|
If you would like to receive weekly updates, type in your email address and click on "Subscribe!"!
|
 |
 |

Strategic Outlook for Oil Prices - February 8th, 2008
|
GREG ZANETTI appearing as a consultant on KOB.COM
|
If you are looking for an interesting behind-the-scenes debate, you need look no farther than how the Department of Defense and oil experts are viewing the future price of oil.
Military planners are now using $225/bbl oil in their forward planning projections. Meanwhile, energy experts are predicting that a US recession will lead to lower oil prices as demand weakens.
These disparate opinions can be explained via the way each views the energy world.
The energy analysts generally view oil through the prism of a US-centric world economy. The US military is using a more global supply-demand model to forge its views. It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but the subtle difference makes for dramatically different conclusions.
The economists correctly point to the fact that prices are often made on the margins. Meaning, a slight decrease in demand can lead to a disproportionate fall in prices. Therefore, a slowing US economy will lead to lessened demand, which will ensure cheaper energy.
Moreover, there is something called "demand-destruction." Economists claim the price of oil cannot possibly go to $1000/bbl because no one could afford it. No demand, no $1000/bbl oil.
They also add that as prices rise, entrepreneurs will find previously economically unsound energy projects profitable, thus leading to increased supply and eventual falling prices.
The problem with the expert view is that it assumes there is an inexhaustible supply of oil and that price will always balance the supply and demand issue.
The opponents say that supply is the other variable. In other words, recession or not, if all the trees are chopped down, you're not going to have a campfire.
Apparently this is the basis upon which the military is making its assumptions.
World oil production actually peaked in May of 2005. Despite recent discoveries, oil sands projects, better technology, and a tripling of Saudi oil rigs, world production seems stuck around 86 million barrels per day… and is actually trending slightly down.
Beyond this, 54 of the 65 oil producing countries world-wide are producing less oil than they did 3 years ago. In addition, much of the oil being pumped today is heavy-sour crude indicative of oil near the bottom of a field… not the light sweet crude at the top.
This is all leading to the whispered conclusion that many of the OPEC nations have been less than honest about their known reserves in order to circumvent their own production quotas. Shocking.
For example, the Saudis report their largest oil field, Al Ghawar, has more oil in it today than it did in 1965 despite pumping billions of barrels over the past four decades.
Oil production in Mexico, Russia, Alaska, Texas, and the North Sea are now conceded to be in irreversible decline. Add to this the fact that 85% of the world's known oil reserves are held in countries not sympathetic to the US.
Meanwhile, demand outside the US is soaring. As Chinese and Indian standards of living rise, so do their demands for energy. Currently, China uses 2 barrels of oil per person per year, and Indians use 1 barrel per person per year. By comparison, the US uses 25 and Japan 18.
It is not unreasonable to assume that Chinese and Indian demand will continue to rise irrespective of a recession in the US. According to Doug Low, writing in The Oil Drum: Europe, "In the next 11 years we will consume more (oil) than we have in our entire history.”
Add to that a declining dollar (which we use to pay for our oil) and it is easy to see why $225 per barrel may be discouraging, but not so far-fetched.
Thus, the Air Force has embarked on an aggressive program to use liquids from coal and natural gas to fly its jets. The Marines and Army are looking at ways to more efficiently move troops to and around the battle field, and the already nuclear Navy is steaming ahead with plans for even more nuclear dependence.
So who is right - the economists with stars in their eyes - or the military with stars on their shoulders? You won't have to look hard for the answer, you will know every time you tank up.
|
 |
|
|