A Closer Look at Oil Futures

[editor's note, by Super G] From the contributor formerly known as thelastsasquatch.

Fossil fuels comprise the largest commodity markets on the planet. In a world facing an upcoming date when it will have used 50% of its oil (and natural gas), interest in energy futures will continue to increase. And, as energy becomes more precious vis-à-vis dollars, the activity in the futures markets, particularly for crude oil and natural gas, will have increasing impacts on society. Indeed, the amount of finite oil that can be financially controlled by a near infinite amount of money is enormous. The following is a basic primer on energy futures and will be one of several foundational posts linked to a longer upcoming story, "Peak Oil, Investments, and Diversification". I will outline the basics of an oil futures contract, and discuss the risks and rewards of investing in energy futures. The post will conclude with a discussion of the growing paradox between money and energy.

There have been numerous posts on The Oil Drum referencing crude oil futures markets (Peak Oil Contango?, Predicting Future Oil Prices). If Peak Oil is factual (which I completely believe it to be), then at some point the mainstream public will gravitate towards investments that benefit from long term higher oil prices. Crude oil futures may not be the simplest but are the most direct way to invest in this theme(if dollars are your goal)

INVESTING IN FUTURES

Before we get to the specifics of an oil futures contract, lets explain exactly what a generic futures contract is, and how one invests/speculates in one.

First, the difference between investment, speculation and gambling should be mentioned. Investment is a long term allocation of funds to something with a (perceived) positive rate of return. Speculation usually refers to a short term investment with a (perceived) positive rate of return. Gambling is allocating capital to something with a zero-sum or negative expected return. To spend capital on something that gets you a negative return implies there are other reasons for the decision (primarily maladaptive) which is a subject for another post.

Here is an excellent introduction to futures and forwards. Essentially, when one buys a futures contract on an exchange, one is entering into a legally binding contract to control the financial upside (and downside) of a product at a certain price and time. Futures markets are attractive to many because they offer often uncorrelated returns to conventional stocks and bonds and because the margin requirements are very low compared to traditional equity markets. Many commodities require 5% or less initial margin to enter into a futures position. (Crude oil is currently 6.7% margin ($4,725) for contracts expiring in 2006 and 4.8% margin ($3,850) for contracts expiring 2007-2012). With 5% margin a 10% move (in the right direction) will result not in a 10% return but in a 200% return on money invested. (Leveraged return =(100/Margin rate) x Nominal return). Of course, this leverage is a double edged sword as a move in the wrong direction results in sharp losses and a move below maintenance margin will result in a call from the broker representing the clearinghouse. If subsequent margin is not posted on a losing position, the clearing member can legally liquidate the position without the investors permission. The vast majority of players in the futures markets never take delivery of the product, but participate in the financial movement of the commodity until they close out their contract prior to expiration.

So, after one buys (or sells) a futures contract, it will eventually result in one of three outcomes:

  1. the buyer will sell it at some point prior to expiration at a gain or a loss
  2. if a margin call occurs and the client doesn't post required margin, the brokerage firm will liquidate the position, irrespective of profit or loss.
  3. the contract will expire, and the buyer (seller) will take (make) delivery of the specified commodity.

CRUDE OIL FUTURES

(The grey box quotes are directly from the NYMEX website)

Crude oil is the world's most actively traded commodity, and the NYMEX Division light, sweet crude oil futures contract is the world's most liquid forum for crude oil trading, as well as the world's largest-volume futures contract trading on a physical commodity. Because of its excellent liquidity and price transparency, the contract is used as a principal international pricing benchmark.

The contract trades in units of 1,000 barrels, and the delivery point is Cushing, Oklahoma, which is also accessible to the international spot markets via pipelines. The contract provides for delivery of several grades of domestic and internationally traded foreign crudes, and serves the diverse needs of the physical market.

Light, sweet crudes are preferred by refiners because of their low sulfur content and relatively high yields of high-value products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, and jet fuel.

Specific domestic crudes with 0.42% sulfur by weight or less, not less than 37° API gravity nor more than 42° API gravity. The following domestic crude streams are deliverable: West Texas Intermediate, Low Sweet Mix, New Mexican Sweet, North Texas Sweet, Oklahoma Sweet, South Texas Sweet.

