Display:
because you bought the fuel anyway regardless of the price.  Until there is true price elasticity, the market can bid up oil and just hand it off to the ultimate consumer with no risk of loss.

There's a small surplus available, but the Saudis are not going to produce bbls just to sell down the market.  Nor are the Iranians.  Who would?  Everyone else is wide open and stocks are not building

The WTI market is flat to contango (<.8% for 6 months) into winter.  That says a well balanced mkt to me.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 05:31:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
maxed out on their light grades which do have some possibility of substituting for the light sweet grades that could be used to sell down WTI and Brent.  Nigeria's political mess is a huge impact on the light sweet market.  Their shut in production is bigger than either the BFO production or WTI.  And this oil could be slotted into the currently idled US refinery capacity profitably.
by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 05:37:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
HiD:
the market can bid up oil and just hand it off to the ultimate consumer with no risk of loss.

Hang on.

Who is "the market" here?

You are making my point that it is not the consumers but the intermediaries (who are implicitly "the market" you refer to) who are "bidding up" (aka "acceptable manipulation" ?) the market to max out their profits.

I know that's the way that a market run by intermediaries for intermediaries is, but I don't believe - particularly in a Peer to Peer era - it's the way the market needs to be...

It's only a cartel of consumers can fix the problem, of course.

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 05:52:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Chris, there's only so much oil to go around.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 05:57:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru. I know that.

And HiD is saying - as I read him - that while there may be a shortage of sweet crudes (which can be refined profitably), there is no general shortage of crudes.

So why is the crude price this high? Because producers AND intermediaries have an interest in it being "bid up", that's why.

Is it consumers "bidding it up"? You tell me.

If it were the case that the major oil Corporations which produce and refine oil were service providers (getting a proportional fee or service charge) - rather than elements in a supply chain of transactions - then the market would look rather different.

Indeed, I think that the market is trending in the direction of service provision anyway as producers become more and more reluctant to sell "Equity" in their production.

Moreover, the short termism inherent in the financing system has starved the market of necessary investment - particularly in refining, which is where the bottlenecks are.

 

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:21:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The refining industry spent billions gearing up for low sulfur products in th e 90's.  They just didn't invest in a great chunk of surplus capacity like they did in the late 70's early 80's (by mistake) killing their profitability for nearly 20 years.  World refining capacity has steadily grown.  Just not quite as fast as demand.

Even now there are dozens of projects on the books with US refiners struggling to make a profit.  Are they obligated to build as much capacity as is required to keep margins at bare minimum so you can have cheap fuel?  ho ho ho, pull the other one.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:36:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If they haven't overinvested in refining capacity, why are crack spreads so low?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 07:08:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
demand is flat to down in the US on gasoline.  My gut is the rest of the world is maxing diesel and dumping the byproduct gasoline in the US market.  Gas cracks are bad.  Diesel cracks are huge.
by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:28:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course the oil industry is not a short term industry.

The short termism is that of the financial sector and the levels of returns demanded by the "private" sector for investment.

Refineries, pipelines, storage and other similar infrastructure are essentially utilities, as are airlines in many areas.

If push comes to shove and they all go bust, do you see governments not stepping in?

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 07:32:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, refineries are not utilities though if you'd offered them PUC regulation with guaranteed margins and cover on their stranded assets about 1990, many would have jumped at it.  They were getting crushed with nil return on investment and regulatory demands to invest billions in clean fuels.

That's a problem with the thinking of some on the left.  They believe refiners should just be there to cover their needs without recognizing there's a two way street implicit in that bargain.  You can't have cheap and steady.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:31:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The final consumer doesn't "bid" on price but on volume. Given a price, he decides how much to buy.

The price is "offered" by the distributors of refined products.

The distributors buy from refiners (unless they are vertically integrated, but still, if the market price is high enough you may decide to sell your refined products wholesale rather than distribute them yourself). So you can say that there is bidding amond distributors to buy from the refiners.

The refiners bid among themselves for crude. We're told the refiners' high bid for  Arab Heavy is lower than Saudi Arabia's asking price. This means that the refiners don't feel they can raise their asking price for refined products, which means that there isn't an unreasonable profit margin being made between refiners and distributors.

