Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

    Even I can dimly percieve, in my peak-oil obsessed brain, that I'm an unholy pain in the ass on this subject - so now many can yawn, turn the page while muttering something about "broken records" "stopped clocks" and "neurotic doomsters". Apologies to Eric Janszen, who puts up wearily with frequent sniping about their editorial line on this topic. But ...

    I keep saying it. Vanishingly small spare production capacity in petroleum is going to worsen (happening already, quite obviously), and that is going to goose inflation, big time. And in fact much more than that: production declines are going to become the defining component of inflation, in a mere five years.

    You can't easily find many forward looking comments on this topic among these pages, although inflation is the single biggest theme in this community. The real universe here seems entirely financial.

    It's certainly possible to get lumped in with the "sky is falling" doomsters who are breathlessly hatching plans for converting football stadiums to hydroponic farms, but this should certainly not be a major consideration to a genuinely inquiring community.

    Adam Lass, the commentator below (Agora analyst / options service author) seems a competent options specialist. Certainly from what I've read of his he seems completely agnostic about any trendy 'movements' - instead he seems singlemindedly in pursuit of trading profits, and merely watches trends very closely to derive trade setups. His track record and market calls seem to have earned him a decent rep.

    _______________

    China Has Its Eyes Set on the Stars. Its Feet, However, Are Stumbling a Bit.

    by Adam Lass, WaveStrength Options Weekly

    Think of it as the yin and the yang of the Chinese situation: On the expansive “yang” side of things, Beijing has just announced that China will build an entire new class of heavy duty cargo rockets capable of boosting payloads up to 25 tons into low Earth orbit.

    This is darn near par with our own (admittedly 30-year-old) heavy lifting Space Shuttle’s 26-ton low earth orbit capability -- and miles beyond Europe’s Ariane 5’s sandbucket of 6-10 tons and the Russian Soyuz’s 3-ton throw-weight.

    That 25-ton figure isn’t exactly what they will pull off in the beginning: As per Wu Yansheng, president of the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT), the Long March 5 rocket is still a ways off. For now, the Chinese will settle for launching their first lunar probe, Chang'e-1, named after a goddess who flew to the moon, on a Long March 3A capable of putting up some 5.4 tons.

    But Long Marches require long-term planning, which supposedly is China’s strong point. What’s more, Wu claims that these new rockets will be designed using pollution-free technologies.

    China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation’s Ma Xingrui anticipates that the new generation of carrier rockets will launch within six to seven years. To accommodate them, the Chinese are building their fourth space launch center in Wenchang, in the southern island province of Hainan.

    The Commission of Science Technology and Industry for National Defense’s Yu Liegui tells us that they expect to spend 4.5 billion yuan (US$600 million): “After completion, the base will meet the demands of China's space technology development and peaceful use of space for 30 to 50 years, and help achieve a rapid development for China's launch vehicle technology and a sustainable development for the country's aerospace.”

    Now it’s all well and good to be looking toward the distant horizon with the intent of flinging your machine self at the stars. Shows real ambition. The question at hand though, is how you are going to do this when you can’t even gas up a long-distance semitruck?

    This is the “yin” or contractive side of China: Right now, today, in Hefei, the capital of eastern Anhui Province, independent suppliers have pretty much run out of diesel fuel. The old government monopolies aren’t doing a heck of a lot better: Sinopec and PetroChina are rationing supplies what reserves they have left.

    Hefei, located at the junction of the mighty (and mightily polluted) Fei and Yangtze Rivers, is the industrial center of the province, producing mostly heavy machinery, electronics, chemicals, steel, textiles and cigarettes.

    Folks from the entire province crowd into town each week, looking for work. This keeps wages remarkably low, even compared to the usual Chinese standard. The average monthly wage is in the vicinity of 1000 RMB, or US$120.

    And even this modest level of success is in danger of being choked off by the worst fuel crisis in two years. The country's top refiner has pledged to guarantee supplies to a market crippled by the gap between state-set pump prices and record crude markets.

    Banners about town feature pledges from Sinopec to “work hard to resolve the diesel supply tightness.”

