Posts tagged “OPEC”
By now you have undoubtedly heard that late last month at OPEC’s 171st Ordinary Meeting in Vienna, the group announced that it would reduce output by about 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd) by January. This is the first announced output cut by the group in eight years. Saudi Arabia will bear ~40% of the cuts, with Iraq reducing output by nearly 20%. Nigeria and Libya were exempted from the cuts.
OPEC also secured agreements from non-OPEC members. Russia led this group of non-OPEC producers by agreeing in principle to cut production by about 300,000 bpd. Most of these non-OPEC cuts are symbolic, as many are in line with the natural production declines expected to be experienced by these countries.
The market response to the OPEC cuts was swift. Global prices for crude quickly jumped >10% to above $50/bbl. Shale oil producers surged across the board, with Continental Resources and Whiting Petroleum jumping 23% and 30% respectively. CONTINUE»
A few days after Christmas I appeared on CNBC Asia’s Squawk Box to discuss the volatility in the oil market. Bernie Lo asked a question about OPEC’s strategy, and I characterized their decision to defend market share as “a big, costly mistake” that had already cost the group over $500 billion in 2015 and would likely cost them that much again in 2016.
I followed that appearance up with an article for Forbes called OPEC’s Trillion-Dollar Miscalculation (which went viral and received more than 100 times the traffic of their typical energy article). In that article I detailed the numbers behind my assertion.
Two weeks later, Continental Resources CEO and shale drilling pioneer Harold Hamm went on CNBC and reiterated my argument. He called OPEC’s strategy “a monumental mistake for them, I might add, a trillion-dollar mistake.” While there were a number of responses to Hamm’s comments that displayed varying degrees of schadenfreude over the huge decline in his net worth, I didn’t see much acknowledgement that the point is correct. So let’s review. CONTINUE»
As the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) retests the $40 per barrel (bbl) mark, some pundits are again calling for WTI to fall to $15 or $20/bbl. The same thing happened earlier in the year when crude prices tested $40. Lots of people predicted $20, the price went to $60, and the $20 crowd went quiet for a while. Well, they are back:
“There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest we have bottomed. You could have $15 or $20 oil — easily,” influential money manager David Kotok told CNNMoney. “I’m an old goat. I remember when oil was $3 a barrel,” said Kotok, whose clients include former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean.
Yes, and you could get a candy bar and soda for a nickel. But I will bet him $10,000 we don’t see WTI at $15/bbl unless he has access to a time machine. Today I want to address this argument. I got into a debate on this topic with a person yesterday, and I am seeing enough of these predictions that I thought it warranted addressing. Again. The $20/bbl argument goes something like this: Crude oil inventories are extremely high. U.S. oil production keeps rising. Demand is falling. Something has to give. CONTINUE»
The OPEC Free Fall
There is a popular narrative going around that I want to address in today’s article. Last November, after several months of plummeting crude oil prices, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) met to discuss the oil production quotas for each country in the months ahead. Many expected OPEC to cut production in order to shore up crude prices that had been falling since summer. This was the strategy favored by OPEC’s poorer members, as many require oil prices at $100/barrel (bbl) in order to balance government budgets.
Instead, OPEC announced that they would continue pumping at the same rate. They chose to defend market share against the surge of supply from U.S. shale producers, and in doing so the fall in the price of crude oil accelerated. A look at the U.S. rig count shows the swift impact to U.S. shale drillers in the aftermath of that meeting:
Saudi Arabia’s decision not to cut oil production, despite crashing prices, marks the beginning of an incredibly important change. There are near-term and obvious implications for oil markets and global economies. More important is the acknowledgement, demonstrated by the action of world’s most important oil producer, of the beginning of the end of the most prosperous period in human history – the age of oil.
In 2000, Sheikh Yamani, former oil minister of Saudi Arabia, gave an interview in which he said:
“Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil – and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil.”
Fourteen years later, while Americans were eating or sleeping off their Thanksgiving meals, the twelve members of the Organization of Oil Producing Countries (OPEC) failed to reach an agreement to cut production below the 30 million barrel per day target that was set in 2011. This followed strenuous lobbying efforts by some of largest oil producing non-OPEC nations in the weeks leading up to the meeting. This group even went so far as to make the highly unusual offer of agreeing to their own production cuts.
The ramifications of this decision across the globe, not just in energy markets, but politically, are already having consequences for the global landscape. Lost in the effort to understand the vast implications is an even more important signal sent by Saudi Arabia, the owner of more than 16% of the world’s proved oil reserves, about its view of the future of fossil fuels.
As the year expires and the new year arrives, there are several topics I like to cover in a series of articles. One is to review the top energy stories of the year. Another is to grade my predictions for the year. And finally, I lay out my predictions for the upcoming year.
Usually I have a dilemma of whether to grade my predictions first, or to lay out the energy stories first — because I normally do both stories at the end of the year, and something could potentially happen right at the end of the year that might change the narrative. For example, I might do the top energy stories this week, but what if something monumental happens in the next two weeks? The other option is of course to wait until after the first of the year, but then that delays my predictions.
