Looks like net demand is slowly using up Saudi excess capacity.
But there’s a long way to go.

No telling when they might alter prices- it’s a political decision on their part.

I looked into the North Dakota State Bank and didn’t see any reason that would make much of a difference, so I check out their ‘export’ industries:

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/DailyProdPrice.pdf

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/gasprodsoldchart.pdf

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/DrillStats.pdf

all found here:

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/

And all with under 500,000 people.

With the saudis setting price and letting quantity adjust looks like net demand isn’t going anywhere

Europe got by the ‘rollover event’ without drama.

German unemployment down a tad and muddling through.

Euro solvency issues (slowly) fading with ECB in control?

OPEC June Crude Output Down 157,000 Bbl/Day to 29.23 Mln

I agree the guilty need to be identified and punished, but that doesn’t stop with those responsible at BP, their suppliers and contractors, or the regulators who failed us. It runs much deeper, extending to our failed political process.

The financial crisis is analogous. The criminals need to be tracked down and prosecuted, as Bill Black did in after the savings and loan crisis. But the financial architecture/institutional structure that set it all up is at least equally at fault, as is the political process that created that institutional structure, as per my response to Roger.

I do think costs and losses should be paid for by BP, even if that means insolvency proceedings and 100% losses to shareholders and creditors.

I consider this a no bailout zone.

And any drop in aggregate demand/increase in unemployment should be ‘offset’ with whatever size tax cut and/or revenue sharing is necessary to sustain full employment.

And adding to Rogers idea again, my proposal for an $8/hr job for anyone willing and able to work should include those jobs for anyone wanting to join in the clean up efforts. (Not to say that clean up efforts should be limited to those workers.)

Punish BP or . . . ?

By Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Those rotten scoundrels have ruined our oceans and our shores. They should pay not only for the cleanup, not only for the jobs lost because of the pollution, not only for the damage, but they even should pay for jobs lost because of President Obama’s decision to stop deep-water drilling. BP should pay, pay, pay until they bleed, then pay some more. These people must be held accountable.

Phew! Now I feel better.

But, wait. What is BP? It’s a legal description, nothing more than words on a piece of paper. It has no physical existence. You can’t punish BP any more than you can punish a law or a page of sheet music. BP, as a legal entity, neither caused, nor can cure, the oil spill. That disaster was caused by people, and it is people, not a piece of paper, who must be held accountable.

So the question becomes, which people should be punished? BP has a huge number of employees, the vast majority of whom had nothing to do with the oil spill. It has a huge number of innocent shareholders, a huge number of innocent suppliers, a huge number of innocent oil users. In some ways, you and I are part of BP, because as users of oil and oil-related products (i.e. all products) we are affected by what its employees do.

Which of those people should be “held accountable”? What if holding all of BP “accountable” means thousands of innocent people will be fired, or innocent suppliers will be put out of business, or all of us will have to pay more for our oil and gas, or all of us who hold BP stock, either directly or as part of a fund, will lose? What if punishing BP has an adverse effect on the whole economy. Is that wise?

Somewhere between vengeance and economic reality lies the answer. Punishing BP, as a company, punishes all of us who already are suffering from the gusher. And though widespread vengeance may feel good, there is a “cut-nose-spite-face” aspect to be considered. So, what can be done to help prevent a repeat?

First, let’s identify the people specifically responsible. Certain BP employees. Certain employees of BP suppliers. The guys who mixed and poured the rotten cement that didn’t hold.

And, with all the focus on BP, let’s not forget those government employees who failed equally. I’m talking about the people who, after having been bribed with nice gifts, so readily approved all of BP’s actions.

Yes, we should fine, fire, even jail all the responsible individuals. That would help prevent future problems. Of course, that doesn’t pay for all the efforts to cure the situation nor for all the losses. Who should pay the billions for that?

If you really care about the economy, and are not just flailing out in retribution, you would agree the economically wise approach would be for the federal government to pay. That way, the guilty would be punished, the innocent spared and the economy stimulated.