So, where are the profit margins? It appears the profit margins are mostly going to the producers.

OPEC can no longer push prices downward by increasing production, but they can push prices higher by withwolding it. They appear to be doing just that with Arab Heavy: asking for a price the refiners won't bear because the market for refined products also won't bear the resulting retail price.

Now, unlike in the 1970's when OPEC's stated reason to withhold production was political (the Yom Kippur war), in this instance the reason is economic. And who can fault them? If they know their balck gold is running out they should husband it, not sell it cheap to Whitey.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:41:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
This means that the refiners don't feel they can raise their asking price for refined products, which means that there isn't an unreasonable profit margin being made between refiners and distributors.
Well, maybe that means they are already fleecing the distributors, but since HiD claims refiners are not making a lot of money (and Starvid brings up the "narrow crack spreads"), it would seem the refiners' margins are in fact not huge.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:43:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
More like infinitesmal.

Check the development of the shares of the two big refiners Tesoro and Valero.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 11:03:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't cry too much for them.  And their situation is very different from an Asian refiner designed for max diesel.

NYMEX heat   July 3.8, Dec 3.95/gallon
NYMEX gas    July 3.45 Dec 3.3/gallon
WTI             136.8      137.1/bbl

Heat cracks are    $23/bbl prompt and $29 for winter.  That's plenty!  
gas is lower    $8/ $1.5

That's the problem for US refiners designed for max mogas like Valero and Tesoro.        

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Eh, I should have known...

The people at the Preem/Scanraff in Lysekil invested huge $$$ in equipment to turn Russian heavy/sour into sulfur-free diesel. They are swimming in money now.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 10:49:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ChrisCook:
Moreover, the short termism inherent in the financing system has starved the market of necessary investment - particularly in refining, which is where the bottlenecks are.
Suppose you want to build a refinery for heavy, sour crudes.

How much would that cost, how long would it take to build, and what would be its lifetime?

Suppose, also, that you believe in the current price climate a lot of the demand for liquid fuels is going to shift to electricity from other sources on a scale of 5 to 10 years.

It might be that it doesn't make sense to invest in a heavy sour refinery because by the time you'd expect to be recouping your investment, the demand for the refined product just isn't there. We may not be in that situation yet, but it's a scenario I'd like to see developed, because it might mean that the underinvestment in heavy sour refining capacity in the 1980's/90's might be an irreversible, frozen historical accident.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:53:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
bingo

US refiners still remember a decade+ of pain from the wild eyed expansions of the late 70's/early 80s.  Yet there are still billions of dollars of projects in the works.  Conoco even has ads on TV bragging about doubling the size of their already large Lake Charles refinery.

I'd guess a modern 250 MBD refinery is at least $5 billion bucks.  Would take you 3-5 years from getting permits to go to have it up and running.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:26:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ChrisCook:

while there may be a shortage of sweet crudes (which can be refined profitably), there is no general shortage of crudes.

So why is the crude price this high? Because producers AND intermediaries have an interest in it being "bid up", that's why.

The light, sweet crude is expensive because there's a shortage of it, and heavy sour crudes can't be refined profitably so the fact that they're not scarce is irrelevant.

It might be profitable to refine it if you were willing to pay even more for your heating oil...

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:56:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are part of the market.  They establish a price and you pay it.  They offer higher, you pay it.  They offer still higher, you pay it.  

WHEN DO YOU STOP and stick them with the oil?

Buy an electric heater or a heat pump!  That costs even more?  Then keep paying whatever they want for the oil.
The intermediaries can only sell oil in a circle for so long.  At some point a real buyer has to appear to actually use the damn stuff.  And they do.  And keep paying with only a modicum of whining.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:31:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Francois in Paris has argued that $140/bbl is already expensive enough that alternative energy infrastructure is economical... The problem is the capital investment needed. So, if it would take 10 years for the private vehicle fleet to switch to electric, we can expect 10 years of overpriced oil. Same for home heating. But that doesn't mean speculation is responsible for the overpricing. It does mean there is money to be made speculating in a market that will stay tight for at least 5 years.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:46:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So who's the player with the short sighted lack of investment now?

