Bracing For $150 Oil  

Posted by Big Gav in

Alternet has a peak oil article which never mentions depletion or peak oil - The World Must Brace for Oil Beyond $150 per Barrel.

Oil's meteoric rise since the start of the year to nearly $150 has distressed consumers and policy makers the world over, but the stark reality is prices are likely to rise higher still.

For two decades, prices were relatively stable, but then they rose seven-fold from a trough below $20 in 2001. Since breaching the $100 mark on the first trading day of this year they have risen around 45 percent.

Given such momentum, politicians' efforts to bring the price down could well be a waste of energy. "It rose so fast it's got a bubble feel, but bubbles can go on for very sustained periods, and underlying that is an extremely tight fundamental position," said Stephen Thornber, head of global energy research at Threadneedle Asset Management.

Global demand of some 86 million barrels per day is almost level with supply, and production growth is not keeping pace with soaring demand from emerging economies such as India and China.

Citing the strength of Asian demand, investment bank Morgan Stanley last month predicted oil would reach $150 a barrel by the Fourth of July holiday in the United States, usually one of the busiest U.S. travel days.

Their target proved just out of reach, with U.S. crude stopping short at a record of $145.85. But the bulls have not gone away. Goldman Sachs, the biggest investment bank in the commodities sector, has tipped prices to hit $200 a barrel within two years.

Already prices are undoubtedly causing pain as protests at rising costs have broken out across the world.

Consumers, particularly in the world's biggest energy burner the United States, have begun to cut back on fuel use, but there is no ready substitute when it comes to transportation. "You have to go to work, no matter what the price is," said Thornber. "Fundamental demand for transport and energy is difficult to turn off in the short term, but disposable income will be hit."

This idea about oil demand being inelastic continues to puzzle me, given that most developed countries seem to be reducing their demand in the face of rising prices. If Australia can reduce demand significantly while the economy grows at a reasonable pace, I'm sure the same holds true for the US.

The WSJ reports that this is exactly what seems to be happening (albeit in a much weaker economic environment) - Gas Prices Spur Drivers to Cut Use to Five-Year Low.
As average gas prices hit a record high of $4.108 a gallon this week, the government released new data showing that drivers have cut back their use of the fuel to levels not seen in five years.

The average price of gasoline in the U.S. has been above $4 a regular gallon for more than a month, AAA reports, putting a dent in gasoline demand.

Even through the Fourth of July weekend -- a time when Americans traditionally get on the road -- gasoline consumption dropped 3.3% from last year to 9.347 million barrels a day, according to weekly data released by the federal Energy Information Administration. For the first week of July, that is the least drivers have used since 2003, when consumption was 9.05 million barrels a day.

2 comments

PaulS   says 1:24 AM

No mystery at all about the "inelastic" bit. The meaning of "inelastic" is very far indeed from "unvarying". If a small price increase (the underlying basis of elasticity is perturbation theory after all) cuts quantity demanded so much as to decrease aggregate spending on an item, i.e. coefficient greater than 1.0, then the demand curve is "elastic". Obviously that's quite a lot of flexibility about the use of the item. If aggregate spending instead increases, demand is "inelastic".

Now, in the USA, 'gas' (petrol) has doubled in price over a couple of years. Meanwhile quantity demanded (and supplied) has gone down, oh, maybe between a whopping 1% and a whopping 4% depending on who you listen to, and on which version of the constantly revised statistics your alleged expert favors. In the otherworldly event that demand had dropped 50% during that doubling, it would have been "elastic". So any way you slice it, demand was inelastic to an extreme, implying for example that any supply decrease large enough to stand out over the statistical and political noise would surely send the price through the roof in a manner not yet contemplated.

Well - US figures may or not be dodgy but German consumption fell 9% last year and Australian consumption fell by 5% - so clearly the numbers are consistent with the international experience.

Post a Comment

Ads

Ads

Statistics


referer referrer referers referrers http_referer

Locations of visitors to this page

Ads

Books

Followers

News

Loading...

Blog Archive

Labels

australia (499) global warming (290) solar power (261) peak oil (259) electric vehicles (168) wind power (140) smart grids (137) geothermal energy (131) csp (127) solar thermal power (115) ocean energy (112) coal seam gas (109) nuclear power (104) tidal power (103) oil (102) iraq (101) green buildings (98) china (97) geothermal power (97) renewable energy (88) lng (87) agriculture (79) smart meters (71) biofuel (69) solar pv (68) energy storage (67) natural gas (66) oil price (63) energy efficiency (56) uk (56) wave power (53) electricity grid (49) google (49) big brother (46) coal (45) food prices (45) internet (42) thin film solar (39) bicycle (37) ocean power (37) biomimicry (36) new zealand (34) air transport (33) algae (32) water (32) canada (31) credit crunch (31) politics (31) queensland (31) concentrating solar power (30) bioplastic (29) scotland (29) population (27) resource wars (26) surveillance (26) batteries (25) california (25) censorship (25) cleantech (25) geoengineering (25) shale gas (25) cogeneration (24) saudi arabia (24) ctl (23) offshore wind power (23) bruce sterling (22) economics (22) woodside (22) coal to liquids (20) iraq oil law (20) drought (19) origin energy (19) ultracapacitor (19) brightsource (18) indonesia (18) ausra (17) rail transport (17) santos (17) arctic ice (16) carbon tax (16) lithium (16) ucg (16) buckminster fuller (15) collapse (15) psychology (15) concentrating solar thermal power (14) exxon (14) geodynamics (14) iceland (14) mapping (14) michael klare (14) biodiesel (13) carbon emissions (13) cellulosic ethanol (13) fertiliser (13) investment (13) limits to growth (13) tesla (13) ambient energy (12) atlantis (12) cities (12) electric bikes (12) ethanol (12) kenya (12) matthew simmons (12) public transport (12) victoria (12) al gore (11) biochar (11) brazil (11) energy policy (11) texas (11) desertec (10) goldman sachs (10) hybrid car (10) internet of things (10) shale oil (10) terra preta (10) tinfoil (10) volt (10) alaska (9) bees (9) biomass (9) carbon trading (9) cradle to cradle (9) gazprom (9) gtl (9) pge (9) sweden (9) toyota (9) afghanistan (8) amory lovins (8) big oil (8) bucky fuller (8) chile (8) distributed manufacturing (8) eroei (8) esolar (8) fabber (8) fuel cells (8) linc energy (8) lithium ion batteries (8) methane hydrates (8) relocalisation (8) us elections (8) western australia (8) antarctica (7) arrow energy (7) bloom energy (7) boeing (7) climategate (7) copenhagen (7) distributed generation (7) fish (7) floating offshore wind power (7) guerilla gardening (7) methane (7) nanosolar (7) otec (7) severn estuary (7) vinod khosla (7) apocaphilia (6) bolivia (6) ceramic fuel cells (6) cigs (6) four day week (6) jatropha (6) jeremy leggett (6) local currencies (6) natural gas pipelines (6) nigeria (6) pentland firth (6) somalia (6) stirling engine (6) t boone pickens (6) chp (5) futurism (5) ocean acidification (5) saul griffith (5) varanus island (5) airborne wind turbines (4) garbage (4) kevin kelly (4) low temperature geothermal power (4) oled (4) scenario planning (4) space based solar power (4) tim flannery (4) v2g (4) club of rome (3) global energy grid (2) norman borlaug (2) peak oil portfolio (1)