Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby westexas » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 11:29:22

Economist Magazine: The Future of Oil: Yesterday's Fuel
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21582516-worlds-thirst-oil-could-be-nearing-peak-bad-news-producers-excellent

The world’s thirst for oil could be nearing a peak. That is bad news for producers, excellent for everyone else. . .

With billions of Chinese and Indians growing richer and itching to get behind the wheel of a car, the big oil companies, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and America’s Energy Information Administration all predict that demand will keep on rising. One of the oil giants, Britain’s BP, reckons it will grow from 89m b/d now to 104m b/d by 2030.

We believe that they are wrong, and that oil is close to a peak. This is not the “peak oil” widely discussed several years ago, when several theorists, who have since gone strangely quiet, reckoned that supply would flatten and then fall. We believe that demand, not supply, could decline. In the rich world oil demand has already peaked: it has fallen since 2005. Even allowing for all those new drivers in Beijing and Delhi, two revolutions in technology will dampen the world’s thirst for the black stuff.





My comments on the Economist website:


Comment #1:

Of course, in early 1999 the Economist Magazine ran a cover story suggesting that we might see $5 oil for the indefinite future. Annual Brent crude oil prices were then in the process of increasing at an average rate of 15%/year, from $13 in 1998 to $112 in 2012, with two year over year price declines, in 2001 and in 2009.

One can't help but wonder if this story is yet another bullish signal for oil prices.



Comment #2:

The very slow increase in global crude oil production since 2005, combined with a material post-2005 decline in global net oil exports of oil, have provided considerable incentives for US oil companies to make money in tight/shale plays. But I think that the assertion by many in the Cornucopian camp that shale plays will result in a virtually infinite rate of increase in global crude oil production is wildly unrealistic.

We are facing high--and increasing--overall decline rates from existing oil wells in the US. At a 10%/year overall decline rate, which in my opinion is conservative, the US oil industry, in order to just maintain the 2013 crude oil production rate, would have to put online the productive equivalent of the current production from every oil field in the United States of America over the next 10 years, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Eagle Ford, to the Permian Basin, to the Bakken to Alaska. Or, at a 10%/year decline rate from existing wells, we would need the current productive equivalent of 10 Bakken Plays over the next 10 years, just to maintain current production.

On the natural gas side, a recent Citi Research report (estimating a 24%/year decline rate in US natural gas production from existing wells), implies that the industry has to replace virtually 100% of current US gas production in four years, just to maintain a dry natural gas production rate of 66 BCF/day. Or, at a 24%/year decline rate, we would need the productive equivalent of the peak production rate of 30 Barnett Shale Plays over the next 10 years, just to maintain current production.

The dominant pattern that we have seen globally, at least through 2012, is that developed net oil importing countries like the US were gradually being forced out of the market for exported oil, via price rationing, as the developing countries, led by China, consumed an increasing share of a declining post-2005 volume of global oil exports.

For more information on global net exports of oil, you can search for: ASPO + Export Capacity Index.


Comment #3:

Several media outlets have recently carried a story about a prominent Saudi prince warning that Saudi Arabia is increasingly vulnerable to competition from the US shale revolution, as a result of fracking in tight/shale plays.

I would turn the question around and ask why is Saudi Arabia not a threat to fracking?

Note that as annual Brent crude oil prices doubled from $25 in 2002 to $55 in 2005, Saudi net oil exports increased from 7.1 mbpd in 2002 to 9.1 mbpd in 2005 (million barrels per day, total petroleum liquids + other liquids, EIA).

The Saudi Oil Minister, in early 2004, explicitly stated that the large increase in Saudi net oil exports was an attempt to bring oil prices in line with the then stated goal of maintaining a $22 to $28 oil price band. In any case, at the 2002 to 2005 rate of increase in Saudi net oil exports, their net oil exports would have been over 16 mbpd in 2012, as annual Brent crude oil prices more than doubled again, from $55 in 2005 to $112 in 2012, with one year over year decline in oil prices, in 2009.

