Emac's Stock Watch | Fox Business
  • July 9, 2008 10:40 AM EDT by Elizabeth MacDonald

    Energy Independence: The Final Frontier

    The commodities markets are in a record bull run, and oil prices are bungee cording higher as a result. Oil prices have risen 42% since January, and gas prices are veering toward $5, some say $7, a gallon, in some parts of the country. 

    Energy independence is as vital as oxygen to the health of the US economy. Wind energy, solar energy, fuel efficient cars, (it took Congress 32 years to recently pass this bill), fuel cells, hydrogen power, all sorts of alternative energy must be at the forefront of government policy.

    The US can do it, this country and other nations have the technological know-how. The US however has shown an astonishing lack of courage and leadership in this regard. China has a top-level, focused energy policy--the US does not.

    Energy independence has been a problem that has been with the US for 40 years.

    Who said the following?

    "Our ability to meet our own energy needs is directly linked to our continued ability to act decisively and independently at home and abroad in the service of peace, not only for America, bur for all nations in the world."

    Answer: Richard Nixon. Amidst Watergate and the Viet Nam War, Nixon said we need a top-level government focus on energy independence equivalent to the US's program to put a man on the moon.

    Nixon also wanted more public funding to explore Alaskan oil and gas, offshore oil reserves, nuclear energy and synthetic fuels from coal and oil shale. The United States, Nixon said, should be independent of all oil producing countries, "including our Canadian friends," by 1976, saying that the United States must be independent in this area, and we can be." 

    That shows how long this problem has been with us. But the US has dithered instead.

    Supply and demand are the biggest problems behind high oil prices. As the oil pros have tried to drill through to those whose ears are consciously plugged against reality, supply and demand problems are the issue.  

    Of course speculators too are a force here behind oil price spikes. And they must be stopped. But if you see precise dollar price-tags bruited about that purport to show exactly how much in dollars per barrel can be blamed on speculators, run.

    Officials at the oil majors, at the New York Mercantile Exchange, at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have all said that no one who has looked at the matter can offer with any degree of certainty any specific dollar amount for how much speculators are to blame.

    However, there exists a way for Congress to stop speculators from whipsawing oil prices higher, now being debated in the corridors of the nation's capital.

    But before we get to what to do about the speculators, we must first turn to Iran, the state of supply and demand, and the weak US dollar.

    Oil is now careening around due to escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, notably due to Iran's missile firings, as some 40% of the world's oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz.

    But as Dennis Gartman of the must-read The Gartman Letter, which tracks commodities trading, notes, the popularity of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is falling, Iran's more moderate forces are rising, with the rise of the newly elected speaker of the Iranian parliament Ali Larijani.

    Gartman adds: "Iran knows it cannot withstand the full force of the US naval fleet in the region, and therefore will not take belligerent actions unless provoked. The military power that one aircraft carrier wing can effect is stunning, one carrier wing standing on its own is the equivalent of the world's third or fourth largest military advanced nation. Station two or three such in the gulf and the surrounding waters, the power is stunning. Iran's mullahs know that and they've no wish to provoke that power." 

    Amir Taheri, an Iranian-born journalist and author based in Europe who has zeroed in on Middle East affairs and Islamist terrorism, notes that once Iran believes a military attack is imminent, Tehran could back down, "in accordance with three UN Security Council resolutions." Gartman adds though that "the wild card in the region is Israel," and its reaction to Ahmadinejad's intent to "drive Israel into the sea."

    The last thing this country and the world needs is a fight with Iran. Pressure must be brought to bear to bring this dangerous saber rattling to a peaceful end.

    Now, the dollar. OPEC's president, one of the more thoughtful in that body's history, Chakib Khelil, recently noted supply and demand issues are the major factors, and also added that "we have to follow the evolution of the dollar because a 1% fall in the dollar means four dollars more on the price of oil," as oil is traded in dollars.