Government pays = people benefit. BP pays = people pay.

So what’s your choice: Vengeance or money in your pocket?

warren mosler says:
June 15, 2010 at 7:15 am

Well stated!

And we do know we all are responsible.

Our government regulators failed us much the same way they failed us in the financial crisis.

We have failed to create the alternative transportation (including user friendly public transportation, alternative fuels, incentives to reduce our travel needs, etc.) that could cut our use of crude oil by 50% or more, removing the need and incentives for what we know is dangerous offshore drilling.

We should know that the strategy of rushing to use up our domestic oil as soon as we discover it, rather than saving it for later when the rest of the world has used up theirs, is not in the best long term interest of our children and grand children.

We have elected representatives at all levels based on most everything but the wisdom of proposed agendas, often due to incentives we allow to remain in place regarding campaign finance, the power of special interests, and the incentives in place for our two party system to deliver candidates on criteria unrelated to their capabilities to provide the leadership on these critical issues.

Don’t get me started!

Thanks!

OPEC (and mainly the Saudis) is the only entity with excess capacity, so it is necessarily price setter. Specifically, they post prices to their refiners and who order all they want at that price. They don’t sell in the spot markets. See highlighted text below. ‘Balancing supply and demand’ is price setting.

The higher prices, particularly in euro, are functioning as a drag on the oil importing economies and also starting to show up in their inflation reports, complicating the decision process of the world’s central bankers. The combination of low aggregate demand and cost push price pressures is always problematic with regards to interest rate policy.

Urals Discount Widens as Russia Boosts Output: Energy Markets

By Christian Schmollinger

May 4 (Bloomberg) — Russian and Mexican oil is trading at growing discounts to U.S. and U.K. crude benchmarks as production by nations outside OPEC reaches a record.

Russia’s Urals for loading in the Mediterranean trades at $2.22 a barrel less than Britain’s Brent crude, compared with a premium of 3 cents a barrel on July 24. The discount between Mexico’s Maya grade and West Texas Intermediate was at $10.82 a barrel on April 30, near the widest in 17 months.

Rising output from Russia and Mexico will push non-OPEC supplies up 1 percent this year to an average 52 million barrels a day, according to the International Energy Agency. At the same time, quota violations among members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries means global production will increase at a time when the need for oil is diminishing.

“Inventories are growing and non-OPEC supply is expanding and OPEC continues to leak,” said Victor Shum, a senior principal at consultants Purvin & Gertz Inc. in Singapore. “Market bulls should be concerned about the supply overhang.”

The U.S., Mexico, China and Russia have been responsible for most of the growth, boosting output for the past five consecutive quarters, according to an April 27 research note by Barclays Capital. Non-OPEC production reached a record high 49.6 million barrels a day in March, according to data from Energy Intelligence Group.
OPEC Less Needed

The IEA lowered its demand estimate for OPEC, which produces 40 percent of the world’s oil, by 200,000 barrels day to an average of 28.8 million barrels a day to balance supply and demand. The group currently pumps 29.2 million a day, according to Bloomberg data.

OPEC’s spare capacity levels have ballooned to 5.645 million barrels a day in April after falling as low as 2 million in July 2008, when crude hit a record $147.27. The group can produce a total of 34.84 million a day and may add 12 million barrels by 2015 by opening 140 new projects, Secretary- General Abdalla El-Badri said in February.

Russia, the world’s largest oil producer, pumped 10.14 million barrels a day in March, a post-Soviet Union high, according to official data. Mexico exported 1.33 million a day in March, the highest since January 2009, according to data from Petroleos Mexicanos.

U.S. production surged during 2009 and into this year as output returned from post-Hurricane Ike shut-ins in September 2008. The country has pumped an average of 4.482 million barrels a day in the first four months of 2010, up 6.6 percent from the average in 2006 and 2007.

Price Pressure

“If the positive momentum carries into the rest of 2010 and starts filtering through non-OPEC output views for 2011, this could result in a more significant source of downward price pressure along the curve,” said Barclays Capital analyst Costanza Jacazio in the note.