    A station manager interviewed by the International Herald Tribune (once a mainstay of expats everywhere, but now a mere extension of The New York Times and Washington Post media empire) complained that: “We don't have diesel today. The supply has been quite spotty. Long lines in front of gas stations are very common these days in Hefei.

    Usually stations set a limit of 50 or 100 Yuan worth of gas for each vehicle, on which trucks can barely run.”

    This sort of rationing is spreading to such critical manufacturing hubs as Guangdong Fujian, Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces.

    The Trib reports that Zhengda Transportation in Guangzhou, the southern business capital, now needs a week to get goods to Beijing instead of the usual three days as drivers hunt for fuel.

    The problem? State-set diesel and gasoline prices have not been raised since May 2006 lest they for fear that increases would exacerbate inflation and spark unrest. But these artificially low prices keep most production facilities operating at breakeven when crude oil is at $65 a barrel. $95 oil is simply bankrupting them.

    So round and round spins the Chinese wheel, with sights set high while reality comes up a bit short.

    _______________

  • #2
    Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

    Lukester,

    The article just states the obvious: that the artificial low prices set by the government are making it not worth producing more gas/diesel/whatever.

    In fact, you could argue that the collective number of countries such as China (but including Iran and most other Gulf nations, Venezuela, etc. etc.) are artificially driving up demand by removing the balance vs. supply.

    Again, should the US repeat happened from 1975 to 1985 (i.e. net 13% drop in oil consumption), I think Peak Oil or not won't matter for another half-generation (30 years).

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

      OK C1ue - you are 'on the record'. I'll keep my own counsel on this once iTulip climbs 'on the record' right along with you. Then we'll put it on the back burner and see what transpires in the next 24 months.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

        Originally posted by Lukester View Post
        Even I can dimly percieve, in my peak-oil obsessed brain, that I'm an unholy pain in the ass on this subject - so now many can yawn, turn the page while muttering something about "broken records" "stopped clocks" and "neurotic doomsters". Apologies to Eric Janszen, who puts up wearily with frequent sniping about their editorial line on this topic. But ...

        I keep saying it. Vanishingly small spare production capacity in petroleum is going to worsen (happening already, quite obviously), and that is going to goose inflation, big time. And in fact much more than that: production declines are going to become the defining component of inflation, in a mere five years.

        You can't easily find many forward looking comments on this topic among these pages, although inflation is the single biggest theme in this community. The real universe here seems entirely financial.

        It's certainly possible to get lumped in with the "sky is falling" doomsters who are breathlessly hatching plans for converting football stadiums to hydroponic farms, but this should certainly not be a major consideration to a genuinely inquiring community.

        Adam Lass, the commentator below (Agora analyst / options service author) seems a competent options specialist. Certainly from what I've read of his he seems completely agnostic about any trendy 'movements' - instead he seems singlemindedly in pursuit of trading profits, and merely watches trends very closely to derive trade setups. His track record and market calls seem to have earned him a decent rep.

        _______________

        China Has Its Eyes Set on the Stars. Its Feet, However, Are Stumbling a Bit.

        by Adam Lass, WaveStrength Options Weekly

        Think of it as the yin and the yang of the Chinese situation: On the expansive “yang” side of things, Beijing has just announced that China will build an entire new class of heavy duty cargo rockets capable of boosting payloads up to 25 tons into low Earth orbit.

        This is darn near par with our own (admittedly 30-year-old) heavy lifting Space Shuttle’s 26-ton low earth orbit capability -- and miles beyond Europe’s Ariane 5’s sandbucket of 6-10 tons and the Russian Soyuz’s 3-ton throw-weight.

        That 25-ton figure isn’t exactly what they will pull off in the beginning: As per Wu Yansheng, president of the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT), the Long March 5 rocket is still a ways off. For now, the Chinese will settle for launching their first lunar probe, Chang'e-1, named after a goddess who flew to the moon, on a Long March 3A capable of putting up some 5.4 tons.

        But Long Marches require long-term planning, which supposedly is China’s strong point. What’s more, Wu claims that these new rockets will be designed using pollution-free technologies.

