Fuel Freedom Staff

Not even a Libyan oil fire can stop price slide

/in , /by

Oil prices briefly spiked Monday, in apparent reaction to a fire at the Libyan oil port of Es Sider the past few days.

But prices settled down again, to their lowest levels since May 2009, after the blaze was put out in three of the six oil tanks, Bloomberg reported.

Libya was pumping about 352,000 barrels of crude a day until a rocket attack at the port on Christmas Day reduced production to 128,000 barrels a day. In 2010, Libya was pumping about 1.6 million barrels a day, but that was before the overthrow and killing of longtime ruler Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011, an event that unleashed a civil war.

The attack at Es Sider was enough to prompt an early rally in the commodity Monday, but by the end of the trading session Brent crude was down $1.57, to $57.88. The U.S. benchmark, WTI, fell $1.12, to $53.61. That’s the lowest level since May 1, 2009.

Reuters reported:

The rally followed by the steep drop showed the market’s fears about oversupply are not going away, said Gene McGillian, senior analyst at Tradition Energy in Stamford, Connecticut. “Every time the market tries to pick itself up, it’s just another wave of selling,” he said.

Tim Evans, an energy analyst at Citi Futures Perspective in New York, told Bloomberg that neither the violence in Libya, nor the reduction in the growth rate of U.S. drilling, was enough to make a dent in the worldwide glut of oil. “We’re looking at a significant supply-demand surplus through the first half of 2015,” Evans said.

Bloomberg added:

“The loss of a couple hundred thousand barrels from Libya will have a minimal impact on the global supply balance,” Bob Yawger, director of the futures division at Mizuho Securities USA Inc. in New York, said by phone. “There’s about 2 million barrels a day of excess production right now, so this will just tighten things a little.”

Fuel Freedom Staff

Pope to publish rare encyclical on climate change

/in , /by

Pope Francis will issue an encyclical, a message to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, urging them to take action on climate change, The Guardian reported.

The publication will follow the pontiff’s trip in March to the city of Tacloban, in the Philippines, which was devastated in 2012 by the super Typhoon Haiyan. Months later, the pope will address the UN General Assembly in New York.

The Guardian reports:

The reason for such frenetic activity, says Bishop Marcelo Sorondo, chancellor of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, is the pope’s wish to directly influence next year’s crucial UN climate meeting in Paris, when countries will try to conclude 20 years of fraught negotiations with a universal commitment to reduce emissions.

Francis has addressed global inequality and environmental depredation in recent months, arguing that economies needn’t harm the ecosystem to provide opportunity for citizens. In October, he spoke at the World Meeting of Popular Movements in Rome:

“An economic system centered on the god of money needs to plunder nature to sustain the frenetic rhythm of consumption that is inherent to it. … The monopolizing of lands, deforestation, the appropriation of water, inadequate agro-toxics are some of the evils that tear man from the land of his birth. Climate change, the loss of biodiversity and deforestation are already showing their devastating effects in the great cataclysms we witness.”

Slate.com science writer Phil Plait said it’s “wise” for the pope to issue his statement on climate change after visiting Tacloban:

… people there are still recovering from the incredible power of super Typhoon Haiyan … and it’s known that cyclones like that one are becoming more powerful due to global warming. It will present a strong and clear message of the urgency of this issue.

I have no doubt that the deniers in Congress (and in the usual venues) will bloviate, creating sound and fury over this. But what they are doing is flailing, trying to delay the inevitable.

Fuel Freedom Staff

Explaining all the nutty conspiracy theories about oil

/in , /by

The Washington Post has a good explanation why so many leaders — including Vladimir Putin — might believe that other players are conspiring to set oil prices low, putting pressure on nations like Russia that rely so much on the high price of oil to balance their budgets.

To understand this particular conspiracy theory, one must look at the nature of conspiracy theorists, and here WaPo cites some knowledgeable experts on the subject:

… the psychological research suggests that conspiracists don’t just believe one conspiracy theory. They often believe lots of them. And many of the conspiracies have similar structures — suggesting there are deeply powerful but unseen players working behind the scenes to shape world events.