Crude oil for June delivery was at $85.94 a barrel at 10:28 a.m. Singapore time in after-hours electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, retreating from yesterday’s intraday peak of $87.15, the highest since Oct. 9, 2008.

“The pricing has been driven by the expectations of a tighter market over the long-term and the market has put aside the near-term supply overhang,” said Purvin & Gertz’s Shum.
The non-OPEC “momentum raises the crucial question of whether or not it is sustainable,” said Barclays. “If it fades quickly, as we expect, this will likely have limited implications for oil balances and prices, as OPEC stands in a position to handle a short-term rise in non-OPEC output by simply postponing any further increase in volumes.”

Cost push inflation coming in via the fx window?

With supply following demand, as with any monopolistic arena, it looks like the world crude oil balance remains very much neutral leaving the Saudis in full control as swing producer where they set prices and let quantity adjust to market demand.

Stable crude prices with 0 interest rates, high excess capacity and low aggregate demand should keep inflation at bay indefinitely, with productivity increases making deflation the greater risk.

[Skip to the end]

A modest rise in consumption for next year means the Saudis/OPEC remain firmly in control of price.

Global oil consumption is likely to average 86.1 million barrels a day in 2010, the IEA said in an Oct. 9 monthly report, raising next year’s forecast for a third consecutive month. The agency expects demand of 84.6 million barrels a day this year. The IEA’s next monthly report will be issued on Nov. 12.

It will be up to members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to satisfy the bulk of the world’s increasing need for oil as conventional production in countries outside the group peaks next year, the IEA said.

“Most of the increase in output would need to come from OPEC countries, which hold the bulk of remaining recoverable conventional oil resources,” the agency said in the report.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

No signs of a recovery here yet.

Yes, there’s conservation, efficiency gains, and some substitution but a lot of it is people driving to work.

[top]

The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College
Public Policy Brief
No. 103, 2009

FINANCIAL AND MONETARY ISSUES
AS THE CRISIS UNFOLDS
James K. Galbraith

Beginning page 9:

Warren Mosler picked up on the theme of human resource
utilization and full employment in a particularly useful way.
Mosler suggested that stabilization of employment and prices is
akin to a buffer stock—something to which surpluses can be
added when demand is low, and drawn down when it is high.
Normally, a buffer stock works on a price signal: the authorities
agree to buy when market prices are below the buffer and to sell
when they are above. In this way, prices stabilize at the buffer
price. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is potentially a good
example, though political decisions have prevented it from being
used as it should be.

The problem with most commodity buffers is elasticity of
supply: create a buffer stock in wool, and suddenly it pays to raise
sheep. But this problem is cured if the buffer stock is human
labor, which cannot be reproduced quickly. A program that provides
a public job at a fixed wage for all takers functions exactly
like a buffer stock, stabilizing both total employment and the
bottom tier of the wage structure. People can move in and out of
the buffer as private demand for their services varies. Meanwhile,
the work done in the buffer—the fact that people are working
rather than receiving unemployment insurance—helps keep the
buffer “fresh.” Private employers like hiring those who already
work, and will prefer hiring from the federal jobs program rather
than from among those who remain unemployed.

The point is: the problem of unemployment is easily cured,
without threat of inflation. It is merely sufficient to provide jobs,
at a fixed wage, to whoever wants them, and to organize work
that needs to be done. Such work should be socially useful and
environmentally low impact: from child care to teaching and
research, to elder care to conservation to arts and culture. Where
possible, it should contribute to global public and knowledge
goods. It should compete as little as possible with work normally
done in the private sector; for instance, by serving those who
cannot afford private sector provision of teaching and care. The
point is not to socialize the economy but to expand the range of
useful activity, so that what needs doing in society actually gets
done. The barrier to all this is simply a matter of politics and
organization, not of money.