I hear your point and I expect oil will wave down in the next 3-5 years as investment in alternatives and conservation kick in.  However, with 1 billion Chinese and another billion Indians still living in 1750 for all intents, there's so much room to grow oil may never really retrace.

agree 100%.  Speculation has had input in making the price move much faster to where it was going anyway.  Always money to be made in reading the tea leaves and making the market move on YOUR timetable.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:13:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I completely agree that there's no reason to expect oil prices to go down even if Western demand switches to renewables because of 1) strong demand from China and India; 2) likely post-peak fossil carbon production.

But there's no fundamental reason for the price to be higher than $150 - it might stabilize at that level on the argument that at that level alternative energy infrastructure becomes profitable.

2 years abowe $100 and the long-term expectations will set in and change the game.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 04:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm afraid they're going to have to go even higher, and for a longer period, to set expectations.  Right now, people are still fully expecting prices to go back down eventually.  Prices are fighting against decades of stupidity here.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 07:39:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you only need 2 years of 5-year oil futures above $100 to change business expectations, and that's what really matters for new investment in physical plant (since we are so well schooled in the principles of classical economics that we don't allow the State to do the investment).

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 07:44:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wind power needs 15 years of prices higher than a certain threshhold to be profitable - so, unless you have specific incentives, you need the certainty that oil prices will be above, say, 80$/bl for the next 15 years ,not just 5, to invest. High likelihood is not enough in that case, because if it drops below you riks losing your project to the banks.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 08:03:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
markets are us they have no clue where oil will go:



In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 08:05:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How much above $80 do they need to be for 15 years? There are too dimensions here, premium and time.

For instance, suppose the break-even price is $50, so $80 for 15 years is $30 over break-even for 15 years. Could you get away with $90 over the threshold for 5 years? That would be $140 for 5 years, which you can now perfectly hedge in the forward market.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 08:20:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
but electricity prices follow gas prices with a lag, and gas prices follow oil prices with a lag (and with quite independent short term variations).

And as wind grows, it pulls marginal prices down, thus threatening its own viability. Thus, as I noted before, it's likely that wind will need feed-in tariffs even as fuel prices are very high...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 04:08:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, as a matter of pure Keynesian trade policy, it is only common sense to pull wind off the margin and into the baseline.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 06:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
HiD:
WHEN DO YOU STOP and stick them with the oil?

You stop when you can no longer afford it, or it becomes "economic" to do something else.

In my case it would be to get the rent reduced (unlikely - but exactly the same dynamics of "rent maximisation" apply), or go and live somewhere else with lower heating costs.

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 07:15:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Or you could start a buyer cartel. If you could make your cartel big enough - good luck with that, although it's a nice idea - you could move up to the intermediary stage and start having an effect on prices.

The 'consumers decide the market' bullshit is intellectually offensive. In almost every case that matters, markets are inherently assymetrical. Consumers have a choice to pay, or not pay, but they have no ability to negotiate prices directly, or to push for infrastructure alternatives.

And this is exactly how 'the markets' like it. Real consumer leverage is their worst nightmare, and they'll do almost anything to make sure it doesn't happen.

You could argue that wouldn't make a difference here, because in the case of a demand strike, the producers could always afford to sit it out, because they have an effective monopoly on an essential resource.

Which is true - but since OPEC isn't a monolith, it's hard to imagine that some suppliers might not decide to cut profits in return for sales, and prices would drift downwards.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 07:31:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... the default market in the marginalist economics tradition is the competitive auction market, so a competitive auction market can be assumed by default in a discussion without requiring a defense, but any other market requires defense.

Almost no product markets are competitive auction markets ... on the one hand, most competitive markets monopolistically competitive fixprice markets, not standardized product competitive flexprice markets ... and on the other hand, the largest value added in the economy is sold into oligopolistic markets.

So if the default was "normal", it would be an oligopolistic fixprice market, and to treat a market as a competitive auction market, you would have to justify that it does, in fact, differ from the norm in those specific ways.