    Khelil is right, and as I've reported to you, David T. King, a former chief of the New York Federal Reserve's Industrial Economies Division, says that the recent oil spike coincides with the Federal Reserve's decision to open its  monetary spigots over the last five years, with the concurring collapse of the dollar exchange rate explaining at least half of the increase in the pump price of gas over that time.

    King says that the day that the barrel price of oil in dollars was exactly the same as in Euros was in 2002, when both were about 25. Since then oil priced in Euros has risen by 50 Euros in the past five and a half years. It now stands at around 80 Euros, more than triple what it was then.

    But check this out: in the US, the price of oil is hovering around $140, well more than five times what it was priced at in 2002, King says. Remember, in August 2007 oil was $70. The Fed gushed open the monetary taps to deal with the housing wreckage, and in turn the falling value of the dollar has caused the price of gasoline to soar. Just  the mere tough talk recently of a stronger dollar from the Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke helped ease oil prices.  

    Also there is a shortage of sweet crude oil, cheaper to refine into gas, and a surfeit of sour grades, more expensive to refine and usually only good as heating oil.

    That's why the oil futures markets, which trade light sweet oil, have been unimpressed by the floating storage of 30 mn barrels of Iranian heavy oil, as the Financial Times reports. While Saudi Arabia avows it will pump more oil, most of it is the sour stuff. And remember OPEC has manipulated oil prices in the past, as OPEC did back in 2000 when it adopted a policy of cutting production if oil prices dropped below $22 per barrel and raising production if it passed $28. 

    Refiners are paying up to $5-$6 a barrel on top of current record prices to secure high-grade oil, traders said, double the level of a year ago, the FT says.

    The mark-ups are four times higher than the 2000-2008 average. OPEC, for its part, says it plans to spend $160 bn over the next four years to increase production by 5 mn barrels a day. The world needs 11.3 mn barrels more a day by 2030, 22 years from now-50% more than the increased output over 26 years from 1980 to 2006.

    What matters is Nigeria, which pumps the Bonny light crude that's easier to refine into gasoline, now down to just 1.5 mn barrels a day, its lowest in 20 years, due to rebel attacks.

    With the world's oil supply cushion dwindling from 2.5 mn barrels a day to less than 1 mn after 2010, according to the think tank of the oil industry, the International Energy Agency in Paris, Nigeria's 2.9% share of the world's production of the 85 mn in annual crude matters greatly. Nigeria also produces 10% of the world's liquefied natural gas, crucial to Europe due to its erratic supply from Russia. Today the world consumes more than 86 mn barrels of oil daily. 

    Also, in preparation for the Olympics this summer, China is likely hoarding oil, gas diesel to prevent embarrassing shortages. And what doesn't help too is that forty-six countries reportedly subsidize fuel prices.

    What's also hurting oil prices is the fact that trustworthy, basic data is virtually nonexistent on crude oil demand, production, and inventories, including data on the availability of sweet vs. sour crude oil, usage and inventory data for Asia (particularly in China), extraction costs, and reserves (especially in Saudi Arabia).

    The IEA is working on a comprehensive analysis of the world's major oil fields, but it won't be out until later this year. Watch to see what the IEA gathers, as the Mideast is notorious for manipulating its oil data as to not be in violation of OPEC quotas. Watch too for information on the state of the Sauds' oil fields.

    Now on to the speculators in the oil futures market, speculators who are torquing the exceedingly vital price discovery mechanism that the futures market provides. They are doing so via swap trades, now annually in the tens of trillions of dollars.

    Notably, the commodities index funds that usually invest long in oil futures, or paper oil barrels via swaps. The problem here is the fact that the swaps bought by funds are used for trading purposes and not to hedge the price of oil, as the airlines do.  Swap trades are essentially speculative bets about where oil prices area headed.   

    The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is scrutinizing big U.S. investment banks including Goldman Sachs (GS), JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Morgan Stanley (MS), particularly whether these swaps let traders evade crude oil position limits. The total value of the swap deals could be as much as $250 bn a year, the CFTC told Congress recently, though the agency added it has not found a "smoking gun" that link higher oil prices to speculation.