Specific foreign crudes of not less than 34° API nor more than 42° API. The following foreign streams are deliverable: U.K. Brent and Forties, for which the seller shall receive a 30 cent per barrel discount below the final settlement price; Norwegian Oseberg Blend is delivered at a 55¢-per-barrel discount; Nigerian Bonny Light, Qua Iboe, and Colombian Cusiana are delivered at 15¢ premiums.

The contract is listed for 72 months.

As of Wednesday there was open interest of 1,130,596 contracts on the entire oil futures strip from Oct 2006 thru Dec 2012. At 1,000 barrels per contract this represents 1.1 billion barrels of notional oil, only about 12% of annual use for the US. (I admit a lack in html graphics ability, especially compared to The Oil Drum master)

As of this writing, front month oil is $69.19. The strip prices peak in Dec 2007 at $74.44 gradually declining to $66.30 in 2012.

INVESTING IN CRUDE OIL FUTURES

These are some of the more prominent reasons to invest in oil futures (in a Peak Oil world):

  1. Oil, unlike other futures choices, is actually embedded in ALL commodities. It doesn't take sugar to deliver cocoa or frozen orange juice to plant soybeans. The pervasivness and non-substitutability (easily) of oil will eventually result in outsized price increases
  2. The market does not recognize a)net energy, b)the important differences between (short term) flow and (long term) reserves or c)net exports. As these concepts permeate the investing public, it will result in new higher price floors.
  3. Oil price spikes will likely be negatively correlated, or at least uncorrelated with other asset classes, so provide beneficial diversification.
  4. All renewable sources of energy (wind, solar, biomass refining, etc) require oil to transport their goods and employees. Even if we seamlessly transition from a world of fossil fuels to one of renewables, we cant make windmills from wind or solar panels from sun. Oil will continue to increase in value.
  5. We still are firmly entrenched in a neo-classical system that believes in perfect substitutes so 'hoarding' behavior is not yet being seen. Hoarding could occur at local, regional and national levels and once the concept of finiteness of oil is more widely understood, the hoarding aspect will represent another permanent increase in demand.

These are some of the more prominent risks associated with oil futures (in a Peak Oil world):

  1. Since oil is priced at the marginal unit, demand destruction, even in the face of less future reserves, will result in price drops. Large exogenous shocks to the system, like bird flu or some other natural (or man-made) disaster could cause oil prices to drop precipitously.
  2. Since oil is only storable to a point by end-users, a situation like the one above would preclude end users (that are aware of long term scarcity issues) from `hoarding' at the margin and prices could stay low until the economy recovered.
  3. If oil prices go high enough, there is the risk of nationalization of the resources, rationing, windfall profits taxes on oil companies, all of which change the dynamics of the oil pricing market.
  4. In a real collapse (New Orleans on a national scale due to a shortfall in production below the level needed to make the system work), money in futures in a brokerage account might be meaningless.

LABOR AND ENERGY

Since it is Labor Day weekend, it might be instructive to remind ourselves how much `labor power' fossil fuels in general and crude oil in specific provide for us. Here are some quick facts about US oil consumption and production. A closer look shows the US currently uses about 7.6 billion barrels per year. Given our current population of 300,000,000, this equates to over 25 barrels per person per year. Each barrel of oil has 5,800,000 BTUs. An average man working for 1 hour generates between 240-500 BTUS (this range assumes computer operators blended with construction workers). So one barrel of oil provides the latent energy of up to 25,000 hours of human labor, or 12.5 years working 40 hour weeks.

Using this estimate (and this is unadjusted for energy 'quality', e.g. it would be hard to get enough persons to push a semi-truck full of steel from Chicago to Denver.) So annually each American has at its disposal 300+ high quality oil slaves (and that's just the oil -if we include the natural gas and coal we're up to 57 boe which is 700+ energy slaves). We are receiving a massive labor subsidy due to fossil fuels.

One barrel of oil costs $70 and generates the energy of 12.5 years of human work. The average American wage is about $20 per hour so a business can pay someone for 3.5 hours of work for the same amount of money. In effect, we are printing money to buy the good stuff from countries that haven't yet expended their `energy armies'. (How long the world will continue to accept an abstraction for something finite and powerful is an open question, but something here seems awry. I humbly opine that this paradox between energy, labor and value will necessitate that neoclassical economics be replaced by a better model.)

ENERGY AND POPULATION

I believe there are 3 different definitions of Peak Oil and they will come in succession.

  1. The point when we have used half of the oil that will ever be extracted.
  2. The point when we reach maximum sustained production (given that we use high technology like horizontal drilling and water and nitrogen injection, we are likely borrowing from the second half of what was normally a bell shaped curve so this point will come later).
  3. The point when the meme of finite energy resources takes hold in society.
For sake of this discussion, lets use the first definition, and assume we are roughly at Peak Oil now. We have used 1 trillion + barrels and have 1 trillion + left. But as discussed previously (exhaustively?), those 1 trillion barrels require a decent amount of energy to locate, harvest, refine, and distribute and this amount of `energy cost' subtracted from the gross is increasing.

Lets assume that the 1 trillion barrels nets out to 650 billion barrels to non-energy society. (Yes I chose this number specifically). Given our current world population, that equates to 100 barrels of net oil remaining for every person on the planet, (and leaves none for our children, grandchildren or subsequent generations). Any Tom, Dick or Rainwater for $4,000 can financially control 1000 barrels of oil in the futures markets, or 10 times his or her all time planetary allotment. Once Peak Oil version #3 is realized, there will be many investors clamoring to financially (or physically) control their 100 barrels, let alone 10,000 or 1,000,000 barrels. Can the futures markets absorb this? Will this make the Hunt Brothers cornering of the silver market seem like childsplay? The world uses 85 million barrels per day - and for a mere $340 million in margin, this entire amount can be controlled via the futures markets. Consider this in contrast to the $7+ Trillion invested or saved annually, and the nearly $100 trillion in stock and bond market assets. Will the market send the right signals? What smart angles will hedge funds take on this?

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Global society runs on a just-in-time inventory system. It cares about the current flow of products and assumes that shortages will trigger price increases which will in turn spur development of substitute products. Paradoxically, an awareness of future oil scarcity coupled with higher current flows would result in lower prices. Imagine if OPEC issued a press release that admitted their proven reserves were overstated but simultaneously announced that they had developed a new siphoning technology that would immediately bring 120 million barrels per day online. Would futures go up or down?? They would plummet as there would be more supply at the margin than people could use or store. Similarly, if OPEC announced a new trillion barrel oil find, but simultaneously initiated a reduction of the current flow rate to 50 million bpd, oil prices would spike even in the face of long term abundance.

What if Exxon announced they believed oil was going to $200+ per barrel and therefore had adopted a policy to shut down production and lay off workers so as to keep the oil in the ground until 2020 when it will be worth more? Their market capitalization would be decimated, as investors care about current quarterly and yearly earnings, which would now be near zero.

The market cares about the marginal barrel and immediate results. And that fact, in the opinion of this writer, is the achilles heel of modern society. Oil and natural gas are products that are largely non-discretionary in our world economy. They are unlike any other product in history in the % of human society that revolves around them. Long lead times are needed to create alternatives and restructure society around more local energy sources and smaller energy footprints. The high futures prices caused by production shortages will slow economic activity, which will then reduce demand for oil and prices will plummet. Then, when the economy next recovers, we will be further along the curve of depletion and prices will make new highs. This cycle of volatility will hamstring policymakers (and investors) as we will get mixed signals every 12-18 months until we are well past Peak when we will have permanently high oil prices.

The invisible hand moves from mouth to feed trough and back again, like a machine. Without market regulation, the hand will gorge its corpulent body, unaware that the upstream feedtrough appears to be narrowing. True to its origins, it will only react when its hungry, and as the Hirsch/Bezdek report pointed out, society needs 10-20 years to effectively prepare for a change in diet.

In conclusion, many are saying that the era of cheap energy is over but in the ways that count it is still here. At some point in the future, when net tradable global production is too small to quench societies thirst, $70 oil and $3 gasoline will be viewed as incredibly cheap.

It is often said that high prices will cause recession(s) which, in turn, will cause oil to drop in price. In the seventies there were three recessions; the avg oil price, while volatile, never declined yoy. So, my guess is that once supplies begin to decline we will have permanently increasing prices, regardless of economic output.  However, I agree there are some events that would cause price and consumption to decline sharply, and certainly bird flue is one of these.

It is clear that oil futures markets do not see real shortages post 2010. Hedge funds don't make long term assumptions, they mostly look for and ride trends. However, many investors in US E&P's are quite aware of po theory, and many of these, including myself, are investing on this basis.  THe problem with futures is you can be right in the long term and get crushed short term.

My own preference, shared by many, is to invest in small US E&P's with low cost, growing reserves and earnings. These are companies that, by my definition (which counts reserves equally with earnings), are not yet fully valued in the marketplace.  As such, they are usually bought at some point by larger companies having difficulty increasing their reserves; four of my former picks were bought last year. My current favorites are ard and gpor because, in addition to having the highest rating based on my own formula, analysts are projecting record earnings to continue at least through 07 based on oil prices somewhat lower than today's.

I avoid companies with foreign assets. Revenues are generally stable while price is steady because the host country needs expertise and capital that they don't have. However, when price jumps, the host country thinks foreigners are making too much from the national treasure, and accordingly reneges on the contract, raises taxes (often retroactively), or both. Russia, Venezuela and Bolivia are recent cases in point. So, the investor may (or may not) retain his investment, but does not share in the price increase. And, it is anticipation of price increases that attracts po believers to oil and gas investments in the first place.

Regarding gas, the current NA overhang caused by last year's warm winter has held storage at record levels, and the record looks to continue through the first week of Nov, usually the last week that gas is added, and maybe througout the winter unless significantly colder than usual. As a futures contract moves towards the front, it comes face to face with real supply and demand vis a vis the spot market, at which point it has, for months now, crumbled. Futures players are still thinking that gas and oil are bound by their traditional relationship based on heat value. However, the record storage, combined with the ongoing departure from the US of fertilizer and plastics precursor manufacturers, is causing a rolling crash of gas prices.  There may be a crash in NA production in a few years, but profits will be under high stress for several quarters. Meanwhile, long investors in gas futures contracts have been losing money quite steadily since the first of the year, and imo this will continue for some time.

  1. I agree with you regarding US E&P companies and will write more on that in the future. But what happens if there is a windfall profits tax? Or a market-wide selloff? Do energy companies underperform futures? And regarding US vs foreign reserves - we are scraping the bottom of the barrel so to speak on a net energy standpoint (and a dollar standpoint) on some of our older fields (except for the GOM). The higher EROI (and profit) oil sources are found internationally - so there is a tradeoff there.

  2. Natural gas has plummeted its true, but only the 2006, early 2007 contracts - out to 2012 there has been only a minor selloff. The short term glut vs long term dearth is causing new dynamics in the natural gas futures market (I had a portion of this post on that but couldnt get it formatted correctly).  We have enormous volatility in current NG market - 25% in last 10 sessions alone - with hurricanes and cold winter we might have shortages - with no hurricanes and mild winter - we have glut to the point of flaring. How can policymakers plan around that?
  1. There will not be a windfall profits tax while bush is president. After he leaves, there may be a change in taxes, but with US reserves running out, no tax will focus on e&p's looking to develop old fields or find new ones.  Of course there will be market wide sell offs - thre have been three since I began investing in e&p's eighteen months ago, the shoulder seasons are dangerous. That is what volatility means - however, as long as the long-term direction of oil prices is up, these companies will continue increasing profits; I simply stay in because timing is too tough. Regarding US vs foreign - the last 1% from the old fields might fetch as much as the first 99%, and represent more profits to boot, which is the main point, and meanwhile there is no risk of nationalization. The majors have no choice - they produce so much that they must replace their older, labor-intensive US fields with foreign ones.  However, the majors are not as profitable as the small e&p's (I measure this as net/production), and, equally important, are not growing reserves as are a few small ones.

  2.  Policymakers aren't doing much one way or the other anyway, the question is, what are investors, or e&p's for that matter, to do while gas price remains soft?  Some investors will move away (like me), some will hold, few new investors will buy into gas right now, so shares will ease back and become a buy at some point in the future as we get closer to where prices reverse to the upside, maybe sharply (my moving away from gas is timing, not my strong point, will see if I get it right this time). E&P's will carry on in a more difficult environment because they have expenses to pay, maybe not contracting for quite so many rigs (85% of us rigs are looking for gas), freeing up some rigs to look for oil.

Hurricanes did not take that much gas off production, we still entered last winter with a very comfortable storage, higher than the five-year avg. THere was never a time when storage justified last winter's record prices... this was a case of market irrationality, maybe hedge funds pushing too hard. There is no chance we will not have a record amount in storage, my guess is we will add at least the avg of the past ten years thru the first week of nov, usually the last week that storage is added, meaning storage will climb from the current 2905 to 3725. I see the front month dropping to around 6/mcf every month through next summer... and, even at these lower prices, fertilizer and plastics precursor manufacturers cannot compete with foreign suppliers closer to cheap cas, not least qatar, so the us is quickly shedding around 20% of gas demand as we move to import more of our energy needs.
There's plenty I don't understand about physical vs. financial markets
example 1) ethanol is said to give a 25% return over inputs. But 25% would be an outstanding return for a financial investment
example 2) people spend $20,000 on rooftop solar to save $400 annually on electricity bills. That's a return of 2% yet the claimed energy payback period of 7 years implies a yield of 14%.

Hotelling theory in economics and maybe ergodic theory from physics suggest that physical and financial yields must converge. I dunno, it's all too hard.

example 1) ethanol is said to give a 25% return over inputs. But 25% would be an outstanding return for a financial investment

Two points here. First, I dont believe the return from corn ethanol is really 25% if we count ALL the inputs (including environmental impacts) in energy terms. Secondly, you are correct, a 25% return is excellent, but not when one is used to a 1000% return from crude oil. In this case we have care about what society has been built around and what we are replacing more than the absolute return.

You're ignoring all costs other than energy, that's all.  The EROEI relates to only a portion of your costs; there is also the cost of all the equipment and the ongoing costs of maintenance and wages.

Consider the obvious example of pumping oil out of the ground.  Sure, there may be even a 2,000% energy return on investment (20 barrels of oil extracted for each barrel of oil equivalent in energy expended) but the overall return on investment will be much lower, perhaps even negative.  Suppose, for example, you spent $10,000,000 to find the oil and to set up all the equipment needed to pump it out.  Great, now you've got yourself a money machine - put $1 worth of energy in and you get $20 out.  But that's not the only cost.  If the machine doesn't work fast enough you may be paying $20 in wages over the time it takes to get that $20 worth of oil out, in which case obviously you're losing money.  Even if your net return on a barrel of oil is positive you may still have a very bad investment, because you just can't pump the oil fast enough to cover the opportunity cost of that $10,000,000.  If that money were borrowed at 5%/year then you need to make $500,000 per year just to cover your borrowing costs.

As for the solar energy payback example - hey, that doesn't make sense to me either!

'all the inputs'

As we labored over Ethanol (or RR did, anyway) lately, I was trying to put into words another input, which is TIME.. as in 'time is money'  When your energy return takes a long growing season and subsequent processing to arrive (Ethanol), or takes a regulatory process and long-term development to initiate (ANWR drilling, Nuclear), or finally, takes a lot of time to repay you for the investment (Solar Electric/Heat)..  how does the wait affect the economics, as opposed to oil, which by most measures is fast in, fast out..

So we can't make wind power from wind or solar power from sunlight. The vast majority of manufacturing power flows through electric power cables. Wind and sun are used to make electricity. Materials can be mined using electric equipment and transported on electric rail systems. Installation of wind turbines and PV systems could be be done using electric vehicles and construction equipment. the electricity from these wind farms and PV sites could be used to manufacture more of the same again and again until long after fossil fuels are no longer available.
I agree.  There is no requirement for liquid fuels for anything except aircraft*.  Oil may be required as an input to a manufacturing process (e.g. for plastic) but it is not required in order to power the process or transport any materials.

* Aircraft don't do well on extension cords, and it is unlikely batteries or fuel cells will ever be even remotely close to light enough to power non-trivial-size aircraft.


Just you wait - I've got a coal powered plane out in the barn I've just about perfected!!  :)
It's interesting (and troubling) that we are now seeing both declining food production and declining oil production.  As we all know, calories and food measure the same thing--energy.  

In simplest terms, individually and nationally, the question that food and energy consumers have to ask is what thing of value do they have to offer the food and energy producers, in exchange for food and energy.

It's possible that the US government may offer not to use nuclear weapons on oil exporters, in order to keep the oil coming.

The standard economist response mostly works here.  As food supply falls, prices will rise.  Rising prices will encourage more production and demand destruction.  Of course, that isn't very reassuring, since much of the crop failures can be pinned on droughts that may be due to climate change, and the oil product inputs to agriculture are destined to get much more expensive.

I doubt we're at peak food yet, since we can always redirect energy to food.  However, the price increases for food are likely to cause some real havoc, and "demand destruction" WRT food is not a pretty picture.

WT, your quote at Kunstler's website includes, "Through June, 2006, I estimate that the net exports from the top 10 net oil exporters are falling at an annual rate of 9.2%, since December, 2005."  Any guess why that isn't showing up more strongly in the futures pricing?  

Overaall production is flat, so so far newer producers are making up for larger producers' lower production. Futures will not go up until spot goes up. Long-term futures will go up sharply only after seeing that current production is declining, and has been for some time because some will say the decline is temporary.
"Any guess why that isn't showing up more strongly in the futures pricing?"

I think that we are going to see a series of bidding cycles for declining net oil exports.  Right now, I think that the only substantial reduction in consumption is in poorer areas like Africa.  

Of course, a recession here would cause demand, or at least the rate of increase in demand, to fall here in the US.  

IMO, the big difference between now and prior cycles is that we are not going to see a (higher) production response from higher prices.   I think that we are just going to see a series of auctions for declining available oil.  

Thanks for the reply.  I get all that, and really think you're right about it.  But while the futures markets don't seem to agree with the spot market at the moment, they still don't seem to be pricing in the full extent of the problem.  I have a lot of respect for the folks working the futures market, so I'm having a hard time believing they're just missing such a large problem.  On the other hand, it really looks as though they're missing the extent of the supply problems.

I wonder if they're expecting a significant enough recession to slowly lower demand and keep prices fairly constant (but high).  That would fit both your expectations and their prices.  Otherwise the prices just seem too low.

Concerning the last paragraph:  In the future when we look back upon this difficult time we are going through now, and see that we indeed had cheap oil, well at that time, would not inflation be so severe that our now reliance on a paper-money model be considered a joke? And if so, then is the best course of action to prepare for the future and its economic consequences is at some opprutune time to sell our IRAs and/or 401Ks and buy actual precious metals and bury them in the backyard?  Of course I see the possible risk, but by my way of thinking, there is a 100% risk in IRA and 401Ks.

I suggested this to my financial manager and this person thought it was the craziest idea she had heard and said that I should buy gold futures through her company, but that is still paper, not tha actual metal.

 m not sure that precious metals in your backyard will be a great investment either, though it will be a 'hard asset'. But buying things that enable your backyard to produce goods that  we need (food, water and energy) might be a great investment. Would you rather trade Krugerrands with your neighbor, or garlic and kale?

100% of our current 'investment' system is based on financial capital. Even commodity investments in foodstuffs and energy are denominated by digits in the bank. Investing something greater than 0% of your assets in non-financial capital will be a wise diversification strategy. I plan to write extensively on this.

I think quite a few of us have had similar thoughts with respect to IRAs and 401Ks. It is hard to see that the paper-money model will go anywhere.  

If your money is in an IRA or 401K, one possibility is to invest part of it in gold coins. I understand some money managers will allow this - they hold the coins and charge a fee for doing so.

I have some of my 401K invested in TIPS - Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities. While not great, TIPS seem to have some possiblity of holding partial value if the government decides to print money.

Another possibility is to take money out of your IRA or 401K, if you have good alternative uses for the money. You might do this, even if you have to pay penalties and taxes, if you think the alternative is to lose it all.

Besides gold (or silver)coins, you might also buy the empty lot next door to have an additional place to grow food. You might also build a cistern for a water supply. You might add a screened in porch, to make your home more liveable if you can't use air conditioning.

Some have suggested buying things that would be good to trade if times get tough - liquor, medicines, small tools, razor blades, shampoo, etc. Also, some have also suggested "buying ahead" things you may need - non-perishable foods, additional clothing, a bicycle.

I would be interested in hearing thoughts of others on this topic.

There are two other ways to add precious metals to your IRA.  First, if your IRA is at a brokerage, you can buy a precious metals mining stock, precious metals mutual fund, or precious metals trust (like GLD or SLV.)  Often a mutual fund company will have access to at least a precious metals mutual fund you can invest in.  You should be aware that these are often mostly invested in precious metals mining stocks instead of physical metal.  That may or may not be what you want.