        China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation’s Ma Xingrui anticipates that the new generation of carrier rockets will launch within six to seven years. To accommodate them, the Chinese are building their fourth space launch center in Wenchang, in the southern island province of Hainan.

        The Commission of Science Technology and Industry for National Defense’s Yu Liegui tells us that they expect to spend 4.5 billion yuan (US$600 million): “After completion, the base will meet the demands of China's space technology development and peaceful use of space for 30 to 50 years, and help achieve a rapid development for China's launch vehicle technology and a sustainable development for the country's aerospace.”

        Now it’s all well and good to be looking toward the distant horizon with the intent of flinging your machine self at the stars. Shows real ambition. The question at hand though, is how you are going to do this when you can’t even gas up a long-distance semitruck?

        This is the “yin” or contractive side of China: Right now, today, in Hefei, the capital of eastern Anhui Province, independent suppliers have pretty much run out of diesel fuel. The old government monopolies aren’t doing a heck of a lot better: Sinopec and PetroChina are rationing supplies what reserves they have left.

        Hefei, located at the junction of the mighty (and mightily polluted) Fei and Yangtze Rivers, is the industrial center of the province, producing mostly heavy machinery, electronics, chemicals, steel, textiles and cigarettes.

        Folks from the entire province crowd into town each week, looking for work. This keeps wages remarkably low, even compared to the usual Chinese standard. The average monthly wage is in the vicinity of 1000 RMB, or US$120.

        And even this modest level of success is in danger of being choked off by the worst fuel crisis in two years. The country's top refiner has pledged to guarantee supplies to a market crippled by the gap between state-set pump prices and record crude markets.

        Banners about town feature pledges from Sinopec to “work hard to resolve the diesel supply tightness.”

        A station manager interviewed by the International Herald Tribune (once a mainstay of expats everywhere, but now a mere extension of The New York Times and Washington Post media empire) complained that: “We don't have diesel today. The supply has been quite spotty. Long lines in front of gas stations are very common these days in Hefei.

        Usually stations set a limit of 50 or 100 Yuan worth of gas for each vehicle, on which trucks can barely run.”

        This sort of rationing is spreading to such critical manufacturing hubs as Guangdong Fujian, Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces.

        The Trib reports that Zhengda Transportation in Guangzhou, the southern business capital, now needs a week to get goods to Beijing instead of the usual three days as drivers hunt for fuel.

        The problem? State-set diesel and gasoline prices have not been raised since May 2006 lest they for fear that increases would exacerbate inflation and spark unrest. But these artificially low prices keep most production facilities operating at breakeven when crude oil is at $65 a barrel. $95 oil is simply bankrupting them.

        So round and round spins the Chinese wheel, with sights set high while reality comes up a bit short.

        _______________
        China raises gasoline, diesel, kerosene prices by 500 yuan per ton

        October 31, 2007: 08:39 PM EST

        BEIJING (XFN-ASIA) - China has raised the prices of gasoline, diesel and aviation kerosene by 500 yuan per ton, effective today, to reflect rising crude oil costs, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) said on its website.

        It's impressive what the Chinese have been able to accomplish considering they were hardly even a 3rd world country 30 years ago and on a limited budget of earned versus borrowed money.

        I don't know how old you are, but you may recall that back when the US was operating on earned versus borrowed money we went to the moon, an accomplishment which has not been repeated since.

        Watch these videos posted by Rajiv. The professor notes several times that when OPEC created an "oil shortage" (the US had to buy oil through intermediary friendly countries at a premium), demand fell, delaying the "inevitable day of reckoning."

        There will be an infinite number of such delays. The only thing delaying the delay, so to speak, this time around is the same trick that is paying for the Iraq War, recycled petrodollars.

        No argument that oil is not either at or close to a peak of production. Lack of acknowledgment of a peak makes for a rougher ride down the other side of the curve, but does not mean catastrophe. The world economy will adjust to much higher energy prices in a series of moderate shocks. Demand will decline. Conservation will increase rapidly. Alternatives will we be developed.

