[Oilguy]

Nowadays the energy picture is confusing at best as the more information we are shown the murkier the picture seems to become. Mixed messages, poor reporting and a media hungry to sensationalize anything it thinks can grab a headline have led to many wondering what the true energy situation is. We hear numerous reports on how the shale revolution will transform the energy sector, why alternatives are just around the corner, why advances in oilfield extraction techniques and new finds will help to lower oil prices. Yet no sooner have we read these rosy reports than we are bombarded with negative news on the Middle East, on why alternatives will never compete, on peak oil and declining oil production.

So where do we really stand? Is our energy future one of falling prices and plentiful supply or should we prepare for declining supply and sky high prices?

To give readers a real understanding of where we are we were fortunate enough to speak with the world’s leading energy economist, Professor James Hamilton. James is a professor in the Economics Department at the University of California, San Diego. He has been a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, DC as well as many of the Federal Reserve Banks; and has also been a consultant for the National Academy of Sciences, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the European Central Bank and has testified before the United States Congress.

You can find more of his work on his website Econbrowser

In the interview, James discusses:

• Why we shouldn’t get too excited with the shale revolution
• The “Real” cause of high oil prices
• The incredible opportunity presented by natural gas
• Why long term oil prices will creep upwards
• The geopolitical hotspots that could cause an oil price spike
• Why sanctions could cause Iran to lash out
• Why speculators and oil companies are not to blame for high oil prices.
• Changes we can expect to see under a Romney Administration
• Why Short term oil price forecasts are worthless
• Peak oil & Daniel Yergin

Interview conducted by James Stafford of Oilprice.com

Oilprice.com: Oil prices have shot up in the last month. What range do you see oil prices trading in over the next 12 months?

James Hamilton: Oil prices have always been very volatile. If you look at 12-month logarithmic changes in WTI going back to 1947, you come up with a standard deviation of 0.27. In other words, 25% moves up or down within a year are fairly common, and 50% moves or greater have also been seen on a number of occasions.

If you look at options prices at the moment, they imply the same level of uncertainty looking forward. For example, somebody today is willing to pay $2.90/barrel for a NYMEX option to buy oil in September 2013 at $120/barrel, consistent with a standard deviation of annual log changes of 0.26. The market is saying that prices that high or higher are not that remote a possibility.

And if you look at current fundamentals, it’s not hard to imagine big moves in either direction coming fairly quickly. The price of oil would surely collapse if we saw a significant economic downturn in China (something nobody can rule out) or if Iraq succeeds in producing even half of its ambitious production targets (though I personally consider the latter unlikely). On the other hand, a military confrontation with Iran could produce a pretty spectacular price spike. If the Strait of Hormuz were to close, for example, it would represent a shock to world production that in percentage terms would be 3 times as big as the 1973-74 OPEC embargo.

Because the demand for oil is so insensitive to the price over the short run, and because there is little excess capacity in the world at the moment, even small disruptions or additions could produce big price changes. For this reason, I do not have a lot of confidence in anybody’s near-term oil-price forecasts.

On the other hand, I think we understand pretty clearly the main factors behind the overall increase in oil prices since 2005. Demand for oil, particularly from the emerging economies, has grown significantly, and we have had a hard time increasing global production. The single most likely outcome is that both conditions will continue to be with us. The most likely scenario is that the next decade will look something like the last, with oil prices volatile but exhibiting an upward trend.

Oilprice.com: For the past century or so, economies have generally been built upon energy. The economies with access to plentiful, cheap energy have developed the most. With the stagnation of oil production growth, how do you suggest economies could continue to grow from here? Should we stop expecting to see constant economic growth as the norm?
Full article at: http://oilprice.com/Interviews/The-Real ... ilton.html

[davep]

I read this earlier (having got a link to it from, ahem, Freedom's Pheonix). He seems pretty level-headed about the whole thing whilst understanding that things will get awkward.

[davep]

I read this earlier (having got a link to it from, ahem, Freedom's Pheonix). He seems pretty level-headed about the whole thing whilst understanding that things will get awkward.

Don't mean to be too presumptuous here davep, but I remember a time when you discounted Hamilton's ideas. Didn't you argue the world's great recession was a result of a housing-price bust in Cincinnati, Ohio?

I merely suggested that it wasn't a direct result of Peak Oil. The banks have been figuring new ways to screw us over since deregulation in the eighties (and a long time before that), and the whole derivatives scandal was a result of that. Whether Peak Oil was the pre-eminent cause is open to debate. I just think they were trying to screw us over as ever. Maybe declining profit margins due to higher oil prices had a role to play, but I don't think we can just say "It Was Because Of Peak Oil". It's just too simplistic.

[Pops]

James Hamilton: Oil prices have always been very volatile. If you look at 12-month logarithmic changes in WTI going back to 1947, you come up with a standard deviation of 0.27. In other words, 25% moves up or down within a year are fairly common, and 50% moves or greater have also been seen on a number of occasions.

The difference is that today a 50% move equals $50, not $10.

Hamilton hedges his bets and shades his prognostics almost as much as I do, this is a good post about the IMF model tho...

We like to think that the reason we enjoy our high standards of living is because we have been so clever at figuring out how to use the world's available resources. But we should not dismiss the possibility that there may also have been a nontrivial contribution of simply having been quite lucky to have found an incredibly valuable raw material that for a century and a half or so was relatively easy to obtain. Optimists may expect the next century and a half to look like the last. Benes and coauthors are suggesting that instead we should perhaps expect the next decade to look like the last.

[sparky]

.
On the subject of posters changing their point of view ,
that's a good thing , facts are facts ,one adapt one's thinking to the world out there

the revolution in tight oil and tar sands have to be included amongst the new factors
there probably will not be an overnight colapse of all the world economies
there probably will not be a return to strong real growth either .

under the facts at his disposal , Marion Hubbert was right
under the facts generaly acceptable in 2005 , dire predictions were right
under the facts available in 2012 , Peak oil is already here
it's just that the references have changed , the terminology has changed
Oil definition has been expanded to stuff no geologist would have considered before

it's proper for the peak oil community to change its discourse
certainly not its message

[Pops]

No question we should talk about the trees but let's not ignore the forest.

Fact is, events seem to me to be proceeding according to theory, namely:

Code: Select all

Extraction increases because there is plenty of cheap 'n easy
but because it's finite, at some point there is maximum flow followed by decline
we'll substitute with whatever expensive and hard we can find
but it can't compensate because it's expensive and hard
extraction declines.

Plug in whatever newly profitable tree species you care too: Fracked, Steamed, Corned, Deep Drilled, CTL, shale oil, methane hydrates - methane on Jupiler...

The first half of the curve had to come from somewhere and obviously the second half needs to come from somewhere as well, the mistake is in thinking they will act the same.