However, in contrast to the 2002 to 2005 Saudi response to the price doubling, the Saudis have shown seven straight years of annual net exports below the 2005 rate of 9.1 mbpd, with Saudi net oil exports ranging between 7.6 and 8.7 mbpd for 2006 to 2012 inclusive.

If the Saudis have virtually infinite oil reserves, and their public pronouncements continually suggest that they have the “capacity” to produce well in excess of 12 mbpd almost indefinitely, why are they allowing high oil prices to encourage alternative sources of oil production, e.g., the very expensive and very high decline rate shale plays in the US? While it’s certainly at least possible that the Saudis abandoned their traditional swing producer role, and decided to encourage, starting in 2006, higher oil prices, and thus more competition, by cutting their net oil exports, it’s also at least possible, as Matt Simmons suggested in 2005, that Saudi oil fields are finite after all.

I realize that this is a controversial assertion--that Saudi Arabian oil fields are not infinite--but it’s a possibility that is at least worth considering.

Incidentally, at the 2005 to 2012 rate of decline in the ratio of Saudi liquids production to liquids consumption, I estimate that Saudi Arabia, like many other former net oil exporters, e.g., Indonesia, could be approaching zero net oil exports in less than 30 years. This would imply that Saudi Arabia may have shipped about half of their post-2005 Cumulative Net Exports of oil by the end of 2017.

In fact, an examination of 2005 to 2012 data indicate that a majority of the Top 33 net oil exporters in the world in 2005 are already headed toward the point in time when they would become members of AFPEC--the Association of Former Petroleum Exporting Countries.

While currently increasing US crude oil production is very helpful, it is very likely that we will continue to show the post-1970 "Undulating Decline" pattern that we have seen in US crude oil production (currently US crude oil production is about 25% below our 1970 peak rate).
westexas
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue 04 Jun 2013, 06:59:53

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 12:40:05

“That is bad news for producers, excellent for everyone else”. Such an amazing statement. Along with: “If the demand for oil merely stabilizes, it will have important consequences.”
So if demand “stabilizes” Saudi Arabia will continue receiving $300 BILLION per year in oil revenue…as long as their production doesn’t decline. This is 500% more oil income then they received just 10 years ago. And even with a greatly expanded budget they’ll still have about $80 BILLION in excess capital this year. Maybe I’m just too dumb to see where this is “bad news for producers”. As I just pointed out elsewhere the oil producers are earning $2 TRILLION more PER YEAR today than they were not too long ago.

And the Economist completely ignores the fact that the distribution of oil production is in the process of a radical shift. It won’t be question of how much oil the world produces and how much it consumes. It will be a matter of how much oil China removes from the market place and how much of the refinery products it controls vs. what the rest of the world needs to acquire. The key question is how much the rest of the world reduces its consumption vs. how much oil Chindia removes from the supply side. The current supply/demand balance has the world paying a record yearly average price at a time when it has just matched its all-time record high consumption. And these are the beginning of “excellent times” for the consumer according to the Economist?

I could certainly use some bad news like that for myself. Oh…wait…I do produce oil for a living. I guess I’ll just keep suffering from this growing lack of demand. Next Tuesday I’ll be turning on a new 150 bopd well in Texas. Got my bids in from the local crude buyers. Looks like I’ll be getting around $105/bbl. Oh woe is me! LOL. Please, Economist, don’t throws me into the briar patch along with the KSA.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby Byron Walter » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 17:37:35

High Mr RM,

I guess that you think that all those petroleum geologists at the Economist are wrong :)

I remember reading their 1999 (or was it '98) article on how the world was awash in oil and the eminent price collapse. About the same time Scientific American had their peak oil article. Both mags have been proven incorrect. The Economist was just flat out in the ozone with their ruminations. OTOH S.A. just missed the timing and at that time no one was talking about tight oil in NA.