This year, however, there isn’t much of a dilemma on which story to do first. I can grade my 2014 predictions at this point with a high level of confidence. CONTINUE»
The latest news in the declining oil price saga comes from Saudi Arabia. Last week softening prices of Brent crude oil, the global benchmark, appeared to be resulting from weaker growth prospects in Europe and Asia. This week, according to a Reuters exclusive, the Saudis suggested that market share is preferable to them over the higher prices that other OPEC members such as Venezuela prefer. However, senior Saudi officials would not comment on this market share agenda that was reported as a result of last weeks investor and analyst meetings in New York, where Reuters obtained their information. It is also hypothesized that the Saudi trial balloons could be a vehicle to help other OPEC members see the wisdom in all members sharing in production cuts to shore up prices, not just the Saudis, which is par for the course.
By the November 27th meeting, more clarity from OPEC is expected. Concerns about U.S. oil supply growth with the potential for glut have been on the radar of numerous analysts for over a year. The prices of Brent crude and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) have fallen in tandem in the last few months. WTI dropped to $85 Friday October 10; January WTI futures fell $5.03 since Sept. 30 to $84.73 a barrel today on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) noted October 8:
The price of North Sea Brent crude oil,[the global benchmark], has fallen to around $91 per barrel, the lowest level in more than two years and about 21% lower than its year-to-date peak of $115 per barrel on June 19. Average monthly Brent spot prices had traded within a narrow $5 per barrel range, from $107 to $112 per barrel, for 13 consecutive months through July 2014.
Saudi Arabia, the OPEC producer with the most influence, has made adjustments to production and pricing. Saudi Arabia cut its crude production by about 400,000 barrels a day in August. This reduction was tied to lower exports to Asian markets. OPEC said it had reduced estimated demand for its crude by 200,000 barrels a day for 2015. The EIA curbed its forecasts for OPEC oil and other liquid fuels production to 35.51 million barrels a day in 2015, down 350,000 bpd from last month’s forecast. For crude oil output alone the EIA cut its forecast by 300,000 bpd to 29.24 million bpd. In September, OPEC pumped nearly 31 million bpd. The EIA projects that Brent crude oil prices will average $98 a barrel in the fourth-quarter of 2014. Brent traded around $88 as of early afternoon October 13th.
Risks, Rewards, and Soft Power
In oil markets, the year 2014 already looks to repeat 2013 with some important differences. Unpredictability in the commodities’ extraction and delivery, political risk, and policy risk may play a bigger role in 2014. The potential lifting of the crude oil export ban, which the industry and some lawmakers desire, may also stir up the market.
On the policy front, safety and methods of transporting oil and water disposal issues arose in 2013, and will likely again in 2014. The second rail disaster from transporting oil from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale, the Lac-Mégantic, Quebec incident with loss of life and the December 30th Casselton derailment, renewed the debate between pipelines versus rail transportation. The director of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources “predicted that as much as 90 percent of crude produced in the Bakken this year will move by rail” a recent article noted. In Parker County, Texas, the Texas Railroad Commission listened to residents’ complaints about earthquakes, which they attribute to disposal wells. The US Geological Survey sees a link between the earthquakes and wastewater disposal; a similar renewal in earthquake activity is reported in Oklahoma as well. CONTINUE»
More Supply, Competition and Friction Possible
News of Iran’s potential slow ramp up of oil supply resounded with a downward small ping in prices in late November, later to bounce back based on supply realities and economic growth. Iraqi oil supply keeps increasing, averaging about 3 million barrels per day, a new high in the last 20 years. Iraq plans to keep pumping — growing production 500,000 – 750,000 barrels more per day in 2014. Iraq’s output relative to OPEC production hovers near 10%, from around 7.5% in 2008. Iran’s contribution to OPEC production was around 12% in 2008, dropping in 2013 to 8.6%, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article.
“Al Arab Yantafiq lam yantafique,” said Mr. Charles Kestenbaum, a top Middle East expert and former U.S. Trade Specialist, in a November 25th interview, immediately following the news of Iran’s nuclear deal. This Arabic expression is translated as: ”Arabs can only agree to disagree.” In late November, the Dallas Committee on Foreign Relations hosted Charles Kestenbaum, a veteran of Middle East affairs since the mid-1970s. In his quote, a common expression, lies the challenges ahead in the Middle East.
Forty Years After
In October 1973 the United States and other Western countries experienced a new phenomenon: an embargo on oil deliveries from a group of the world’s largest oil exporters, imposed in response to our military support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War then underway. Last week I attended a session in Washington hosted by the US Energy Security Council commemorating these events. It included a fascinating conversation between Ted Koppel and Dr. James Schlesinger, US Secretary of Defense at the time of the embargo and later the first US Energy Secretary.
The other, related purpose of the meeting was a presentation and discussion proposing that fuel competition provides a surer means of achieving energy security than our pursuit of energy independence for the next four decades following the Arab Oil Embargo. This idea warrants serious consideration, since energy independence, at least in the sense of no net imports from outside North America, is beginning to appear achievable.