Whither Oil Prices?
Posted by Dave Cohen on September 18, 2006 - 1:09am
Topic: Demand/Consumption
Tags: james hamilton, michael lynch, oil prices, price bubble, price volatility, risk premium [list all tags]
Since early August, oil prices have fallen considerably. From the EIA's latest This Week in Petroleum.
Oil Prices Continue to DropLet's examine the EIA's timely question. Combined with the Jack-2 Test Well, the dropping prices have served as fodder for those debunking peak oil claims.In the last 5 weeks, since August 7, oil prices, both for crude oil and petroleum products, have dropped substantially. The price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil has fallen from $77 per barrel to below $64 per barrel. Retail gasoline prices have dropped 42 cents per gallon to $2.62 as of September 11, while retail diesel fuel prices, at $2.86 per gallon, are now about 20 cents per gallon lower than they were 5 weeks ago. Will the declines continue, or will they begin to level off and possibly increase later this year?
Log (base 2) of West Texas Intermediate spot price in nominal US dollars Jan 2000-Jun 20th, 2006, together with linear and quadratic fits to the data from Nov 15th, 2001 onwards (the low before the recent price run-up). On this scale, 4 is $16, 5 is $32, and 6 is $64. Graph is not zero-scaled.
Figure 1 -- Click to Enlarge
I have taken the start of the price rise as November 15th 2001 which is when prices bottomed out after the tech crash and the events of 9/11. To that price rise I fit both a linear trend, and a quadratic. To the extent the price was curving up in a bubblicious manner, we would expect the quadratic to depart markedly from the straight line. It elects not to do so - the two are very close. Thus we see that although there is considerable volatility in the price (and the pattern of that is worth further analysis in the future) the price rise is very much exponential in nature. So I take this as further evidence that we do not have a self-reinforcing bubble.It is natural to ask whether we are witnessing the bursting of an oil price bubble. Was Stuart wrong?At least not yet.
[editor's note, by Dave Cohen] I should add that if Stuart was wrong, so was I.
On the other hand, prices have been subject to "considerable volatility" in recent years so the current bearish oil market may simply be an exaggerated extension of that trend. James Hamilton of Econbrowser has an interesting analysis of what's happening now. Here's his take on things in Gasoline prices will fall even more published on September 13th.
So what is going on? I've argued that speculation in oil has in part been driven by the asymmetric payoff structure in a tight market. With limited excess capacity, any supply disruption had the potential to produce quite a spike up in prices, and that possibility may have been regarded as sufficient compensation to speculators for the risk of a price decline that would be expected to occur if none of those events took place. But we're now operating on the flip side of that same calculation-- hurricanes have so far failed to disrupt this season's production of oil from the Gulf of Mexico and the conflict with Iran seems to be playing out as an awkward standoff. The absence of bad news means prices had to drop.Indeed, the optimists are out in force because of the "absence of bad news".Furthermore, there is some evidence that petroleum demand is finally starting to be tamed, which is of course one way to create more excess production capacity in the world oil market. My concern here is that the incipient economic slowdown may be the most important factor responsible for declining petroleum demand. And to the extent that's the story, the oil price declines are not exclusively a harbinger of good economic news.
"Prices have just begun to drop," said Michael C. Lynch, of Amherst, an oil-industry analyst who heads Strategic Energy & Economic Research Inc. with clients ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to Aramco, Saudi Arabia's national oil company.Hamilton's remarks bring together many of the factors said to be affecting current prices.Growing supplies of oil and oil products, coupled with weak demand, which is the response to the past year's high prices, have been reducing the price of crude oil, he said. From its current price of about $67 a barrel, Lynch said he thinks "it will stabilize in the low 40s within the next year."
