Crude Falls Below $30 a Barrel for the First Time in 12 Years
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
http://uk.businessinsider.com/imf-regional-economic-outlook-...
What that means for the arab in the street is a different question.
So they can play white knuckle poker and out-wait everyone else, then jack up prices again around 2019/20 - just in time to kill any recovery that might be happening by then.
The rest of the world better move off of oil quickly then.
So finally is it crude that runs all economies and everything else is overrated.. That scenario if true is so scary!
Our recession has other causes.
That's not really true. If you want to scare yourself look up what the "baltic dry index" is and what level it's at. Other transport indices (e.g. free space in harbours, train freight, ...) are all down hard.
Whatever the cause, but America and Europe have slowed down in ... pretty much everything they do. Goods transport is the clearest indication of that, but far from the only one. Somehow building in the US and Europe (and India) is down. A lot of economic activity is down in fact, the exception for now is very large debt-free services corporations.
But now we've actually gotten there and there wasn't even a celebration.
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/2016-outlook-oil-limit...
That said, about half the article could be summed up in "commodity prices are falling because demand from most of the global working class is falling".
So there's 2 options:
1) you can stop working, stop producing, and use cash on hand (cashflow which they have spent years minimizing) to pay down debt. As soon as this cash on hand is gone, it's over.
2) they can keep working, and keep selling. Doing everything they can to increase revenue just a little bit (ie. selling more oil, making prices drop). This way the cash keeps flowing, even if they become less and less likely over the long term to pay back their debts, but they don't go under right now
Which would you pick ? Keep in mind that price of oil will of course go back up at some point. Wouldn't you want to delay the point where you have to give up, in hopes of delaying it past the point where prices recover and you don't have to give up at all ?
Of course not all companies will succeed at that. But the immediate result of oil companies becoming unprofitable due to price fluctuations is ... more oil getting pumped up. It makes sense if you think about it even if it is thoroughly counterintuitive.
- more producers (US, Iran's embargo over, other countries exploring shale)
- other sources of energy (solar, , etc)
* easy to harvest oil exhausted
The article doesn't show at all that there are diminishing returns from human labor. What we have, instead, is that even if technology is making labor ever more productive, these gains in productivity are going more and more towards companies and investors (mostly thanks to the competition from Chinese laborers) instead of (western) non-elite workers. Just look at the big fat profits of most big companies.
The article is thought provoking, but as it usually happens when trying to find a simple explanation to complex phenomena, it doesn't stand to deeper scrutiny.
This seems illogic to me - if you have to compete with cheap labour you have to cut your costs in one way or another, pay less to your work force, make them more efficient, accept smaller profits or what have you. Putting more money - in absolute terms - into the pockets of the capitalists only makes it harder for you to remain competitive. Therefore I could at best see that capitalists receive a larger share of the cake in relative terms but not in absolute terms due to competition with cheap labour.
I mean the amount of income in the middle-east is going to severely drop over the next few years - the wealthy won't be affected, just annoyed but the people who have to work for a living are going to be out of jobs, starving and homeless and extreme belief systems often jump in to fill that void.
I mean the USA made more than 15 domestic terrorists since 9/11
I'm just wondering what happens when the comfortable over there have to give up their luxuries - do they take it in stride or does their belief system go to extremes to compensate?
It's not on CNN [1] so you just don't hear about it.
[1] etc.
Speculating using futures is the (roughly) the same marginal cost as speculating by storing it in tankers and storage depots.
Otherwise there would be an arbitrage opportunity where you could empty your tanks today, save the storage costs, and get the same quantity back x months in the future.
You can not pump it (with some risks of losing your capital), but you'll still need to pay interest on the money you spent creating your wheels, thus companies tend to pump it and sell even when they can't recover their investment, and pump faster the cheaper oil becomes.
Internationally it means states like Russia won't have the same economical and political clout they had at $100+, so instead will rely on other means to throw their weight around, such as military threat.
Economically it's good: lots of the saved money ends up in the hands of consumers.
Environmentally, it's less good of course. Alternative energy will be less attractive in the near future.
