Thursday, March 6, 2008

Over $105 A Barrel


Today the price of a barrel of oil went over $105 a barrel. OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, has recently stated that it has no plans to increase oil production. On an inflation adjusted basis, this is a new all-time high passing the previous record set back in 1980 during the tensions with Iran.

Now the good news: as a commodity, oil will react like other commodity prices and probably back off as oil traders over shoot its worth. Just as stocks and bonds trade up and down in price, so too can oil get a head of itself and start to back down.

I think everyone would agree that oil is a damn important commodity for countries all over the globe. Countries that we refer to as emerging have seen their consumption of oil increase with the growth of their economies and the growing wealth of their people. India and China are two prime examples of economic growth and the accompanied growth in the demand for oil. Several years ago I read in The Wall Street Journal that when China gets to the point where it is using as much oil per capita as Mexico, that the world would see an increased demand that would put pressure on the price of oil. I must have read that over 10 years ago, at least.

Oil can be used as a weapon as well as a commodity. The first oil embargo of 1973 was a clear warning to the leadership of the United States that oil could and would be used as a weapon to influence our policies towards countries around the world. Unfortunately, in a democracy, subtle warnings are not usually heeded. Henry VIII of England would have acted differently in 1973 than the government in Washington acted. While I did not know Henry VIII, I have this feeling that he would have taken the first oil embargo of 1973 more seriously than the administration in office at that time. Henry VIII would not have been pulled over a barrel.

In life there are trade-offs. We all know that had we, as a nation, taken the first oil embargo seriously and pulled together to formulate an energy policy that would have diminished OPEC’s ability to use oil as a weapon to manipulate our foreign policies, we would not be in the situation we are in today.

Who knows what kind of agreements were made with a hand shake and a wink that put us in the situation we find ourselves in today. We say we are the most powerful nation in the world. Some refer to the United States of America as a Super Power. What kind of Super Power would let itself become so dependent on a commodity that is so important to its economy and survival, that it could be held hostage by its own lack of a comprehensive energy policy? Certainly, the energy policy of the United States of American is not super.

Unless you have been off the planet for a while, you know we are in an election year. In November 2008, the people of the United States will elect a new President and House of Representatives. There is always a lot of talk about how one candidate of one political party is good at crossing the aisle and working with members of the other political party to get things done for the good of the people. Even Presidential candidates claim this quality. So, my question is: why haven’t we formulate an energy policy that would reduce or eliminate our dependency on foreign oil? If everyone is looking out for the good of the people of this great nation, why hasn’t it happened? The reason it hasn’t happened is money. Take a few moments and read a little book titled Sleeping With The Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul For Saudi Crude by Robert Baer, 2003. This book does not tell everything, but it is a good start. I am sure there are other books out there as well. The first step towards energy independence is for the American people to know what has gone down, and who the players are. Given the facts, I believe the American people can make the right decision. Stay tuned.

4 comments:

Unknown said...

I've already gone on recored with my opinions about the Bush family and their Saudi connections and their close connections to the Texas oilcrats. I wonder why the Founding Fathers didn't look far enough into the future to see greed as a possible torpedo aimed at our ship of state, and take action to forestall it.

Livs lerreter og annet said...

Hi!
Thanks for writing a comment on my blog. Your pictures are quit interesting, when I look at them in detail.
I don't know if you understand Norwegian, since you have worked on a Norwegian ship. I blog about my paintings, but also those things I do in my life, when I don't paint.

Wooh said...

Fred!
I'm impressed with your blog and with your coverage of the oil energy sector. [You visited my blog and we do have interests in common.]
The plain fact is that the oil crisis of the early seventies was mainly due to overspending by the US coming out of the Vietnamese conflict. The dollar was cheapened then.

Now the situation is slightly different, but not much. The liquid dollar reserves and sloshing back and forth between stock markets, bond markets, currencies, property and now commodities.

The present commodity price boom will have its losers and there will be some dramatic structural adjustments by USA, Europe, and China.

OPEC was formed in part to cope with the pro-Isreali stance of the US, even from this early stage, and to stop the excessively rapid depletion of Libyian oil.

European economic growth had surged by using the world's best oil, that from Libya and at the time, I advised Libya to slow down production significantly or risk losing its heritage.

We were building the oil ports so knew how fast the oil was being depleted. The oil companies played a very risky game of threatening not to disclose reserves unless they received rights to pump largish quantities.

The Russians used these threats to gain a foothold. America then set about making the Arab oil producers look bad, a policy by which the US and Europe lost to Russia, which was looking for a warm water port off Tobruk.

Obviously, the Saudis feared Russia more than the US and Europe, and the formation of an Arab nation was abandoned as the US agreed to sell superior arms and the Saudis pulled away from what could have been a Russian dominated nation of Arab states.

As a matter of interest we used to multiply the published figures of reserves by 30. The oil producers created the oil cartel by their own refusal to be honest about the true state of reserves. We, nevertheless, increased/protected Iranian oil reserves by selling them the technology that kept the oil flow pressure sufficiently high.

JMK said...

"Why haven’t we formulated an energy policy that would reduce or eliminate our dependency on foreign oil?" (Fred)


That is the key, eliminating or at least reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

It's sad that so many misguided people believe that politicians or the energy companies ("Big Oil") control the global price of oil...they've been sandbagged.

Speculators around the globe, many right here in the USA, have far more impact on the price of oil than any CEO or politician.

The price of oil has risen in response to rising demand amidst an INCREASING global supply...just not a supply that has outstripped demand.

Those MOST RESPONSIBLE for the rising price of oil in this country are those who've hamstrung efforts to drill in ANWAR, and off our coasts.

Will demand lead to an increase in supply?

Ultimately yes, as oil shale and oil sands (of which both Canada and the U.S. have an abundance, Canada has more oil in oil sands than Saudi Arabia has oil!) become more viable sources as the price per barrel rises.

I believe I read that once oil passes $80/barrel oil sands are viable and once over $90/barrel oil shale becomes viable as a source of oil.