        Meanwhile, back at the government-backed Alt Energy bubble development ranch:
        NRC head sees "nuclear renaissance"
        Oct 30, 2007 (Reuters)

        The chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Tuesday said a long-touted "nuclear renaissance" has arrived after a consortium of utilities filed an application to build a new nuclear power plant in Alabama.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

          Originally posted by EJ View Post
          The chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Tuesday said a long-touted "nuclear renaissance" has arrived after a consortium of utilities filed an application to build a new nuclear power plant in Alabama.[/INDENT]
          It will be interesting to see (if we ever do see) what further guarantees these people got, over and above the government-granted privileges and guarantees and legal shields that Amory Lovins mentioned.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

            http://www.ne.doe.gov/

            The Department of Energy Releases Final Rule on Loan Guarantee Program
            Power Companies Considering the Addition of Nuclear Power Plants See Loan Guarantees as Essential for Mitigation of the Financial Risks of New Construction
            October 4, 2007
            The Department of Energy (DOE) published the Final Rule on Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies, establishing regulations for the program authorized by Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The text of the Final Rule can be found at: http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/lgfinalrule-10-4-07.pdf.
            Last edited by bill; November 01, 2007, 09:53 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

              Originally posted by Lukester View Post
              The problem? State-set diesel and gasoline prices have not been raised since May 2006 lest they for fear that increases would exacerbate inflation and spark unrest. But these artificially low prices keep most production facilities operating at breakeven when crude oil is at $65 a barrel. $95 oil is simply bankrupting them.

              So round and round spins the Chinese wheel, with sights set high while reality comes up a bit short.

              _______________


              Today's headline:

              China hikes gas prices, deliberately

              BEIJING (AP) -- China raised gasoline and diesel prices Thursday by 10 percent to curb demand amid shortages that have caused long lines at filling stations and disrupted trucking in key export areas.
              http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/01/news...ion=2007110107

              We'll see how this plays out in China.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

                I didn't notice until after I posted this that EJ had posted the same news close to 24 hours earlier, along with commentary. Am I behind the curve or what?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

                  Our stalwart forum member C1ue (one of the otherwise infallible iTulip BOT prototypes) thinks if we have a global recession brought on by a bad US economic slide, then global oil demand can retreat far enough so that tightness in the energy markets could potentially recede - even recede drastically enough to be a non-issue "for the next 30 years".

                  Possibly a good segment of the ShadowFed here conclude to some general degree this could be so.

                  Well I think C1ue is a pretty smart guy - definitely not to be trifled with.

                  However I think C1ue is flat wrong on this call ( and it's maybe his very first incorrect call? :rolleyes: ). (this is where he comes after me with a paint-ball gun, or worse)

                  If you have the intellectual curiosity, (and the humility, as someone not within the industry) to defer to the opinions of people who have spent their entire lives within the oil business, you'll see they are using absolutely no ambiguous language whatsoever to chronicle the tightness in petroleum production levels, and their warnings about the meagre prospects for future production growth are very plainly stated.

                  Read the following short article, understand the extraordinary weakness this represents when facing a global demand which may now surge uncontrollably , and add up the simple components of this picture. Forget monetary inflation for five minutes while your read through this.

                  Then compare Sadad Al-Husseini's flat statement (bolded) below, with the sheer scale of what these charts spell regarding demand growth, using just a scrap of sophistication to grasp the exponent scales involved, and come to a normal, rational synthesis of the implications.

                  When scanning the implications to demand growth vs. flat production growth in the following charts, use the same skepticism as you might employ if these ratios were those of your own family's personal bank account. If you are a good and prudent manager of your own family's finances, you'll come away from this supply/demand scrutiny with a distinctly hollow feeling in the pit of your stomach.

                  There are many dozens of unimpeachable senior people in the industry, from all over the world and a dozen different nations, people who are just as plain spoken as Mr. Al-Husseini, and they are all saying much the same thing as Mr. Sadad Al-Husseini of Saudi Aramco below -

                  ____________

                  World oil output struggling, say Arab experts

                  Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:44pm GMT

                  By Alex Lawler and Peg Mackey

                  LONDON, Oct 30 (Reuters) - Leading figures from the Middle East oil industry added their voices on Tuesday to those warning that the world is struggling to sustain rising oil production.