So it's not all rosy, but the downsides are mainly due to a falling oil price, rather than a low one. The volatility upsets budgets, which causes problems.
Oil companies depending on higher prices (most of them), will start having to reduce number on employees, or, worst case, go bankrupt and take financial institutions with them (because of debt).
Oil price slide may force new Russian budget, Medvedev says
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35302509Prices are set by supply and demand. A worldwide depression has a way of pushing the price down, even with restricted supply. And not that decreasing oil supply is supposed to cause it some of the times, leading to huge price instability, not simple price increases.
TLDR, this price is much more a gauge of our current depression than anything else.
I'd like to hear about this from anyone more qualified than me (which would really be anyone).
It takes anywhere from a couple of months to a couple of years to go from "acquired mineral rights" to "pumping oil out of the ground" which you can then sell. It also costs a lot of money. On the order of multiple tens of thousands per day on land and multiple hundreds of thousands per day at sea.
So when prices are up people are expanding and drilling and going gangbusters. When prices are down people are trying to figure out how to cut costs and ride it out. During high prices there tends to be "over" investment and during low prices, "under" investment, both relative to the average investment over say a 5-10 year period. Maybe by a lot.
As you mentioned one of the dynamics is that during low price periods alternative energy is a fool's errand and during high price periods it's genius. During average prices it'll slowly make more and more sense as the average price continues to slowly rise.
But it's far better in some ways to instead of making the average price on an average day to some times make a lot and some times make a little by letting the price vary wildly. Price instability makes alternative energy investing chaotic and unappealing to big institutional investors who might plow substantial money in. Better to wait until the chop settles down and it looks good over a 10+ year timeframe.
So if you get to make the average price on average and destabilize your competitors by letting the price wander all over, what's the downside? As long as you have the money to ride out the low price periods, none!
I don't know when this interesting ride will come to an end, but supply/price management is going to continue to be very important to people with a lot of oil left in the ground.
The US consumes 20 million barrels a day, so at current prices that's $600 million a day at $30/bbl and $2 billion a day at $100/bbl. How much do you think you'd have to buy or sell in the futures market to move the price to smooth it out?
Finally, it's very, very hard to know what's short term volatility and what's long term structural. Everyone "knew" that oil prices were going to be high forever because of peak oil and declining production. Turns out, maybe not.
It wouldn't surprise me if 90% of all oil was never in an actual barrel, but even if so, I would imagine the barrels are reused, and so not factored in the price.
Additionally, more in response to rtpg's comment: it is very costly and technically challenging to stop or reduce oil production, hence the price volatility is the result of volatile demand fighting it out with very stable supply.
Other global factors have also contributed. Fracking has really had an impact on US production:
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
Oil demand tends to be fairly inelastic. Almost all of oil pricing is supply driven. OPEC decides on a target price and produces to meet that price. The current price has happened because Saudi usually stops producing to keep prices stable and high, and for now they just haven't slowed down at all. Either they need money badly enough that they will take any profit at all or they are using oil prices as a weapon.
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/04/361204786/falling-oil-prices-m...
1. strategic decisions to keep the price low (in some cases below the cost of production) to make it uneconomic for competitors to invest in oil projects
2. time lags in the system. e.g. the global economy went into recession the last time the oil price spiked. that'd reduce oil demand in some cases. now as prices are much lower again we might expect demand to keep growing until supply isn't able to satisfy demand (again), then the price will spike again
3. (long term trend) oil is becoming genuinely more costly (in physical terms - i.e. required energy) to extract as we deplete the low hanging fruit. i guess this makes it much harder / impossible for supply to ramp up and satisfy demand in a short enough time period before another recession is triggered. this isn't necessarily a problem in itself but perhaps it influences the behaviour in item 2
This is probably only semi-coherent. I read the "limits to growth" book a couple of weeks ago, and one of the claims there (from a system dynamics perspective) was roughly that any system that combines both delays in feedback and erodible limits is expected to either behave like "overshoot and oscillation" or "overshoot and collapse".
This could happen pretty soon:
>"Implementation of JCPOA will finish in the next seven days," he said.
On the other hand, one has to time production to ramp-up before renewables become too dominant. Interesting calculus.