- easing global demandsee Oil Trades Near Five-Month Low After IEA Lowers Demand Forecast
- perceived lower risk premiumssee Oil rebounds after six-day slide, Iran risk ebbs
- weak hurricane activitysee Oil Price Increases in New York, Remains Near Six-Month Low
No doubt analysts like Lynch would argue that we are arriving at the end of a speculative bubble. Hamilton's view sees continued volatility based on "the asymmetric payoff structure in a tight market." As he points out, there has been no new supply easing spare capacity concerns, a point reinforced by continuing bad news out of Iraq and Nigeria. Instead, decreased demand is "one way to create more excess production capacity in the world oil market."
Three other considerations must be added to these analyses. First, OPEC decided not to cut production quotas at their recent meeting. Second, inventories have been higher than normal this year although there was an unexpected drop in crude stocks just last week. Last but not least, oil prices are undergoing a seasonal adjustmentthough the change seems to have arrived a bit early this year.
Figure 2 -- Click to Enlarge
Prices have fallen from their risk-induced high of $78/barrel (Israeli/Hezbollah war) to just above $63/barrel as of this writing. A quick glimpse at Figure 2 reveals that after the risk-induced high (hurricanes) of $70/barrel in 2005, prices subsequently fell to about $57/barrel. In 2004, prices reached $55/barrel in late summer before falling to about $42/barrel in October. However, the current drop of about $15/barrel exceeds both prior years by $2/barreland October isn't here yet.
Getting back to the original question, it is apparent that the answer is not straightforward; predicting future oil prices never is! In the shorter term, prices could easily fall precipitously down to the $50s or even the $40s before the late year seasonal rise kicks in. There seems little reason to expect the great volatility of past years to end any time soon. While things are quiet now on the risk premium front, underlying conditions defining the uncertain geopolitical situation have not changed. However, if global demand continues to ease, prices may not bounce back to expected levels in the high $60s or $70s.
The optimistic Michael Lynch sees prices stabilizing in the low $40s within the next year. That's not even the lowball estimate. In Business Week's story Oil: A Bubble, Not a Spike?, analyst Tim Evans believes "the crude rally isn't justified by fundamentals and expects prices to 'fall hard' soon to $26 to $30 a barrel", thus reflecting the bubble view of reality.
Evans, a senior analyst at IFR Energy Services, a division of Thomson Financial, thinks that the current run-up in oil prices is much like the Internet bubble of the late '90s. While other analysts are calling for crude to hit upward of $100 per barrel in the next few years, he believes the bubble will burst in the next several months, bringing prices back down into the upper-$20s range.[Recently, Evans said], we saw the highest level of commercial crude oil inventory in the U.S. since June, 2002. Then, we were trading in the range of $26 to $30 per barrel. The current physical fundamentals, not even projecting to a greater surplus down the road, are consistent with a $26 to $30 price.
But were this to happen, is it good news? Since there is no supply-side relief, stable prices (which would be an anomaly given recent trends) in the low $40s or below that would necessarily reflect steep declines in demandperhaps even recession in some OECD nations. Otherwise, market supply & demand fundamentals do not appear to support such a pricing prediction. Furthermore, OPEC regards $60/barrel as a new baseline. From Oil Gains on Foiled U.S. Embassy Attack, OPEC Price Vigilance:
Members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which pumps 40 percent of the world's oil, decided yesterday to keep production quotas unchanged. The group wants prices to stay above $60 a barrel, Iranian Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh told reporters today in Vienna, speaking through a translator,OPEC will probably implement production cuts if prices fall much below $60/barrel in an already tight market. Earlier this year, Venezuela was calling for such cuts.``The price we favor is not below $60'' a barrel, for OPEC's basket oil price, Vaziri-Hamaneh said. ``Supply is more than demand and stocks are at a very high level, and because of these two factors, prices are very fragile.''
Oil pared early gains today as the International Energy Agency cut global oil demand estimates for 2006 and 2007, spurred by a slowdown in the U.S., the world's largest energy consumer.