                  "There is a real problem -- that supply may not be possible to increase beyond a certain level, say around 100 million barrels," Libya's National Oil Corporation chairman Shokri Ghanem said at an industry conference.

                  "The reason is, in some countries production is going down and we are not discovering any more of those huge oil wells that we used to discover in the Sixties or the Fifties."

                  Sadad al-Husseini was a key architect of Saudi Arabian energy production policy for more than a decade whilst a top official at state oil firm Saudi Aramco. He was even more pessimistic, saying world oil production had already plateaued.

                  "We are already three years into level production," Husseini also told the annual Oil & Money conference, a gathering of top executives.

                  The views are far more conservative than those of the International Energy Agency, adviser to consumer countries, that supply will rise to 116 million bpd by 2030 to meet demand, from about 86 million bpd now.

                  Production is in decline in some regions, such as the North Sea, increasing the burden on other producers such as the 12 members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

                  A five-year rally in oil prices, which hit a record high above $93 a barrel on Monday, is leading to growing interest in peak oil -- the view that supply has reached, or will soon reach a high point and then fall.


                  QUESTIONABLE RESERVES

                  "So many people are talking about the peak oil theory," Ghanem said. "It is not the figure itself but the principle that the world cannot continue being able to produce oil infinitely."

                  Peak oil theory has its detractors, who say technology can help extend the life of the world's reserves.

                  The price surge has also coincided with rising scepticism about the size of the world's oil reserves.

                  OPEC sits on about 75 percent of the world's total proven oil reserves of 1.208 trillion barrels, according to figures compiled by BP in its Statistical Review of World Energy.

                  Husseini said at the conference that reserves estimates are too high and oil prices can only remain on a rising trend.

                  Proven oil "reserves" are overstated by 300 billion barrels of speculative "resources", mainly in OPEC countries, he said.





                  © Reuters2007All rights reserved.

                  ____________


                  CHINA_OIL_CONSUMPTION_FACTOR_00.jpg

                  CHINA_OIL_CONSUMPTION_FACTOR_01.jpg

                  CHINA_OIL_CONSUMPTION_FACTOR_02.jpg

                  CHINA_OIL_CONSUMPTION_FACTOR_03.jpg

                  OILPRICE_INFLATION_LINK_1970S.jpg

                  Is anyone reading this unable to discern a massive impending supply / demand disequilibrium? If you do discern the impending disequilibrium, are you also willing to discern the relationship between that disequilibrium and very large inflationary implications as evidenced by the UK example charted in the 1970's?

                  Of course every reader here "knew" this data. How many of you are ready to believe it's now going to stage a repeat - on a scale which will make the original oil embargo driven inflation look like a walk in the park?

                  Where is iTulip on this issue?

                  I don't see them covering it's implications at all ... Who is genuinely awake to the impending scale of this thing here?
                  Last edited by Contemptuous; November 02, 2007, 11:20 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

                    Originally posted by Lukester View Post
                    Where is iTulip on this issue?

                    Peak oil theory has its detractors, who say technology can help extend the life of the world's reserves.
                    Very good effort here.

                    I understand a lot of the emotion around the issue but in Peak Oil I see a repeat of Y2K.

                    Disasters are never well broadcast events endlessly discussed for years on end beforehand. Disasters are by definition random. They occur for unexpected reasons at unexpected times, or they occur for expected reasons but at unexpected times and not in the expected way.

                    The reason is that markets hate surprises so markets are always anticipating them, except when they are obscured by fog.

                    Markets are profit seeking problem solving mechanisms; a market is an argument among investors about where the money is.

                    There are disagreements about what the solution is, where the money is in solving the problem, but rarely over whether there is a problem at all.

                    The exception is disasters that occur due to collective blindness to evidence of antecedents to crisis and their meaning. That's the case with credit derivatives and the credit crisis we are seeing today.

                    I can understand why so many think that's also the case with oil supplies. But markets don't work that way.

                    Oil production fell off rapidly in the US in the 1970s because there was another source to move to for supply. Reserves could be consumed close to market prices because alternative oil sources could be tapped at marginally higher costs outside the US.