“A lot of conspiracy theories take as their premise that there’s a small group of people who are plotting to control something, to control the government, the banking system, or the main energy source, and they are doing this to the disadvantage of everybody else,” says University of California-Davis historian Kathy Olmsted, author of “Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11.”

It might be natural for some people to believe in oil conspiracies, because oil itself is so vital a commodity around the world, and oil producers — notably OPEC — do, in fact, collude to keep their prices at a certain level. That’s the reason they formed the cartel in the first place.

But another motivator is that “struggling leaders need somebody to blame.”

In Putin’s case, finally, we must recognize that a conspiracy theory like the one above is politically expedient — especially in newly perilous economic times. “Governments use conspiracy theories in order to convince their people to support them,” says [University of Utah history professor Robert Alan] Goldberg. There’s no better way to rally support than to suggest to your people that outside forces — not supply and demand, but malicious schemers — are out to get them.

Fuel Freedom Staff

General: Dependence on oil a ‘serious’ national security threat

/in , /by

With gasoline prices at five-year lows, it’s easy to lose sight of the realities of U.S. dependence on oil. We’re still beholden to other nations for much of our supply; we still have to expend much energy and resources defending the free flow of oil around the world; and we still need the long-term solution of alternative fuels to keep prices low.

One person who’s done a lot of thinking about this is retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Ronald Keys, who lays out the argument for reducing our consumption of oil in a guest piece for The Hill. Keys, who spent 40 years in the Air Force (and flew combat missions in Vietnam), is now chairman of the Military Advisory Board at the CNA Corporation, a nonprofit military research group.

Keys writes:

Our nation’s over dependence on oil is a serious threat to our national security—militarily, diplomatically, and economically. It limits our ability to act on the world stage and increases the likelihood that we will send Americans in uniform into harm’s way. It leaves us open to impacts from wildly gyrating prices …

And:

Importing less oil will loosen the bonds that tie us to regimes that don’t always have our nation’s best interests at heart. That will make it easier for the United States to act in its own national interest on the world stage, and make it less likely that we will have to send troops to defend the free flow of oil.

And:

Oil prices will always fluctuate, but the need to cut our nation’s oil dependency will endure. This need doesn’t get any less urgent just because pump prices tick downwards for a while.

Fuel Freedom Staff

The military pays an astonishing amount of money for gas

/in , /by

At the base rate, the U.S. military pays about the same as the rest of us for gasoline, under $3 a gallon. But the costs quickly escalate when you factor in the expenses related to getting fuel where it needs to go, and the often rugged, isolated places American forces need to use their vehicles.

According to an illuminating story by Eric Chemi on CNBC.com, the U.S. is:

… paying 100 times the price the rest of us are. The total cost of getting fuel where it needs to be is skyrocketing the cost for military gas. At a burn rate of 300,000 barrels of oil per day, the Department of Defense consumes 1.5 percent of total national consumption, and is the largest user of energy in America. As a result, it is the biggest proponent of clean energy. Even a total cost of $100 per gallon would be a steal for the military. That’s because its calculations on energy costs are very different than for a regular consumer.

It makes sense, therefore, that the U.S. Defense Department is far ahead the game when it comes to pursuing alternative fuel sources:

Some current projects include a way to produce localized energy on site, creating a mobile energy system and better integrating generators and batteries. There are dozens of projects already underway at military bases globally and multi-decade, long-term plans to find efficiency. Some of the projects include focusing on green power, renewable jet fuels and changing the culture around energy awareness in day-to-day operations.

Fuel Freedom Staff

Bloomberg: Can Brazil get its ethanol mojo back?

/in , /by

Mac Margolis at BloombergView has a good analysis of Brazil’s ethanol industry, which details how “clever sugar and ethanol makers” have been hamstrung by the country’s bureaucracy.

Some 60 ethanol plants have shuttered this year alone and “blue slips,” Brazil’s unemployment notices, are multiplying: Nearly half of the more than 36,000 industrial jobs erased last month were in the sugar and alcohol industry, reports Valor Economico.