The effect, nevertheless, would be to raise all private sector
wages to the buffer-stock minimum (say, $8/hour in the United
States), while eliminating the reserve of unemployed used to
depress wages in low-skilled private sector industries. There will
be no pressure to raise wages above the buffer threshold, since private
employers providing higher wages can draw on an indefinitely
large workforce willing, for the most part, to move from the
buffer to the private sector in return for those wages. Hence, the
program is not inflationary. There is therefore no excuse for waiting
a year or two years on the assumption that unemployment
will cure itself, and every reason to believe that at the end of such
a policy of “hopeful waiting,” the discovery will be made that the
problem has not been cured.

[Skip to the end]

This chart shows demand for gasoline is still down year over year, even with substantially lower prices.

It is also another indication of the ’soft spot’ in demand that may have hit a couple of months ago.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Looks like the temporary storage is moving into likely cheaper land based storage.

And much is probably already sold forward into the contango, as forward buying causes spreads to widen to the point where someone buys it spot and sells it forward for enough of a markup to cover storage costs and provide a desired return on capital.

By setting price and letting quantity pumped adjust, the Saudis/OPEC provide an incentive not to store crude and over time that policy should cause the contango to move to backwardation.

On the other side, passive commodity strategies by investors do the reverse, so at the moment it looks like they are in control.

There is a kind of oceanic traffic jam out there among very large crude carriers (VLCCs), with something like 7% (according to Lloyd’s) of them storing crude oil off the coast of Europe, Asia, or North America in anticipation of higher prices later this year. Such are the joys of contango — higher forward prices making it profitable to store petroleum for future sale — but it is a huge gamble. If the people contracting for such VLCCs are wrong, their carrying costs mount and it becomes likely that they just dumb the product on the markets, further depressing prices.

Check the following figure (from EA Gibson) of the current storage situation for both petroleum and clean products, like gasoil:. While crude sea storage has declined from its peak earlier this year, clean products are floating out there is ever larger amounts.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

With any kind of meaningful recovery the saudis will be able to increase price substantially without fear of demand falling off.

Right now they are just setting the hook.
Letting the world economies stabilize and financial markets recover before making their next move, while no conservation efforts of consequence are being put in place by the consumers.

DOEs: Industrial Demand Rises Above 2008!

We have been discussing the industrial demand for oil products as a leading indicator to identify signs for a recovery in Industrial Production. However, we were not as optimistic to think that demand would surge to surpass the prior years’ level of demand in the near-term. We were looking for signs of stabilization. So, this week, we highlight this point that reinforces our belief that U.S. oil demand appears to have bottomed and you should start to see more coincidental indicators of industrial demand.

Broadly speaking, Total Product demand in the U.S. continues to rebound and has risen to 19.287 Mbpd from the trough of 17.697 Mbpd at the end of May ‘09. Inventory levels continue to be an overhang and much attention is being paid to stocks at Cushing that remain lofty. However, we are demand focused and see continued and substantial improvement. In addition, year-over-year comparisons will be favorable into the later part of 3Q09.

For Industrial demand for oil products, we use residual, asphalt, propane, propylene, waxes, still gas, etc. We believe that these are “leading” and should be closely watched as the industry goes thru a period of restocking. The next data points we believe investors should see in coming months are increases in power generation and also increases in distillate demand. Both of which are “coincidental” indicators of demand in our opinion.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Looks like the Saudis are back in the driver’s seat regarding price.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Today’s news- rising oil/declining dollar means costs of materials and replacement costs rising.

The only inflation risk comes with rising oil costs which are back up over 71 dollars this am, up from low 60’s last week.

Rising consumption overseas in general seems to be driving up prices here as we compete with a billion new consumers for scarce resources.

Commercial Real Estate – Make Up Your Own Mind

By Malay Bansal

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Looks like we are leveling off around unchanged year over year.