                    What happens when global oil supplies peak? There will be no "other" source of oil?

                    Perhaps this is already happening. The alternative to not enough oil in the US is oil outside the US. As we've said, we're running out of cheap oil and there are no cheap alternatives. The alternative to not enough oil on earth is alternatives to oil. Oil prices are rising and alternatives are being developed. We shall see if the trend is sustained. If it isn't, that will be because we are not truly at a peak of oil production. Markets provide no guarantee that there will not be crises at times and a bumpy transition.

                    Rising prices will drive change, but if only prices are allowed to rise. The enemy of constructive change is financial arrangements between oil producing and consuming nations that distort supply/demand oil and currency pricing relationships.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

                      ej,

                      the implication of your calm tone is that there will be a relatively smooth process of adjustment, "crises at times and a bumpy transition" notwithstanding. i think the real issue at hand is the size of those "bumps" - are they roller-coaster size, or himalayan?


                      the mechanism that drives the transition is, of course, price. but we have enormous fixed-capital investments predicated on cheap transport - our housing stock primarily, but also our retail system. the re-arrangements required will be difficult and expensive, and that expense will come at the same time that we are dealing with significantly more expensive food and accelerating healthcare costs, combined with [apparently] ever escalating military outlays.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

                        Originally posted by EJ View Post
                        Very good effort here.

                        I understand a lot of the emotion around the issue but in Peak Oil I see a repeat of Y2K.

                        Disasters are never well broadcast events endlessly discussed for years on end beforehand. Disasters are by definition random. They occur for unexpected reasons at unexpected times, or they occur for expected reasons but at unexpected times and not in the expected way.

                        The reason is that markets hate surprises so markets are always anticipating them, except when they are obscured by fog.

                        Markets are profit seeking problem solving mechanisms; a market is an argument among investors about where the money is.

                        There are disagreements about what the solution is, where the money is in solving the problem, but rarely over whether there is a problem at all.

                        The exception is disasters that occur due to collective blindness to evidence of antecedents to crisis and their meaning. That's the case with credit derivatives and the credit crisis we are seeing today.

                        I can understand why so many think that's also the case with oil supplies. But markets don't work that way.

                        Oil production fell off rapidly in the US in the 1970s because there was another source to move to for supply. Reserves could be consumed close to market prices because alternative oil sources could be tapped at marginally higher costs outside the US.

                        What happens when global oil supplies peak? There will be no "other" source of oil?

                        Perhaps this is already happening. The alternative to not enough oil in the US is oil outside the US. As we've said, we're running out of cheap oil and there are no cheap alternatives. The alternative to not enough oil on earth is alternatives to oil. Oil prices are rising and alternatives are being developed. We shall see if the trend is sustained. If it isn't, that will be because we are not truly at a peak of oil production. Markets provide no guarantee that there will not be crises at times and a bumpy transition.

                        Rising prices will drive change, but if only prices are allowed to rise. The enemy of constructive change is financial arrangements between oil producing and consuming nations that distort supply/demand oil and currency pricing relationships.

                        Remember the good old days?

                        Back when the OPEC price band was $22-$28 per barrel. Back when a single incautious remark by an OPEC delegate would send prices crashing through the official floor. Back when Saudi Arabia could raise production by a million barrels a day on 3 weeks notice. Back when the world's surplus tanker and refinery capacity was enough to convert that million bbls/d of crude into refined products, and deliver it to any market in the OECD in about 100 days.





                        From Reuters:
                        OPEC raises oil output in October: Reuters survey
                        Fri Nov 2, 2007 9:20am EDT
                        LONDON (Reuters) - OPEC raised oil production last month in response to record-high prices above $90 a barrel and in advance of a formal deal to lift supply, a Reuters survey showed on Friday.
                        OPEC's 10 members bound by output targets, all except Iraq and Angola, pumped 26.98 million barrels per day, up 180,000 bpd from September, according to the survey of oil firms, traders, OPEC officials and analysts.
                        The survey indicates that OPEC may be relaxing adherence to supply curbs in response to a jump in oil prices, which hit a record high of $96.24 on Thursday...
                        180k bbls/d represents an increase of less than seven-tenths of one percent. Given several years of persistently high oil prices and the scores of billions of dollars that OPEC has invested since 2004, this seems a rather pathetic result, n'est-ce pas?

