty of less expensive spare capacity. It may still get produced at a loss to try to recoup a portion of the inital investment, but there won't be any new investment in tarsands. And this is exactly what we should be aiming to accomplish. Investing in high cost oil is bad for us. We can substitute electricity for oil in transportation at lower cost overall and we can keep that cost down more by conserving strongly now to keep the price of oil low while we make that substitution.

The message of peak oil is that there is going to be less oil no matter what. The question is, do we allow the market to force us into going after expensive to produce oil that does nothing about decline? Since we have the regulatory mechanism to avoid this harm to ourselves, the Economic Regulatory Administration is, by law, part of the Department of Energy, we should use it.

Chris

How the mighty have fallen! The title of guru is lost. Luckily though, I only got to vote once in this poll so my stats are still great.

Chris

Hey hey Just Another Statistic,

Here is an excellent explanation to your question. Quoted from Bird and Fortune - Subprime Crisis:

Interviewer "During the summer there has been a great deal of turbulence and volatility in the markets. What has caused that?"

Investment banker "You have to remember two things about the market. One is that they are made up of very sharp and sophisticated people. These are the greatest brains in the world. And the second thing that you have to remember is that the financial markets, to use the common phrase, are driven by sentiment."

So far I have missed two of these polls. One at the top, where I guessed the price would go higher. And, the last poll where I picked the trading range because I thought Ike would knock out production instead of refineries. I picked the range again because I don't have a compelling reason to go either way at the moment.

Agree with You, it's very difficult to predict the price in our energy sources and economic situation. Some friends of mine suggested me to buy oil in forex market now that its price is very low.