    It's not news that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has done little to stop these funds and traders from circumventing their position limits to make these trades. Though as Gartman points out:

    "Few of the pension plans, endowments, insurance companies have ever reached the position limits in crude oil which are monstrously, fantastically, enormously hugely larger than the position limits in corn, or soybeans, or cotton, or base metals or any of the other commodities traded on exchanges here in the US."

    Even so, what to do here? CFTC might ought to stipulate when swaps are and are not a lawful hedge. And CFTC could stipulate that any broker or bank who offsets these swaps they've sold to these long funds will not be given hedge status and will not be exempt from position limits, as Gartman advises.

    Doing more to curtail the London loophole, a loophole that lets oil traders make unregulated energy trades offshore, would also help. 

    However, experts say the bill is unlikely to bring much additional oil trading under the CFTC's purview. Only about 15% of futures trading on the benchmark west Texas intermediate crude takes place there, a report states. Most of ICE's OTC energy trading occurs in natural gas, whose contract price is pegged to the natural gas futures contract offered by rival NYMEX. OTC energy contracts cleared by the NYMEX are already subject to CFTC reporting and position limits.

    What would also help too is to somehow safely, and with the least amount of environmental damage (likely a pipe dream unfortunately, pun intended) to get at the energy now sitting in federal lands in the West and off our coasts, holding an estimated 635 tn cubic feet of natural gas and 112 bn barrels of oil, one report says.

    The US also must stop once and for all its insane tariffs on Brazilian sugar-based ethanol.

    The US is pouring corn into gas tanks, corn fuel that needs to be expensively trucked around the country, using even more gas, as it can't be piped in because corn ethanol separates in transit via pipelines.

    The US is making ethanol out of corn that takes a lot more in the way of energy inputs to create. Bio-diesel is vitally important, to be sure, but the country's over-reliance on US produced corn ethanol alone is a disastrous policy. It's also causing food prices to soar, as corn is redirected away from livestock, and also at a time when the world's poor grow hungrier by the day.

Rakesh Saxena

Blaming Oil on Speculators. Ignorance is Bliss, Indeed. In the latest exercise in populism, senior Democrat Senators are pushing legislation to control futures market speculation. And commentators on the Right and Left are joining the bandwagon in a hurry. “It is insane to let gamblers magnify the effect of anticipated changes in supply and demand, that may not materialize, by buying and selling oil futures,” declared FOXNews contributor Dick Morris yesterday in an email blast. “Oil is just too important strategically and economically to allow that kind of speculation.” This focus on speculators relies entirely on the exponential increase in volumes on the futures markets. Beyond that, few facts are in the public domain, and it is doubtful if Senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid had any comprehensive analysis of the futures exchanges in hand prior to proposing new laws. In fact, leaving aside speculators for a moment, nobody in Washington is actually aware, with an acceptable degree of precision, of how much oil is produced or consumed on a daily basis. While output numbers are hopelessly impaired due to the lack of quality international-level audits, consumption statistics from the developing world are seriously flawed. Furthermore, the true impact of deeply embedded oil-related subsidies, in countries like India and China, has been grossly underestimated. Adding to the sorry absence of factual applications are a few other fundamental considerations. Firstly, lawmakers and self-styled oil experts in Washington are failing to recognize, and disclose to the American voter, the huge gap between the demand, for petrochemical products on one hand and the constraints imposed by existing refining capacity other. Secondly, it is quite apparent that nobody wants to study the balance sheets of private, listed and government-owned multinationals; the fine print in the financial statements will show that strategic issues like the timing of oil exploration and oil exploitation are resolved strictly within a corporate, i.e. capitalist, framework, without any allowances being made for public interest benchmarks. By conservative estimates, well in excess of 350 million acres of oil and gas concessions around the world are presently lying dormant; this figure does not include offshore licenses or the vast resource in the Siberian hinterland. I personally am responsible for making ongoing prices on oil and gas derivatives, and I take into a few other facts when making determinations of future prices. I take into account the fact that the most strategic of geographical locations, the Straits of Hormuz, can turn into a war zone at short notice, at the whim of Iran. I do not ignore the fact that oil flows in Africa and Central Asia are directed by corrupt governments, not be commonsense or reason. I am aware that the heavily skewed distribution of oil wealth, in Saudi Arabia and Libya for example, has created the foundations for social upheavals at some point in forthcoming years. Lastly, the developing world’s economic powerhouses can alter the oil and gas matrix quite rapidly, by simply changing subsidy rates. So, as I am asked every day, where are oil prices headed? Remember that my organization is neither a producer nor a consumer. Our job is to speculate, daily; a job made easier by our knowledge that there is an abundance of empty rhetoric and a paucity of facts. But we are unable to assess the price of oil if speculators like us are driven out of the marketplace. And nobody outside the speculative arena can present a credible assessment either. It is dangerous to pass legislation founded on unsubstantiated theory. To conclude, people like me trade in a sea of ignorance, where boldness, and the willingness to take risks, is a more durable quality than engaging in either reckless blame games or armchair intellectualism. All that said, there is an answer, a sustainable solution: the end of private capital altogether. That solution will not only sort out oil, but also food, and poverty and marginalization.