I'm very curious to see how long the Bakken keeps on giving. Two maybe three years of increasing production at today's prices? If a price collapse was to happen, there sure won't be many, if any, new projects moving forward in the Bakken.
Byron Walter
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 13:02:16

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 17:58:30

All geologists make incorrect statements eventually. I did once decades ago. LOL.

Oil prices might collapse due to a decrease in consumption. But I think I would hesitate throwing such a thought on the table the same week as global consumption matches the all time high just as prices are sliding above $100/bbl. I certainly would have made the second incorrect statement in my life had I been asked 10 years ago if this dynamic could develop.

I agree that the Bakken and Eagle Ford won't likely see the rig count grow as it has happened the last few years. But as long as oil prices hover around $100 drilling activity will stay hot for many years. The pubcos have no choice: without these plays many would go out of business. Desperate situations require desperate actions. At $100/bbl not so desperate. At $80/bbl probably starts smelling pretty desperate.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby Pops » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 18:10:15

The article states there are 2 reasons demand will peak and already has in the OECD:
Natural gas
vehicle efficiency.

Combined they've only had a negligible effect on US consumption.

By far the larger cause is fewer miles traveled.

What is the name of that magazine again?

.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 18:13:15

Byron Walter wrote: If a price collapse was to happen, there sure won't be many, if any, new projects moving forward in the Bakken.


Why would a price collapse happen?

The movement in oil prices since 2000 has been all one way----UP!

There was brief reversal in 2008-9, following the global economic downturn, but the long term trend for oil prices is clearly UP!

Image
Oil prices have been going UP! for years now. Its just wishful thinking to imagine oil will suddenly start going down in the near future, especially since there is no sign of it actually happening.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26628
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby sparky » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 19:59:08

.
I like the OPEC basket price ,
no speculation and it's as real oil as can be on a market

It show a decrease in the rate of rise
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/data_graphs/40.htm
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 20:14:41

Pops - they can cherry pick all they want. But the global demand is not down: just this week it was announced that demand has matched the record high of 2010. The global price of oil is determined by global demand for a oil. As sparky notes demand has continued to increase but a slower pace. But an increase is demand is not a decrease in my way of thinking. Demand may decrease...might continue increasing . Prices might decrease...might increase. That will be seen in the future. But what do we know as a fact today? Demand has increased in the face of high and slightly increasing price. Certainly not what I would have predicted just 5 years. But those are the undeniable facts.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby Byron Walter » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 21:40:41

Plantagenet wrote:
Byron Walter wrote: If a price collapse was to happen, there sure won't be many, if any, new projects moving forward in the Bakken.


Why would a price collapse happen?

Oil prices have been going UP! for years now. Its just wishful thinking to imagine oil will suddenly start going down in the near future, especially since there is no sign of it actually happening.[/size]


Well you won't hear me saying that there will be a price collapse. But one thing for sure is that it is hard to make short term predictions on oil price movements. The last few years that's been the way I pay my 'rent' and I've been lucky... but that's (nearly) all it's been.

Anyhow I do get amused with some of the stuff that gets printed in the Economist. It was that early article back in the late 90s that introduced me to peak oil, although the article's position was pretty much the exact opposite. Actually the Economist might do itself a service and consult with a few petroleum geologists before they do another article on oil. OTOH they do write with style, if not substance.
Byron Walter
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 13:02:16

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 22:21:13

Byron Walter wrote:you won't hear me saying that there will be a price collapse. But one thing for sure is that it is hard to make short term predictions on oil price movements. The last few years that's been the way I pay my 'rent' and I've been lucky... but that's (nearly) all it's been.


Welome to PeakOil.com Byron.
If you are "paying your rent" by trading oil futures then you are a pretty smart guy. Thats a risky business---congrats to you.

Image
Trading oil futures is "Risky Business"
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26628
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby westexas » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 23:22:21

A link to the 1999 article:

Image

http://www.economist.com/node/188181
Economist Magazine: The next shock?
March 4, 1999

We may be heading for $5 (oil). To see why, consider chart 1. Thanks to new technology and productivity gains, you might expect the price of oil, like that of most other commodities, to fall slowly over the years.