Finally, should oil prices fall precipitously from recent levels, the effect on new investment to increase global production could be disastrous. Marginal per barrel costs for new E&P is increasing into the $25 to mid $30s range. Prices in the low $40s leave little room for desired large returns on investment. Low prices discourage exploitation of the higher risk, high cost projects that now dominate the oil production scene. The position of analysts like Lynch seems to carry with it an inherent contradiction: low prices and increasing supply. In addition, high price volatility also discourages investment. No one on the upstream supply side wants to see great fluctuations in price.
Whither oil prices? There is still no convincing evidence that oil prices have been bubbly over the last few years but there is no fully convincing explanation for the steepness of the current price decline eitherlack of bad news doesn't seem to be the whole story. The short-term group psychology of the current market must be playing some role. Here's an interesting story for all to read as we conclude this essayOil and XOI Corrections, written September 15th.
Fundamentals take years to change at best. It is inconceivable that the world oil market changed fundamentally since the latest 17% slump in oil started a little over a month ago. If fundamentals cannot change that fast then they still remain very bullish. So the recent correction based on speculators getting worried about a geopolitical/hurricane lull is a psychology-driven technical event. And such countertrend moves rarely last for long since sentiment changes so rapidly.This view is not inconsistent with Hamilton's but merely adds another dimension to it.
The future oil price can not be known but all of the considerations discussed here will play some role going forward.



However, the numerator of the price ratio, the mythical US dollar, has an entirely different nature than a barrel of oil. US dollars are an imaginary invention that largely exist as data bits on computers. Banks have mechanisms for creating dollars at will with essentially infinite $RO$I. JP Morgan just reported a growth of $5.5 trillion in their derivatives in the last quarter. This represents roughly half the GDP of the whole US. The exact value of the derivatives market is unknown, but certainly exceeds hundreds of trillions of dollars. Of note, these electronic dollars can be destroyed as fast as they were created. Likewise last year the Economist reported the OECD homeowners had accrued $30 trillion in home equity gains during the current housing bubble. This is equal to the aggregate GDP of all the OECD nations. This virtual money is also subject to vanishing into thin air.
So looking to predict a future oil price ratio, one must divide an imaginary and highly volatile dollar unit by a physical entity. Good luck with that. However, I agree with the Austrians that central banks exist to inflate the money supply, and they do that more often than not.
"Dollars" are just a noise that we humans make and that Mother Nature pays no heed to. We can crunch the dollar numbers to any unbounded value we choose. It is not absurd to talk about a googleplex of dollars as reported within the depths of some bank's computer whereas one could not rationally do the same thing for barrels of sweet crude. The physical world is bounded. Human hubris is not.
If printing more money really works, then let's just do this: we'll design a nice, new $1 billion bill. Then we'll print up 6.5 billion of them and give one to every person on the planet. Then everyone will be rich!!
It is meaningless to say that money is fictional. Are numbers not real?
It would be more accurate to say that that money and energy represent different dimensions, one physical (the world of things, processes and 3 dimensional space), one mental (the world where things and 3d space is represented). These distinct dimensions are not seperate - but they intersect in known and mysterious ways.
But then again, humans lie. :-)
It's from the Forbes article on Michael Lynch:
http://www.forbes.com/home/forbes/2006/1002/098.html
Peak oil is about production capacity, and production capacity is extremely insensitive to short term pricing. The Gulf of Mexico Lower Tertiary Play will not start producing oil before 2009 if oil is $35/bbl or $135/bbl. The same is true for almost all of the projects on Chris Skrebowski's Mega-projects list. Most of those projects were justified on oil forecasts considerably less than $40/bbl and they will go forward in all cases, absent a worldwide economic contraction.
To be honest, most of the major oil companies would be happy for oil to move back to $50/bbl (or even $40/bbl) and stay there. Such a scenario takes them out of the political spotlight, it puts downward pressure on the cost of services and supplies, and it takes power and money out of the holders of the resources (governments of nation states) and puts it back in the hands of those who have the capability to extract the resource.
Sometimes it seems that we are watching the daily fluctuations of temperature in NYC and trying to make statements about global warming.
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2006/09/15/afx3019146.html
BEIJING (XFN-ASIA) - China imported 95.8 mln tons of crude oil in the first eight months, up 15.3 pct year-on-year, with 11.82 mln tons in August alone, the General Administration of Customs said in a statement.
The imports of oil products rose 25.7 pct year-on-year to 25.75 mln tons from January to August, with 3.78 mln tons in August.
I have worked on Wall Street for nearly 20 years. A former boss once said:
"a - fill in the blank with stock, bond, commodity - will keep going up till it stops going up, and it will keep going down until it stops going down". And "they always go up farther than you thought possible, and down farther than you thought possible". If do not trade for a living, this statements might seem simplistically obvious. When you have a great deal of money on the line... they can eat a hole in your stomach.
At the moment the short term trend is down, even though we had a couple of days of pause. As a trader, I would not reach for the falling knife, so i must believe that prices are headed lower. Prognosticating a price point of the bottom? Ha! These are always made by economists who do not a penny of their own money in the game.
All these people who put their life saving into speculative houses over the last couple of years. Reading the headlines today must be a nightmare for them.
"massive imports"? I reviewed the import data (for the U.S.) at the EIA website and the "massive imports" are actually down, year oover year for the first 6 months of 2006 from 2005. If I am missing something please let me know. Any help would be appreciated
My feeling is that oil prices are down on a combination of expectations of lower demand (partially because of lower economic growth expectations) and reduction in the role of financial intermediaries/risk premium. Could all change soon, who knows.
Of course world Oil prices should not be down because of US imorts, unless of course, the tanker inventory world wide can't find a home... but that is the line coming from a number of Oil market analysts and advisors... US inventories have only 3 components (when you lump crude, distillate, and gasoline together) domestic production, imports, and consumption. Production is down, imorts are down, consumption is... down? Must be if inventories are up year over year
It is my contention that in the same way, the other primary trading banks (Goldman Sachs, etc),are holding similarly massive derivative positions in the gold and oil markets on behalf of the Federal Reserve System, and can move the daily price at will by buying / selling these instruments. The idea that the oil markets are too big to be controlled in this way does not hold if you look at the size of these derivative positions (Trillions!!).
Remember that these markets are decoupled from the physical commodities, since for the most part the traders dont actually take possession of the physical - they just take their profit and move on to the next trade. There is a lot more oil trading in derivatives than there is actual oil existing in the world. The same with gold. Once the paper trades outweigh the physical trades 10 to 1, the price decouples from the actual physical demand / supply, and voila.
Also agree that the markets are decoupled from reality (there is a case for saying that many derivative markets are decoupled from fiction, too).
I have a complaint about $ bills: they are too small and not sufficiently absorbent for the role they are being prepared for: toilet paper.
(Don't tell me you don't know how to use the shells?...)
- stop reporting M3
- declare that companies working in partnership with the government can keep secret books
- put a Goldman Sachs guy in charge of the treasury
- stop reporting committment of traders
VOILA! The US government can print money and give it to their strategic trading partners to be used in manipulating the market. NOW PERFECTLY LEGAL! If the traders lose several billion, no problem, just print more money. Market manipulation for political purposes is the goal, not trading profits. It works until a foreign power declares the practice to be bullshit. Then the US dollar becomes nonconvertible, like the Zimbabwe dollar.Serioiusly, I have wondered and after reading your post, I am really wondering now.
"3 put a Goldman Sachs guy in charge of the treasury
"
Correction;
3 put a Goldman Sachs guy in charge of the treasury AGAIN.
Put another way, a futures contract obligates the holder to buy or sell the commodity at that price at a particular future time. Big financial interests may be able to temporarily shift the futures price away from what the spot price will be, but that just puts them on the hook to pay the difference when the contract closes.
This means that any such manipulation is basically an offer to give money away. If you're convinced that futures prices are artificially being held down, here's your chance to get rich. You can invest a few thousand in an options contract and make many times your investment. Reinvest your winnings and in a few years, you can be sitting on millions.