                        I am no student of human psychology (we gearheads tend to prefer machinery, for its reliable predictability under stress, compared to humans ;)), but even I can sense the absurdity of "...OPEC may be relaxing adherence to supply curbs..." The Club of OPEC, and its sister organization OAPEC, contain some of the most corrupt regimes on earth. The very idea that anyone in OPEC felt "...bound by output targets...", as oil rose from $60 to $70 to $80 to $90+, demonstrates a remarkable ignorance, on the part of this Reuters reporter, of the basic human emotion of greed, and the deeply concentrated power structures within many OPEC member nations that facilitate acting on that emotion for unimaginable personal riches. It's a fairly safe bet that every producable/transportable/marketable barrel in OPEC is already onstream...and has been for some time.
                        "...OPEC oil ministers insist that crude supply is adequate and blame other factors, such as speculators, political tension and a weak U.S. dollar for the price surge..."
                        Just as the Fed and Treasury have to say things to try to maintain confidence in the financial system, OPEC has to say things to maintain external confidence in their ability to supply the global market, and internal confidence in their ability to "manage" that market (its self-professed raison d'etre). In the same fashion as today's increasingly beleaguered Fed and Treasury, OPEC will continue this charade well beyond the time it becomes abundantly obvious they are unable to do either.

                        The first inkling that something was changing was when crude went into contango in 2004. The evidence, admittedly still largely inferred and circumstantial, nevertheless continues to accumulate. And the echo chamber known as the "main stream media" dutifully reports that we can safely blame "...speculators, political tension and a weak US dollar..."; the same reasoning we were given when crude broke north of $40, which now seems like...um...the good old days.

                        Link to full article:
                        http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv...071102?sp=true
                        Last edited by GRG55; November 03, 2007, 07:59 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

                          Originally posted by EJ View Post
                          The alternative to not enough oil on earth is alternatives to oil. Oil prices are rising and alternatives are being developed. We shall see if the trend is sustained. If it isn't, that will be because we are not truly at a peak of oil production. Markets provide no guarantee that there will not be crises at times and a bumpy transition.

                          Rising prices will drive change, but if only prices are allowed to rise. The enemy of constructive change is financial arrangements between oil producing and consuming nations that distort supply/demand oil and currency pricing relationships.
                          The new policy of “Global Warming” demands and supports change to global current energy usage. Even with oil price fluctuations if oil usage is taxed due to its carbon output then it’s up to the tax collectors to shape future energy policy. I don’t see a lack of support for such a tax, just the other day Mayor Bloomberg supports a national carbon tax.
                          http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...rssnyt&emc=rss
                          Bloomberg Calls for Tax on Carbon Emissions

                          By Sewell Chan

                          Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced today his support for a national carbon tax. In what his aides called one of the most significant policy addresses of his second and final term, the mayor argued that directly taxing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change will slow global warming, promote economic growth and stimulate technological innovation — even if it results in higher gasoline prices in the short term.
                          I know current oil usage will not be replaced immediately by alternatives. Alternatives and energy conservation however can absorb future global energy expansion needs and have an impact on current usage.
                          A good example is China ’s recent 11th 5 yr economic plan http://en.ndrc.gov.cn/ outlining their future around global warming http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/en/index.asp and energy usage going forward. If anyone is in a panic about conserving energy or coming up with alternatives it would be China .

                          Uranium is still my favorite as nuclear moves forward.
                          A few updates:
                          http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705...breadcrumb=%2F
                          http://www.cfr.org/publication/14694...daily_analysis
                          http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/arti...cle_336856.htm
                          http://www.commodityonline.com/newnews.php?id=3428
                          http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...c9f0c6&k=88837

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

                            Originally posted by EJ View Post
                            Very good effort here.

                            I understand a lot of the emotion around the issue but in Peak Oil I see a repeat of Y2K.

                            The trouble is not so much with peak oil since America consumption does not rise more than about 1% a year....