July 19, 2008 at 1:18 am

jeronne

Whenever the daily price of crude inches up, the price of gasoline goes up within hours.. Crude has dropped over 10% this week.. Let's see how long it takes for the price of gasoline to go back down.. Big Oil continues the lie that they make only 9% net.. If crude has dropped over 10% this week then Big Oil just got a 10%+ boost.. How can the NET stay at 9% no matter what happens ?? Congress has been collecting so much money from Big Oil for so long that they will say NOTHING about it .. Business as usual.. Screw the consumer ...

July 18, 2008 at 10:44 am

chuck

Liz I can tell you what business has been affected by high oil prices: Pantry Inc of Sanford,North Carolina. Pantry is a midcap stock which for over the past few years has been acquiring new properties all over the southeast. That includes 39 units which Waring Oil LLC sold to them in cash over two years ago. The oil commidities pressures forced Pantry into a bind. What happen was this: last year they lost thier consumer base due to the way they priced retail gas. They priced it at 2.00 and that dramatically affected thier earnings. Wachovoia is thier bank by the way. Last year they had to close some convient stores outside of Sanford NC. Also Pantry had to lay off workers. Now the big complaints against them has been thier poor consumer service. Thier stock has dropped to 12.00. At thier last quater earnings they were bragging they were going to beat the street. Honestly I didn't believe the statements. Becouse of the high oil prices Pantry couldn't make no more aquistions. At one time Circkle K was looking into acquiring them. Just last year Pantry Inc sued Costco in a legel suit over retail gas prices in Alabamam. Wonder if Pantry lost the suit becouse they were trying to keep the gas prices high. Just check out Pantry Inc,Racetrack,and other convient store chains and see how thier faring in the market place.

July 11, 2008 at 11:54 am

A to Z Energy ETF » Blog Archive » DrumBeat: July 10, 2008

[...] Energy Independence: The Final Frontier Who said the following? “Our ability to meet our own energy needs is directly linked to our continued ability to act decisively and independently at home and abroad in the service of peace, not only for America, bur for all nations in the world.” Answer: Richard Nixon. Amidst Watergate and the Viet Nam War, Nixon said we need a top-level government focus on energy independence equivalent to the US’s program to put a man on the moon. Nixon also wanted more public funding to explore Alaskan oil and gas, offshore oil reserves, nuclear energy and synthetic fuels from coal and oil shale. The United States, Nixon said, should be independent of all oil producing countries, “including our Canadian friends,” by 1976, saying that the United States must be independent in this area, and we can be.” [...]

July 11, 2008 at 1:06 am

Sinomania!