Basically what you're saying, when you adopt this conspiracy theory, is that these companies are willing to give away their wealth to anyone who sees the truth of what they are doing. If whatever secret, hidden information gets out that clued you into the true situation, then everybody would want a cut of this money fountain. So this kind of manipulation can only work as long as most people are not aware that it is happening. It must be well hidden and well disguised. But then, how did you find out about it?
Just the awareness that virtually unlimited pockets could be used to 'protect' certain markets from too sudden moves in the 'wrong' direction skews the ways traders bet on markets. That's the beauty of the PPT (plunge protection team) 99% of the time just the knowledge of its very existence is all that is needed, only very rarely is real intervention required.
You could posit that funds that see it in their best interests to push oil prices higher most of the time (because that raises the value of the much-larger positions they hold in oil company shares, by increasing the value of those companies' oil reserves), could choose to push prices lower right before the November elections, hoping it will help out the Republicans. Republicans tend to be more eager to pass the sort of corporate welfare that can make fund managers rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
This theory can't be proven of course, unless one of the big funds goes bankrupt and we suddenly get access to their emails, as happened with Enron so it can only remain a theory. It may be paranoid, but it's not tin-foil hat territory, not when you have a long history including ...
- During Calfornia's energy crisis, allegations that Enron was gaming the market were scoffed at. Those charges, as we all well know, later turned out to be true. The Federal Energy Commission went on to hire Enron's lawyer, a woman who scribbled this note to her client: "Answer questions, say nothing. Answer questions, finger others." Enron invested a few million in George W. Bush and reaped billions in return. Nice business!
- Senator Ted Stevens, the Republican head of the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee refused to require energy company CEOs to testify under oath last year -- thus freeing them up to lie. Why did they want to lie about Dick Cheney's Energy task force, do you think?
- The Department of Energy asking the National Petroleum Council to investigate Peak Oil claims, and NPC is headed up by former ExxonMobil CEO "Don't Rock the Boat" Lee Raymond to run the investigation. You know -- that same Exxon that says Peak Oil is not a problem. And yes, Lee Raymond was one of the oil CEOs who lied to the Senate.
I could go on, but there's only so much time. All this doesn't mean there aren't real economic reasons for oil prices to go up and down -- but there could be other forces at work as well. I don't know that the oil markets are being manipulated ... I just suspect it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plunge_Protection_Team
I think this 41 page PDF from Sprott Asset Management answers that question:
http://sprott.com/pdf/pressrelease/TheVisibleHand.pdf
"Given the available information, we do not believe there can be any doubt that the U.S. government has intervened to support the stock market. Too much credible information
exists to deny this. ... These markets have been interfered with on numerous occasions."
Generally it's much easier to influence a market by massaging information, so as to influence others to take a position. And even then it has to be done infrequently. Like in poker. If you always bluff then people learn to expect it.
This shows that they are both reacting to the same publicly available information. And in reality the Fed often does exactly what the market expects it to do, either because it agrees with the market, or because it isn't willing to risk defying the market.
However, the system is not without some usefulness in the here and now. The price of oil, or any widely traded, highly visible commodity or financial instrument, is in part a reflection of the average emotion and broad understanding among a world of players. Clearly some players have more input (bigger pockets) than others, in this group-think we call market pricing, for all that, the price is a useful reflection of what the world thinks.
Speaking about the price of oil, the intraday chart on Friday is a possible reversal day; doesn't mean oil is headed right back up, but it may try to stage an attempt at a rally. Whether that holds and a series of higher highs and higher lows is established (a change in trend from down to up) is for the future to determine.
It is true that derivitive securities whip the underlying commodity in one of the few true cases of the tail wagging the dog... but this is not down in concert. Goldman is at war with Morgan, who is under attack from Bear Stearns, etc ... for every buyer of ANY security, there is a seller... only one of them gets to be right. There is no altruism in ths industry... no self respecting Wall streeter would take a bullet for another!