Consumption started falling off after GDP went negative in the second half of 08 so the year over year comps should show higher consumption for the second half of 09.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Looks like demand is steady at current prices which seem to be where they currently want prices to be.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   Warren, Seems like we’ve seen a tiny repeat of what happened during
>   the ( Mosler coined) Mike Masters inventory liquidation last summer.
>   That is, crude oil drops and takes everything else down with it all driven
>   by the fear of increased scrutiny regulation on commodity speculation.
>   Do you agree? NY Times article a few days ago.
>   

Yes, also the fact that it’s done it for the last few years about this time gets the specs going in that direction as well. If there’s nothing ‘fundamental’ going on this year it could quickly reverse as Saudis hold price and let quantity adjust.

Also, lower crude makes dollars harder to get overseas (our oil bill goes down) which tends to firm up the dollar.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

Yes, as previously discussed, announcing a term structure of Fed funds levels would be far more effective in bringing rates down than securities purchases.

But that closes the door to rate hikes for that period of time, which is exactly what markets discount with the current term rate structure.

Especially with crude and commodities going up and the dollar going down, as markets discount that at some point the Fed will react to that ‘imported inflation’ with rate hikes.

Meanwhile the current ‘mercantalist’ Fed is fine with a lower dollar hoping it will help the US export its way to trend GDP growth rather than get there by domestic debt and consumption. Or at least reduce the marginal propensity to import that they fear could drain demand and abort the recovery. Unfortunately the preference for exports over domestic consumption translates to a lower standard of living via a reduction in real terms of trade.

That’s what was happening last year about this time when the great Mike Masters inventory liquidation hit and it all went bad. This time around there isn’t any excess inventory to break prices and cap utilization/employment is way down and still falling some, and rest of world economies appear too weak to absorb substantial US exports.

And the Saudis are back in control of crude prices after a very surprisingly small fall in world consumption given the size and scope of the international slowdown.

BoE’s Barker says rates could stay low for “quite some time”

MPC member Kate Barker told the Leicester Mercury newspaper that there
remained question marks over the sustainability of the recovery and that
interest rates “could stay low for quite some time”. Ms Barker echoed
Paul Tucker’s comments yesterday in saying that it would take some
months yet for the MPC to judge how robust the turnaround in activity
was: “The really important question is (whether) there’s a pick up in
the economy and if people can sustain that so it continues on to autumn.
That would be one of the most encouraging signs,” she said.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

I’ve also hear reports that pension funds have been adding to passive commodity strategies:

The green shoots will grow slowly

by David Robertson

May 25 (Business 24/7) — By the middle of this month, copper prices were 60 per cent up on the start of the year and platinum was up by a third. The rebound has been driven by a conviction that these metals were oversold and as construction demand (copper) and automotive demand (platinum) pick up, the price of the metals will return to more sensible levels. However, I bring bad news. Industrial demand is not returning nearly as fast as the London Metal Exchange or London Stock Exchange would have us believe – and that means we are still some way off from seeing a return to the sort of growth levels achieved prior to 2008.

Two things are currently distorting metal prices: Chinese stockpiling and speculation. The Chinese have taken advantage of the low price of metals to fill their warehouses and this has been mistaken for a dramatic ramp up in “real” industrial demand. I have no doubt that Chinese demand from factories and construction companies has increased recently but at nothing like a rate that would support a 60 per cent surge in copper prices.

Speculation has also played a significant role in boosting prices as investors have piled into commodities, partly because they have been fooled by Chinese demand and partly because a lot of people are already thinking about where to stash their cash in the event of rampant inflation next year.

Last week Investec, the South African bank, highlighted the impact speculation was having on market-traded metals by focusing on commodities that are not easily traded. For example, ferrochrome, which is used to make stainless steel, actually fell 13 per cent in price between the first and second quarter of this year and it is off 63 per cent from its high at the end of last year. Manganese contract prices are off 70 per cent and the steel makers are pushing for a 45 per cent cut in iron ore contract prices.

There is no “hot money” in these commodities so they give us a better guide to real industrial demand – and clearly there is little to get excited about yet. As a result, I expect to see a repeat of last year’s oil bubble: everyone will shortly wake up and realise that the shoots are not quite as green as had been hoped and prices will fall back by 20 to 30 per cent (again).

[top]