                            China's car market is expanding 40% a year, at this rate, China will have 150 million or more cars in 10 years. Where is the world going to find that extra 10-15 million barrels of oil a day?

                            Feb 2007: China surpasses Japan as biggest vehicle market after U.S.
                            http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/...ess/chicar.php

                            Last edited by touchring; November 03, 2007, 11:31 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

                              Originally posted by jk View Post
                              ej,

                              the implication of your calm tone is that there will be a relatively smooth process of adjustment, "crises at times and a bumpy transition" notwithstanding. i think the real issue at hand is the size of those "bumps" - are they roller-coaster size, or himalayan?
                              I try to save my urgent tones for urgent issues, such as the impact of the ongoing dissolution of the credit fantasy. The attendant risks are far more proximate than the risks posed by oil supply/demand imbalances.

                              In my upcoming newsletter I offer the following analogy to go along with Warburton's forecast and recommendations. (If you haven't read the interview yet, it's here.)

                              Think of the markets as a capital highway. The highway is shared by many kinds of vehicles large and small. Various classes of vehicles tend to stay in their lane, although some movement between lanes is done to gain advantage over the other cars as traffic conditions change, such as between the high risk and low risk stocks lanes, and between the stocks and bonds lanes.

                              There are a few rules imposed by the highway cops. For example, large slow moving vehicles are not allowed into the far left lane, trucks with dangerous loads are not allowed, and there is a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour which is generally enforced but not with rigorous consistency; at times the average speed nears 80 MPH during periods of general social optimism and liberalism.

                              The highway is owned by a conglomerate of banks who keep it up and running. It is funded via usage fees based on vehicle weight. It is lightly regulated by government.

                              New kinds of vehicles are sometimes brought onto the highway. Highway owners and regulators argue about what to do about them. Generally, the highway owners like everything they see, because new products means new fees. The regulators during periods of independence cast a wary eye on new vehicles, but during periods of limited independence are less inclined to ask questions and use their authority.

                              In the early 1990s, structured credit vehicles were introduced to the capital highway. These were very special vehicles indeed. Rather than riding on wheels, the hover over their lane. This allows them to go very fast but makes it impossible to assess their value in the traditional sense because they cannot be weighed by the highway regulators' scales. Also, they go so fast that it's not even possible to regulate their speed in a traditional sense. In fact, they travel so fast they cannot even be counted. Finally, the load they carry cannot be determined because inspections are not possible using the regulators' inspection equipment, making it impossible to assess the risk they pose to other traffic on the highway.

                              The goods news: they promise untold new huge sources of fees revenue to the highway owners. Those fees translate into large fees taxes for the government that also happens to be in charge of the regulation.

                              After not very much discussion, the regulators and owners agree to allow the new structured credit vehicles onto the highway with the other vehicles, provided they stay way over on a farthest left hand lane made just for them. They operate on their own rules and are unregulated because the regulations don't make sense for them. They are estimated to travel at 1,000 MPH, but no one knows for sure. Not to worry, say the manufactures of the SC vehicles, they are perfectly safe and will stay in their lane, even in the very unlikely event that they should crash.

                              As it turns out, they can crash and suddenly. And when they do they in fact do not stay in their lane. In fact, when they crash they pile into each other, eventually forming a gigantic mass moving at 1,000 MPH. This mass not only takes out a bunch of other vehicles in adjoining lanes as it crashes, it blows a giant smoking hole in the middle of the highway, leaving only a single breakdown lane for travel by all the remaining vehicles until the highway can be repaired.

                              So far we've only had a couple of wrecks. They haven't piled up yet. But if Warburton continues to be correct, they will.

                              the mechanism that drives the transition is, of course, price. but we have enormous fixed-capital investments predicated on cheap transport - our housing stock primarily, but also our retail system. the re-arrangements required will be difficult and expensive, and that expense will come at the same time that we are dealing with significantly more expensive food and accelerating healthcare costs, combined with [apparently] ever escalating military outlays.
                              This is no doubt true. But unless there is an event that creates a sudden price change, say, a closing of the Strait of Hormuz, the structural issues you mention will gradually influence the economy rather than suddenly.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X