"Also, in preparation for the Olympics this summer, China is likely hoarding oil, gas diesel to prevent embarrassing shortages." EMac, this talk radio sound bite is total conjecture. China is certainly building the country's strategic reserves of oil and that might have an impact (although most analysts think not much) on overall oil prices. The USA of course always maintains a healthy stratgic reserve. China is just now protecting its supply and is late to the game.

July 9, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Arthur M. Collins

First Problem: Hypocracy: a. No nuclear reactors in California, but they are OK in Baja. b. No offshore natural gas terminals in California, but they are OK in Baja. c. No offshore drilling in California, but 'blood for oil' resource wars are OK, give or take 850,000 Iraqi casualties, but who of the NIMBYs is counting. Second Problem: Politicians pandering to a spoiled, emotional, technically illiterate electorate: c. Solar energy is claimed to be our salvation, but look at the engineering reports on the problems with Solar 1 and Solar 2: bugs, pollen and dust sticking like glue to the mirrors, etc. Proponents simply do not live in the real world. d. Some believe that 'renewables' will save us, yet the proponents, not opponents, of renewables estimate 30-80 cents /kilowatt-hour. If you love these values, then I will sell you gasoline for $80 / gallon. Nuclear is 2.5 cents /KWH, which corresponds to $6 / gallon of gas. f. Engineers say that nuclear is our "best shot" economically and environmentally, and we engineers are labelled "the Devil Incarnate". Nuclear is environmentally benign, and the waste disposal problem is solvable - ask the French. The solution is simple to state (ask Nixon): 1. Foreget your fears, biases, hates, rages and emotions. This is difficult if only passion, commitment and advocacy is what you have been taught in school. I would suggest logic, analysis, tradeoffs of economics, technical feasibility and environmental impacts as the currency of the realm. 2. Build plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, thereby rejunvinating Detroit's obsolete vehicle technology. Most trips are less than 20 miles, so only battery electric power would be used, not fuel. 3. Build advanced technology nuclear reactors, to provide the electricity for the plug-in hybrids, and the rest of our economy. Manufacture hydrogen and ammonia as fuels from nuclear reactor power, thus eliminating global warming problems. 4. This eliminates oil imports, 'blood for oil' resource wars and the resultant endless stream of body bags. Plus you can thereby forego hating your President, whoever he may eventually be (Hillary would have been nice, but Ce La Guerre!). 5. Shut off from their massive revenue stream, the fundamentalist and radical societies would become too busy working for a living, and feeding themselves, to be providing us with the 'benefit' of their terror and paranoia. Nothing like hard work to boil off emotional hate and rage, both abroad and here at home. Regards, Art Collins, Nuclear Engineer (Ha Ha!, Got Ya!)

July 9, 2008 at 1:47 pm

jeronne

If Richard Nixon was able to identify the stupendous problem of oil dependency back in the '60s and '70s then what has Congress been doing all this time to try to correct it?? The answer, of course, is NOTHING!! 4 decades of NOTHING!! -- Congress does a little loud talking from time to time, but it is just grandstanding to lull the voters back to sleep.. Big Oil, oil lobbies, and oil money are controlling Congress.. Why should Congress let something as trivial as the health and welfare of the citizens and the security of the country get in the way of having a good time ...

July 9, 2008 at 11:56 am

Greedom

I didn't see much referenced that was non-oil or non-coal. Again, that prius now comes with built in solar panels ! heh Well - I for one have decided 100 years approx of petro is enough. Maybe people before me were tolerant to just pour it in and ignite it. I think there are better - cleaner solutions here. Hey, if it IS all supply and demand, once demand stops - the problem will just go away - with the petro I suppose.

July 9, 2008 at 11:37 am

about this blog

  • Elizabeth MacDonald is the stocks editor for Fox Business Network. She is recognized as one of the top prize-winning business journalists in the country, and has received 14 awards, including the top prize in business journalism, the Gerald Loeb Award for Distinguished Business Journalism, and the Newswomen's Club of New York Front Page Award for Excellence in Investigative Journalism.