OTOH, with a competitive auction market, Marginal Costs add up to a Supply Curve that is, by virtue of the infinite elasticity of firm demand, independent of market demand ... so you can talk about demand shifts and supply shifts and pretend that they can be independent things, where in 95%+ of all markets in the world, any change in demand elasticity a shift in the traditional Marshallian supply schedule, and a supply shift to a different part of the demand schedule with a different elasticity implies a further shift in supply.

So the default case is what's easiest to talk about with the traditional toolkit, not what's normal.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:48:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's look at this:
the default case is what's easiest to talk about with the traditional toolkit, not what's normal.
the default market in the marginalist economics tradition is the competitive auction market, so a competitive auction market can be assumed by default in a discussion without requiring a defense, but any other market requires defense.
Garbage in, garbage out.

However, this explains why economists attempt to convince politicians to turn everything into competitive auction markets. Energy liberalisation, emissions trading, anyone?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:51:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, as far as I can work out, emissions trading was invented by Goldman Sachs as a new market for them to skim commission off...
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 11:24:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actual emissions trading, perhaps, but the theoretical concept has been in the literature for a while ... while the purpose of the marginalist economic tradition in the hands of your Goldman Sach's of the world is mostly to rationalize a public benefit for the accumulation of wealth, if it can be used to give posh sounding cover for a new financial product, that's good too.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 01:08:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
most of OPEC cannot stand up to a buyer's strike and I disagree that consumers don't have a choice.

The quickest way to half the cost of oil is to use half as much.  Lose the big car, insulate your house.  Get a heat pump.  Car pool.

Of course Joe Blogs can't negotiate with Saudi Aramco, but he can stop feeding demand into the system.

by HiD on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 06:15:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course Joe Blogs can't negotiate with Saudi Aramco, but he can stop feeding demand into the system.

Reminds me of what Mexicans say about cocaine, heroine and marijuana-toking Americans.

... all progress depends on the unreasonable mensch.
(apologies to G.B. Shaw)

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:09:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and they're right.  No demand, no supply.
by HiD on Tue Jun 24th, 2008 at 02:13:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Clipping the wings of a judge
by Migeru - Feb 10
18 comments

Hunger March wins PR battle
by DoDo - Feb 9
2 comments

Romania: protests change government
by DoDo - Feb 8
6 comments

Murdoch - Outsourcing and Hubris
by ceebs - Feb 3
18 comments

Obama wins GOP Primaries (to date)
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 8
8 comments

Bristol Pound
by ChrisCook - Feb 7
14 comments

Strange Fruit
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 4
14 comments

The Imitation Of Germany
by afew - Feb 4
31 comments

Recent Diaries
Sarkozy: Enemies Ahoy!
by afew - Feb 10
3 comments

Clipping the wings of a judge
by Migeru - Feb 10
18 comments

LQD: Unsustainable irrigation
by Melanchthon - Feb 9

Hunger March wins PR battle
by DoDo - Feb 9
2 comments

Obama wins GOP Primaries (to date)
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 8
8 comments

Romania: protests change government
by DoDo - Feb 8
6 comments

Answers to the Renewable Energy Consultation
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 7

Bristol Pound
by ChrisCook - Feb 7
14 comments

The Imitation Of Germany
by afew - Feb 4
31 comments

Strange Fruit
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 4
14 comments

Murdoch - Outsourcing and Hubris
by ceebs - Feb 3
18 comments

Mismatch with the Natural Gas Market
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 3
22 comments

The Future of Economics
by ARGeezer - Feb 2
191 comments

Desert Island Discs - Helen's distortions
by Helen - Jan 31
48 comments

Gorila
by DoDo - Jan 29
14 comments

Rail News Blogging #7
by DoDo - Jan 29
15 comments

Obama's State Of The Union: LQD
by Crazy Horse - Jan 25
74 comments

Democracy Technology
by gmoke - Jan 24
1 comment

The Hydrogen dream
by Luis de Sousa - Jan 24
49 comments

ET Paris Meet-Up 2012 (2 UPDATE)
by afew - Jan 23
113 comments

More Diaries...
Occasional Series