What’s worse, they are victims of the wonks and activist bureaucrats whose good intentions to goose growth and contain inflation have only compounded their troubles. The road to ruin was paved by the government of President Dilma Rousseff, a micro-manager who converted state-run companies into the useful idiots of misguided economics.

The piece notes that ethanol took a back seat to oil after the discovery of a huge cache of oil was found under four miles of sea, sediment and salt in 2007.

To restore the balance, and guard against the volatility of oil prices, Brazil might increase the proportion of ethanol blended into gasoline, as well as increase a gasoline tax.

That won’t make Brazilians happy: They already pay one of every three reais they earn to government. But with pressure on emerging market nations to fight climate change by slashing greenhouse gas emissions, a levy on dirty fuels in favor of cleaner-burning ethanol might draw more sympathy.

Fuel Freedom Staff

Saudis might actually increase oil output

/in , /by

Saudi Arabia isn’t cutting production anytime soon, despite lobbying from some of the 12-nation cartel’s members to try to stem falling oil prices. In fact, the Saudis might actually boost output to gain new customers.

Reuters reported that Saudi Arabia’s oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, said it’s not in OPEC’s interest to cut production quotas no matter how far prices fall:

After a weekend of comments from several Gulf OPEC members reiterating their intent not to intervene in oil markets, despite oil prices that have halved since June, Ali al-Naimi told the Middle East Economic Survey it was “not in the interest of OPEC producers to cut their production, whatever the price is” — his starkest comments yet.

Naimi also said the Saudis might boost output instead to grow their market share and that oil “may not” trade at $100 again. “The best thing for everybody is to let the most efficient producers produce,” he told a conference in Abu Dhabi at the weekend.

Olivier Jakob, an oil analyst at Petromatrix OIl in Switzerland, commented in an earlier version of the Reuters story:

“We are going down because you have some OPEC ministers who come every day making statements trying to drive the market down. … They come every day to convey the message that they are not doing anything to restrict supplies and that they basically want oil prices to move lower to reduce production in the U.S.”

Brent crude dropped $1.33, to $60.05.

Fuel Freedom Staff

Ben Casselman: The conventional wisdom on oil is always wrong

/in , /by

This is something we knew already: Oil prices fluctuate. Like all commodities, prices go up, and then they go down, and few experts know exactly why, or how far, or for how long trends will endure.

But FiveThirtyEight.com’s Ben Casselman, who used to cover the oil patch for The Wall Street Journal, outlines (in typical well-executed FiveThirtyEight style), all the ways that people have gotten oil predictions so horribly wrong this year.

Here’s one of the many instructive passages from his piece:

It isn’t just that experts didn’t see the shale boom coming. It’s that they underestimated its impact at virtually every turn. First, they didn’t think natural gas could be produced from shale (it could). Then they thought production would fall quickly if natural gas prices dropped (they did, and it didn’t). They thought the techniques that worked for gas couldn’t be applied to oil (they could). They thought shale couldn’t reverse the overall decline in U.S. oil production (it did). And they thought rising U.S. oil production wouldn’t be enough to affect global oil prices (it was).

Now, oil prices are cratering, falling below $55 a barrel from more than $100 earlier this year. And so, the usual lineup of experts — the same ones, in many cases, who’ve been wrong so many times in the past — are offering predictions for what plunging prices will mean for the U.S. oil boom. Here’s my prediction: They’ll be wrong this time, too.

Among the many reasons why pundits’ crystal balls are so often murky: various factors go into the makeup of prices; and the economics of oil-field drilling are complicated, which is why even “break-even” declarations about when oil-shale drilling in Texas or North Dakota might become unprofitable can be off base as well.

As to the first point — all the factors that comprise the fluctuating price of oil — Cassleman writes:

In July 2008, my Journal colleague Neil King asked a wide range of energy journalists, economists and other experts to anonymously predict what the price of oil would be at the end of the year. The nearly two dozen responses ranged from $70 a barrel at the low end to $167.50 at the high end. The actual answer: $44.60.

It isn’t surprising that experts aren’t good at predicting prices. Global oil markets are a function of countless variables — geopolitics, economics, technology, geology — each with its own inherent uncertainty. And even if you get those estimates right, you never know when a war in the Middle East or an oil boom in North Dakota will suddenly turn the whole formula on its head.

But none of that stops television pundits from making confident predictions about where oil prices will head in the coming months, and then using those predictions as the basis for production forecasts. Based on their track record, you should ignore them.

Fuel Freedom Staff

Oil prices surge after taking a hit this week

/in , /by

We’ve heard a lot about psychology in oil prices lately.

Some stories mention the “psychological” threshold of $60 a barrel. Well, many psyches were put on edge this week, as Brent crude closed below that mark on Tuesday and Thursday, territory it hadn’t seen since May 2009. But it surged $2.11 to $61.38 Friday, a gain of 3.4 percent.

U.S. crude (WTI, or West Texas Intermediate) rose $2.41, to $56.52, up 4.5 percent.

Has oil started to climb back up again after hitting the ceiling? According to Reuters:

While some traders may be betting that $60 a barrel Brent represents a likely floor for the market, others remain unconvinced. With uncertainty high, demand for options has surged this week, with the CBOE crude oil volatility index soaring to its highest since 2011.

“This is a surprisingly forceful run up as fundamentally nothing’s changed in this market in terms of supply-demand,” said Gene McGillian, senior analyst at Tradition Energy in Stamford, Connecticut.

“I think the switch in WTI’s front-month and the second short-covering act for the week kind of got overblown.”

 

Fuel Freedom Staff

Here’s why air fares aren’t going down, despite cheap fuel

/in , /by

Drivers are loving life whenever they fill up at the gas station. According to AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report, the national average Thursday was $2.477 for regular 87-octane gas. That’s down 23 percent from the same time last year, when the average was $3.216.

So why haven’t air travelers seen similar savings on airline tickets? After all, fuel accounts for between one-third and one-half of the entire cost of running an airline, and the jet-fuel prices have fallen at the same pace as automotive gasoline, down 32 percent over the last year.

And yet not only are airlines not discounting fares, they’re counting their winnings after years of economic struggles: Slate’s Josh Vorhees reports that airlines in North America expect their profits to grow from $11.9 billion in 2014 to $13.2 billion in 2015. The trade group Airlines for America said in a statement that its members are re-investing in 317 new planes, better amenities for passengers, dividends for shareholders and employee benefits. The group added that:

Air travel remains one of the best consumer bargains, given its superior speed and price compared with other modes of transportation. From 2000-2013, U.S. Consumer Price Index rose 35 percent, whereas average domestic airfare rose 15 percent. Thus, adjusted for inflation, the average round-trip domestic fare fell 15 percent.

When the airline industry is financially healthy, everyone wins. Airlines should be treated like every other business. When the price of coffee beans falls, no one asks Starbucks why his or her latte does not cost less. …

Here are three big reasons why airline customers aren’t seeing cheaper fares:

  • Many airlines buy fuel ahead of time, locking in a fixed price for six months or longer. It’s called “hedging,” and although not every airline does it (American doesn’t, and it’s reaping a windfall), it explains why some travelers are still being hit with fuel surcharges. Sen. Chuck Schumer wants the federal government to investigate the industry: “Ticket prices should not shoot up like a rocket and come down like a feather,” he said.
  • Supply and demand. Where’s the incentive for airlines to reduce fares when their North American planes are filled to 85.1 percent capacity? As The New York Times notes in an editorial, “a series of megamergers has significantly reduced competition in the industry. The four biggest airlines in the United States — Delta, Southwest, United and American — control about 80 percent of airline capacity, down from 11 companies as recently as 2005. For most travelers, that has meant higher prices and jam-packed planes.”

It’s impossible to predict where fuel prices will be in the new year, and airline executives might be reluctant to reduce fares now, only to have to hike them again in a few months. Alexandre de Juniac, head of Air France-KLM, told The New York Times that oil might be between $70 and $80 a barrel next year (it’s below $60 now). But he added: “Obviously, no one really knows.”