Judging by the oil market in the pre-OPEC era, a “normal” market price might now be in the $5-10 range. Factor in the current slow growth of the world economy and the normal price drops to the bottom of that range.
westexas
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue 04 Jun 2013, 06:59:53

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 03 Aug 2013, 08:04:06

Thanks wt. it looks like the Ecoconomist has discovered a way to increase their efficiency: they keep printing the same article but just change the date and the current price of oil. Cut and paste, bubba, cut and paste. LOL

Who knows: the blind pig factor may kick in one day and they'll be correct.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby Pops » Sat 03 Aug 2013, 09:14:37

ROCKMAN wrote:Pops - they can cherry pick all they want. But the global demand is not down:

I said OECD demand, the rich folks who waste a lot; not the moped-poolers who could probably afford oil at $200/bbl.

OECD liquid fuels consumption fell by 0.6 million bbl/d in 2012. EIA projects that OECD consumption will decline by an additional 0.4 million bbl/d in 2013 and 0.2 million bbl/d in 2014, largely because of declining consumption in Europe and Japan.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm

It's about utility, the more value you get the more you can afford to pay.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 03 Aug 2013, 09:31:09

Pops - I know but that's what I meant. One can look and the decline in consumption by one consumer group and the potential for greater savings but cutting waste. But I was stepping back and looking at the big picture: the WORLD is consume more oil the ever brfore. One segment reducing consumption does not offset all the other segments that have increased consumption even more. As I read their statrment it seem to lay out the future based just on what's happening in one segment of the economy.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby John_A » Sat 03 Aug 2013, 14:02:09

Byron Walter wrote: Actually the Economist might do itself a service and consult with a few petroleum geologists before they do another article on oil. OTOH they do write with style, if not substance.


and then they might turn out a product like the IEA showing the trillions of barrels of stuff to make gasoline and jet fuel out of as far as the idea can see. I don't think that problem is solved by those who know these things exist, they need people to just pretend they don't exist and can project from that basis. Then they will reach the conclusion desired.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby AndyA » Sat 10 Aug 2013, 01:35:16

The utility of oil is so great that I think $200 oil would do little to limit demand. Maybe very short term, but long term there is nothing else quite as useful as oil. A battery powered tractor just isn't going to do it for me.
If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease. -Sen-ts'an
AndyA
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat 10 Aug 2013, 01:26:33

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby davep » Sat 10 Aug 2013, 05:56:00

AndyA wrote:The utility of oil is so great that I think $200 oil would do little to limit demand. Maybe very short term, but long term there is nothing else quite as useful as oil. A battery powered tractor just isn't going to do it for me.


IIRC, consumption of oil in France for personal transport dropped by 25% with the price spike in 2008. Also, farmers are tending to use tractors that are less powerful so long as they can get the job done, as diesel price is becoming a non-negligible overall cost. So demand is more elastic than we once thought, even in a country where small efficient diesels are the norm. The US has far more scope for consumption reduction in that respect.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby Pops » Sat 10 Aug 2013, 09:10:32

Interestingly over here Dave, the oil price runup has caused the "death" of the exurban country gentleman so small hobby tractor sales have fallen and big tractors sales are up.

Image

It's more efficient to have a big plot and a big tractor pulling multiple implements.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sun 11 Aug 2013, 21:12:23

Contrarian magazine cover "signals" for price rises/declines are pretty stupid. For every magazine that got a call wrong, I could show one that got it right.

For example, Barrons had a cover story in June 2008 entitled, "Bye, Bubble? The Price of Oil May Be Peaking".

Image

Guess what started crashing within weeks of that cover? You guessed it.

Image

The Economist gets things right, too. Notice the 2005 date on this cover:

Image

Only nimwits take magazine cover predictions seriously. :roll:
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia

Re: Economist Magazine issues bullish signal for oil prices?

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Sun 11 Aug 2013, 22:03:39

So oily thinks what? The US can sell oil for less than cost?
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests