Economy Archives - Page 135 of 143 - Fuel Freedom Foundation

Posts

NYT columnist: Gas really isn’t all that cheap

It’s about time somebody pointed out that gas, while cheaper than it’s been in the past few years, isn’t all that cheap, really. If you look at history.

New York Times business columnist David Leonhardt did just that, pointing out that the national average for regular unleaded — $2.03 per gallon — is “still more expensive than nearly anytime in the 1990s, after adjusting for general inflation. Over a 17-year stretch from the start of 1986 to the end of 2002, the real price of gas averaged just $1.87.”

Leonhardt notes that the era of cheap gas coincides with the “great wage slowdown.”

One of the surest ways to end the great wage slowdown would be for the United States to make sure it’s entering a new era of cheap energy. “It’s the proverbial tax cut,” says Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of the research firm IHS and author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning history of oil. If energy costs remain at current levels, it would put $180 billion into Americans’ pockets this year, according to Moody’s Analytics, equal to 1.2 percent of income and a higher share for lower-income households.

That’s why taking virtually every step to push oil costs even lower — “drill, baby, drill,” as the phrase goes — would make a lot of sense, so long as oil use did not have harmful side effects.

Ah, but it does have side effects. Leonhardt adds:

It leads to carbon emissions, which are altering the world’s climate. Last year was probably the planet’s hottest since modern records began in 1880, and the 15 hottest have all occurred since 1998. Oceans are rising, species are at risk and some types of severe storms, including blizzards, seem to be more common.

More oil production, then, involves enormous trade-offs: a healthier economy, at least in the short term, but a less healthy planet, with all of the political, ecological, health and economic downsides that come with it.

Leonhardt writes that it’s possible, in part, to retain the benefits of increased oil output without the drawbacks. Hydraulic fracturing is less carbon intensive than conventional oil drilling, although fracking comes with other issues. “Clean energy” offers a good solution, he says, “if it could become even cheaper.”

Oil prices dip as blizzard strikes the Northeast

January 26, 2015/in Economy, What's The Buzz staff /by Fuel Freedom Staff

OPEC’s secretary-general, Abdullah al-Badri, said Monday that the great oil price-drop could be over, and that it could start to climb again soon.

“Now the prices are around $45-$50, and I think maybe they reached the bottom and will see some rebound very soon,” he told Reuters in London.

Al-Badri also warned that oil might spike to $200.

That may well occur in the future. But for now, the floor hasn’t been reached. Prices rallied briefly after al-Badri’s comments, but they settled down in Monday’s trading session. Brent, the international benchmark, fell 1.3 percent to $48.16. U.S., or West Texas Intermediate, fell 1 percent to $45.15, but narrowed after the restart of a refinery in Whiting, Indiana.

Some experts had anticipated movement in the markets following the death of Saudi King Abdullah last week. But his successor, half-brother Salman, pledged “continuity in energy and foreign policies on Friday and was quick to retain veteran oil minister Ali al-Naimi, sending a message aimed at calming a jittery oil market,” Reuters reported.

The massive blizzard in the Northeast affected crude prices: The anticipated storm caused prices of heating oil to rise, but jet fuel dropped, in anticipation of canceled flights.

As Reuters reported:

The blizzard will result in canceled flights, less driving and increased use of heating oil, creating mixed indicators for crude oil, Matt Smith, an analyst at Schneider Electric, said.

“We saw this with Hurricane Sandy,” Smith said.

Fracking offers hope

January 21, 2015/in Economy, Over a Barrel Blog wtucker, newleaf /by Arctic Leaf

I’ve just finished The Frackers, the excellent history of how the United States became the world’s leading developer of fossil fuels, by former Wall Street Journal reporter Gregory Zuckerman.

There are three lessons that can be taken away from this history, all of which relate to the development of alternative sources of energy:

The government had very little to do with the development of fracking. It was all done by wildcatters who operated far outside major institutions.
The founders of these methods didn’t necessarily get permanently rich. All have done well initially but have been undone by their very success, producing a superabundance of gas and oil that has driven down prices to the point where producers are overextended.
The maverick wildcatters who have opened up our gas and oil resources are not necessarily opposed to alternative sources of energy. In fact, they have often become the biggest promoters of wind, solar and alternative fuels for our transport sector.

Let’s examine those myths one by one:

The government should get credit for the breakthroughs. Proponents of big government often try to promote the idea that the fracking revolution never would have occurred without the help of the government. They even argue that government was responsible for the fracking initiative. Three years ago, Ted Norhaus and Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute published a piece in The Washington Post in which they practically argued that fracking had been invented in the laboratories of the Department of Energy. George Mitchell, who spent 40 years developing fracking, had simply borrowed a few ideas that the DOE had designed.

Read the opening chapter on Mitchell in The Frackers, and you’ll hardly find one reference to the Department of Energy or government help. At one point the DOE contributed a few million dollars to an experiment that Mitchell had designed, but that was it. The rest of the story tells of Mitchell’s fascination with trying to suck oil out of shale rock, and how he nearly bankrupted his moderately successful oil company in the effort. He had no luck trying to convince the major oil companies that shale could be accessed. At one point, Chevron came very close to fracking the Barnett Shale, where Mitchell had his first breakthrough, but the company gave up on the effort. Harold Hamm experienced the same frustrations in the Bakken, where he alone believed there were vast reserves of oil but couldn’t get anyone to support him, until he finally made a breakthrough. The government had nothing to do with it.

Fracking wildcatters always get rich. The great irony for many of these pioneers is that they are often undone by their own success. Aubrey McClendon built Chesapeake Gas into the nation’s second-largest producer of natural gas but was forced to give up his company because the success of his fracking had driven the price of gas so low that he was overextended. The same thing happened to Tom Ward, an early associate of McClendon’s who had built his own company, SandRidge, based on fracking. Ward was forced out of his ownership by the board of directors. Harold Hamm has been having the same trouble in The Bakken since the superabundance of oil has forced the price down. Developing a new source of energy doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to be permanently rich.

The developers of new ways to access fossil fuels are opposed to other alternatives. Because they have been so successful in reviving production of oil and gas, the assumption has been that the Frackers are wedded to fossil fuels and are undercutting alternatives. This is not true. The primary motive of all these innovators has been to make America more energy-independent and reduce our reliance on foreign oil. All of them see the development of fossil fuels as only a temporary step, and acknowledge that we must ultimately find some other sources of energy. T. Boone Pickens, the dean of oil magnates, put forth a plan that would try to get the electrical sector to rely on wind so that natural gas could be moved over to the transport sector to replace oil. His Clean Energy Fuels Corporation had some success in building a “natural gas highway” that substitutes compressed natural gas for diesel fuel in long-haul tractor trailers. Both Mitchell and Hamm have been exploring alternative energy, and they’re funding efforts to try to substitute renewables for fossil fuels, both domestic and imported.

As Zuckerman concludes at the end of The Frackers:

The great leap forward should have involved alternative energy, not oil and gas. The U.S. government allocated over $150 billion to green initiatives between 2009 and 2014. … There’s little to show for the investments, however. … Instead a group of frackers, relying on market cues rather than government direction, achieved dramatic advances by focusing on fossil fuels, of all things. It’s a stark reminder that breakthroughs in the business world usually are achieved through incremental advances, often in the face of deep skepticism, rather than government inspired eureka moments.

It’s a lesson worth keeping in mind as we pursue alternative fuels to substitute for foreign oil.

Poll: Most Americans think gas prices are going up

January 14, 2015/in Economy, What's The Buzz staff /by Fuel Freedom Staff

Give the American consumer credit: They know gasoline prices are volatile, and that there’s no guarantee that this vacation from expensive gas will last.

According to a phone survey by Rasmussen Reports:

Ninety percent (90%) of American Adults say they are paying less for a gallon of gas than six months ago, but 69% think it’s at least somewhat likely those prices will go up again over the next six months … Just 19% believe they are unlikely to be paying more in six months’ time. These findings include 40% who say it’s Very Likely a gallon of gas will cost more and only three percent (3%) who say it’s Not At All Likely.

Better start pocketing all that money you’ve been saving with every fill-up.

But how can we make low gas prices sustainable for the long term? If only there were a high-quality documentary that lays this all out in a tidy 127 minutes.

Oil prices surge in final half-hour of trading

January 14, 2015/in Economy, What's The Buzz staff /by Fuel Freedom Staff

Oil prices climbed took off in the final 30 minutes of Tuesday’s trading session, and analysts wondered whether the surge represented a temporary blip or the start of a comeback from a 7-month-long losing streak.

As Reuters noted, for most of the day oil was flat or slightly lower, owing to “data showing that U.S. crude oil stockpiles rose far more than expected last week.”

But Brent and U.S. crude each soared $2 late in the session. Brent, for February deliver, settled up $2.10 (4.5 percent), to $48.69 a barrel. That’s the biggest one-day advance since June 2012.

U.S. crude rose $1.01 (5.6 percent), to $48.48, the biggest one-day jump since August 2012.

Reuters added:

Most dealers saw the late-day rebound as a temporary correction in the seven-month slump that wiped more than 60 percent off of oil prices, reluctant to call the bottom of a rout that has repeatedly defied forecasts of a floor.

“(With the) velocity of the downward trend that we’ve been in, you can expect to see violent snapbacks,” said Tariq Zahir of Tyche Capital.

Even so, there were growing signs that low prices were finally beginning to slow the unrelenting growth in U.S. oil production, a key factor for markets as OPEC powerhouse Saudi Arabia refrains from cutting output despite a growing glut.

North Dakota’s chief oil regulator said he expects production to be steady until mid-year and could decline in the third quarter.

The late rally was attributed to many traders holding expiring options, leading them to scramble to square their positions. As Oliver Sloup, director of managed futures at iitrader.com LLC, put it:

“A lot of shorts are so deep into their put options, the only way to exit their position is to buy back futures.”

Does ethanol have to be hurt by falling gas prices?

January 14, 2015/in Economy, Over a Barrel Blog wtucker, newleaf /by Arctic Leaf

Jim Lane, editor and publisher of Biofuels Digest, is one person who thinks alternative fuels aren’t necessarily going to be hurt by the huge drop in the price of crude oil.

In a post on the Digest Jan. 6, Lane lays out the rather complicated case of why it doesn’t pay right now to be dumping your alternate-energy stocks. That’s been the reaction so far to anything related to the price of oil. But Lane says there are special aspects of alternatives like ethanol that will be affected in a different way.

In the first place, Lane notes that while crude oil prices have been falling, ethanol prices have been falling, too. Since last June, crude oil has fallen from $115 a barrel to under $50, a remarkable 60 percent drop. Yet ethanol has fallen as well, from $2.13 a gallon to $1.55 a gallon, a formidable 27 percent drop. This is due mainly to the falling price of corn, which has been at its lowest level in recent years. A bushel of corn fell over the same period from $4.19 a bushel to $3.78, a 10 percent drop. In this way, ethanol is only marginally dependent on the price of oil and can show its own price pattern.

One thing worth noting is that there is a certain amount of elasticity in American driving. People tend to increase their driving range when the price of gasoline goes down. This is particularly true when it comes to taking vacations, which tend to be a long-term planning effort. If the price of gasoline stays down through next summer, people are more likely to increase gas consumption. The fact is that gasoline demand has actually reached its highest point in the last few months since the price of oil began to fall, as the following graph indicates:

Now drivers are required to include 10 percent ethanol in each gallon of gas. Therefore, ethanol has a fixed market. Driving has been declining in recent years, which is one reason that the Renewable Fuel Standard has been under fire – because the absolute amount of ethanol required has exceeded the 10 percent requirement in relation to the amount of gasoline consumed. Refiners and oil companies must buy this amount of ethanol. This is the reason the Environmental Protection Agency has been holding back on setting an RFS for 2014 — because the original amount prescribed was going to exceed the 10 percent figure. If people start taking advantage of lower gas prices and start consuming more gasoline, the amount of ethanol required will grow. “(W)e should be seeing a 2+% increase in gasoline demand, and that will take some pressure off the ethanol blend wall,” Lane writes. It might make EPA’s decision easier, if it ever gets around to setting a number.

Just to emphasize this point, an RIN — Renewable Index Number — is required by the EPA to prove that a refinery has been adding ethanol up to the 10 percent mark. The price of RINs has actually been rising as gas prices have fallen. As Lane writes: “Part of the reason that the ethanol market is holding up relatively well in tough times is the impact of the Renewable Fuel Standard, and its traded RIN system. RIN prices have jumped as oil prices have slumped — and a $0.76 increase in the RIN value of a gallon of fuel is a striking increase in value.”

So all is not dark for the future of alternatives. Ethanol’s place is secure, despite the fall in gasoline prices. Remember, it’s not that demand for gas is falling, but people are spending less for what they get. If methanol is given a chance, it might turn out to be more invulnerable, since it’s not tied to corn prices but to natural gas, which we seem to have in even greater abundance than oil. Electric cars also don’t lose their appeal, since much of their appeal is getting off gas entirely and unbuckling from the oil companies. It may not be time to abandon your stock in alternative energies quite yet.

Oil closes down again, lands just above $50 mark

January 9, 2015/in Economy, What's The Buzz staff /by Fuel Freedom Staff

Whatever the floor is for oil, $50 doesn’t seem to be it.

Brent crude closed just a few barrel-drops within that threshold Friday, down 85 cents to $50.11. U.S. crude fell 43 cents to $48.36. The marks are the lowest for crude since April 2009, and represented the seventh straight week of losses.

However, prices recovered from even steeper losses during the day after Baker Hughes, the U.S. oilfield-services company, announced that the number of rigs drilling for oil domestically had fallen by 61 this week, the most during a week since 1991.

Oil prices have dropped nearly 10 percent in two days

January 6, 2015/in Economy, What's The Buzz staff /by Fuel Freedom Staff

Oil analysts must be asking, Where’s the bottom of the oil-price plunge?

Crude dropped again Tuesday, as Brent was off $2.01, to $51.10 a barrel. In the first two trading sessions of the week, it’s down $5.32, or almost 10 percent.

Obama, Congress draw battle lines on Keystone XL

January 6, 2015/in Environment, What's The Buzz staff /by Fuel Freedom Staff

On the same day two Republican senators introduced a bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL oil-pipeline extension, the White House said President Obama would veto such a bill if it reached his desk.

“If this bill passes this Congress, the president wouldn’t sign it,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday.

Republicans took over control of the Senate as the 114th Congress was sworn in Tuesday. The GOP, and some Democrats, have supported the pipeline project for much of the past six years that it’s been in limbo, and the party wasted no time in sponsoring a bill to pressure the Obama administration to approve it: Sens. Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, and John Hoeven, Republican of North Dakota, introduced the Senate bill, and a committee hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.

The House is expected to begin deliberations on its own Keystone bill on Friday.

The last time the House passed an authorization, in November, it was blocked from proceeding by Senate Democrats. But with fewer numbers, the measure has a greater chance of passing this time.

However, the Senate needs 67 votes — two-thirds — to override a presidential veto. As BusinessWeek reported, Hoeven says he has 63 votes in favor of approval, four shy of a veto-proof majority.

Reaction to the White House announcement ran the gamut. House Speaker John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, said in a statement:

On a bipartisan basis, the American people overwhelmingly support building the Keystone XL pipeline. After years of manufacturing every possible excuse, today President Obama was finally straight with them about where he truly stands. His answer is no to more American infrastructure, no to more American energy, and no to more American jobs.

By contrast, environmental activist Bill McKibben, writing in The Guardian, praised the effort that led to the veto threat, considering the pipeline once was considered a shoo-in for approval.

Keystone’s not dead yet – feckless Democrats in the Congress could make some kind of deal later this month or later this year, and the president could still yield down the road to the endlessly corrupt State Department bureaucracy that continues to push the pipeline – but it’s pretty amazing to see what happens when people organize.

The State Department has concluded that the 1,179-mile pipeline extension, which would carry oil-sands crude from western Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, wouldn’t significantly add to carbon emissions, but the project would create only 35 permanent U.S. jobs.

Regardless of what happens between Congress and Obama, the final decision on Keystone rests with the State Department, which reports to the president. State has responsibility because the pipeline, to be built by TransCanada Corp., would cross the Canada-U.S. border.

The Post added:

“I think the president has been pretty clear that he does not think that circumventing a well-established process for evaluating these projects is … the right thing for Congress to do,” Earnest said.

Obama rejected a Canadian firm’s application to build the pipeline in 2012.

At a year-end news conference in December, Obama sought to downplay the benefits of the pipeline. He said the benefits for U.S. citizens and workers from the pipeline would be “nominal.”

“I think that there’s been this tendency to really hype this thing as some magic formula to what ails the U.S. economy,” Obama said.

U.S. allows export of some oil, loosening four-decade ban

December 31, 2014/in Economy, What's The Buzz staff /by Fuel Freedom Staff

The U.S. Department of Commerce has relaxed, somewhat, the nation’s four-decade-long ban on oil exports, put in place after the 1973 oil crisis that caused widespread shortages around the United States.

The Obama administration’s move will allow the sale of up to 1 million barrels a day of ultra-light crude. The decision likely will please U.S. drillers and many politicians who have said the U.S. export ban is a relic of an outdated policy.

Reuters reported specifics:

The latest measures were wrapped in regulatory jargon and couched by some as a basic clarification of existing rules, but analysts said the message was unambiguous: a green light for any company willing and able to process their light condensate crude through a distillation tower, a simple piece of oilfield kit.

“In practice this long-awaited move can open up the floodgates to substantial increases in exports by end 2015,” Ed Morse, global head of commodities research at Citigroup in New York said in a research note.