Second, you can move your IRA or start a new one at another investment firm that allows for investments in one of the above, or at one of the trust banks that specialize in precious metals IRAs.  The two I know of are Sterling Financial and American Church Trust.  These two allow you to buy actual metal and have it stored at a vault for an annual fee.  Starting a new IRA takes only a little paperwork, but moving an IRA takes a good amount of paperwork.  If you handle the transaction right, not hard to do, there are no tax implications, since you are just transferring an IRA to another agent.

Note that under all of these scenarios, you do not have access to the actual goods.  For it to be an IRA, you can't have any access.  If you want to have something around for "emergencies", you might want to consider Professor Deffeyes' advice and buy gold coins in small denominations.

As for barter items, it occurred to me recently that canning jar lids might not be a bad thing to stock, along with bike parts.  Canning lids can't be reused, they're vital for home canning, they're cheap (now) and easy to store.  Having just put away a bushel of our peaches, I can testify to their usefulness!

A number oy years ago, actually in the late 50s, when I was in high school, I became very involved in the hobby of collecting coins and read all I could about the hobby.  One story that I remember is that during the early to mid 1800s, there was a counterfeiter of gold coins who tried to reduce his cost as much as possible and saw that the specific gravity of gold (19.3) was close to that of platinum (21.4) and since platinum at the time was cheaper than gold, he started with a platinum blank and immersed it in gold and from that he then did his counterfeit.

There is a lesson in here somewhere, but at the moment, not a positive one since it appears that the hybrid vehicle may someday be as rare as the gold-on-platinum coin.


Gail,

No one can predict the future.  Everyone wants to find the holy grail, put all their marbles in that basket, and then cash out a huge sum and live like a Saudi Prince.  That's great, but what if you guess wrong?

Smart investing is about DIVERSIFICATION.

I'll say it again:

Smart investing is about DIVERSIFICATION.

A little bullion in the home safe or buried in the backyard is a great hedge on a systemic collapse.
TIPS might be ok.
A few well chosen technology companies might have good returns.
A few well chose biotech firms might have good returns.
A mix of large, medium, and small cap energy plays might turn out good.
Some PM mining company stock might be good.
Owning 5-10 acres of land might pay dividends.  (Wood for your wood stove?  Acreage to farm?)

The old adage "Everything in Moderation" is so true.

Live within your means.  Live a diversified life.  If you don't "need" much to live a happy life, then the threat of collapse needn't be a huge worry.

Lastly - be wary of the stock options market.  It's a big game, and not only don't you know all the rules, you don't know when they'll change them on you.  The large brokerage houses ARE the market.  Read "Liar's Poker" if you don't know what I mean by that.  Options and margin are easy ways to get fleeced when someone decides to run the stops.

Have invested in passive solar retrofit of house, solar hot water, woodstove, rain barrels, gardening tools.  And cashed in 401k from past employer and sunk it into the mortgage.  Planning more of the same on both fronts.
Clifman, what part of the country do you live in?  We're so overcast here that I can't imagine solar helping that much, though our house has some passive solar features that work fairly well.  Where did you get the solar water heater?

Also, you took a tax hit cashing in that 401k, right?  Did you consider moving it into a rollover IRA where you could have changed the investments?  

NC - good region for solar.  We installed a ProgressiveTube.  Got it from SolarDirect - there are other dealers.  It's designed for sub-tropical climes like Florida where it's made and very popular.  Here, it's meant as a 3-season installation, but I'm building a movable cover and superinsulating it and expect to be able to use it through the winter.  We went with this batch system largely because of the low initial cost - $1600 vs $2500-$5000 for some others.  But there are myriad options depending on the particulars of your situation.  And yes, took a tax hit on the 401k, though not a big one as it wasn't a huge amount.  But I'm very doubtful the financial system will be intact enough in 15-20 years for me to collect on any 401k, IRA or SS, so I have no regrets.  Here's a link to an article about the retrofit savings we've accomplished in our home.
Great article! Thanks!

Couple of questions.... First, if you buy a contract, the price falls and you pony up enough money to maintain your position but later the prices rises past your original price, does the broker refund the extra money you had invested?

Also, when the Chicago Board of Trade introduced ethanol contracts, the price was very low (about $1.38 a gallon) and I was very tempted to get into it, but the volume of trade on these contracts was quite low, ten, maybe 15 contracts per day. That's hardly any contracts compared to other commodities. CBOT ethanol still trades in underwhelming volumes. Does low volume make any difference?

Never mind the first question. I actually read the article you linked to and the answer is that margins are settled daily, so if the price rises, you get your money re-depositied into your margin account.

Low volume makes a huge difference and precludes anything but long term investments. If you 'trade' a low volume contract, the bid ask spread that the pit traders charge you will eat up a large % of your equity.
Seems ironic that the near term price of oil as set by futures traders is falling and seems likely to test lows until there is evidence of OPEC restricting production just at the time when TOD features increasing numbers of MSM news pieces relating to negative indicators of oil production such as the increasing recognition of PO and warnings of danger of the end of cheap oil in Congress and by industry leaders, rumors of Ghawar production being down and having peaked, projections by Skrebowski (probably the best keeper of global oil production data) that oil production will peak sometime in the 2008 - 2010 time frame, and the start of general public acceptance of high oil price as reflected in new car choices favoring milage over muscle.

My sense is that the next big near-term trend may be a combination of lower oil prices (maybe in the $50 - $60 area) and increasing public acceptance of the idea that there is actually no long term oil problem.   I think we'll hear more acceptance of the cornucopian arguments combined with a build up in public confidenced that the "bump" to $75 oil was a temporary phenomenon caused by Katrina, Iraq, and Nigeria and that increasing production spurred by the big jump from $30 oil will eliminate any supply issue for "a long time".  

I also suspect that this counter-trend will occur while all the factors that will truly cause a supply issue (rapid decline in elephant fields, increasing use of oil by exporters for their own domestic purposes) at some point prior to 2010 are building.   In other words, we may see one more orgy of Hummers being bought just before the general public recognition that the peak has already occured.    That will be the time to own futures contracts on oil.   Look for a Time Magazine cover story on the "hoax of Peak Oil".   Then buy oil futures.

and increasing public acceptance of the idea that there is actually no long term oil problem.

Perhaps I am reading you wrong, but as I understand your statement, you seem to believe that the "public", on balance, believe today that there is a long term oil problem.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of individuals in North America have no idea what energy challenges may (possibly) face us. The vast majority are completely oblivious to the discussions that we partake in here.

All they know is oil is expensive, relative to several years ago, and few understand any of the reasons why.

Should the public en masse suddenly be awaken to any notion of a longer term crisis which will affect their daily lives in profound ways, we'll see panic, hording, and significant downside in financial markets.

Then a rally. Disbelief.

Then more downside. ;-)


oilaholic, you said,

"Look for a Time Magazine cover story on the "hoax of Peak Oil".   Then buy oil futures."

EXACTLY.  Be ready to run counter to the popular sentiment.  Over history it has been the best leading indicator in history.  Be suspicious of everything.  And don't get single sourced.  People talk as if it's crude oil you buy at the convience store.  Look at the finished product and be as diversified as possible., and play the seasonal spreads.  What we are looking for is a way to play the retail futures soon.  It's coming.  The customer gets a prepaid card, and "locks in" a price and prepays for it.  I would happily lock in today a price at anything below $3.50 or even up to $4.00 for the rest of my life.  Even though gasoline is now at $2.48 in our area.  Any of the above prices are still a marginal cost in my life compared to other costs of living.

People say, "hey, in the future $3.00 gas will seem cheap!"  Duh!  Well, yeah. The inflation factor alone assures higher prices, and the fact that we got a gasoline deflation for almost 2 decades through the 80's and 90's is always completely ignored....why is that by the way?   For two decades crude oil and gasoline/Diesel prices ran at below the historical mean line.  Why does no one mention what an abberation this HAD to cause in the outlying years  (which of course would be NOW!

Everyone on all sides seems to be able to prove any case they want simply by picking carefully their starting dates.  It renders most all coverage of the "rational" energy price useless.

By the way, unless a person is sure, DAMMED SURE, they are right on not only the fact of the events they predict, but also the timing, selling the IRA and the 401K could be a catastrophic move.  If you guess wrong, at retirement time, you would have rather faced peak oil  (I say this not owning either one of them, but that is for other reasons....)

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

Yes, but these days everyone is a contrarian.

I can't stay long, but in what way do you mean?

If you m