Earlier today, in a story on falling oil prices, Mark Williams of the Associated Press bemoaned "evaporating" consumption, warned that the abrupt prices drop would cause a decline in exploration, and cited the need for trillions of dollars of investment to find more fossil fuels.
Contrary to or not in what Williams wrote:
- Consumption has barely fallen.
- The American electorate has chosen a new president who thinks exploring for new oil is a bad thing, and the need for that oil can be eliminated through proper tire inflation.
- The new president and the Congressional majority want investments in alternative energy, and to tax the alleged "windfall" profits of oil companies, which would of course take money away from exploration.
Here are the key paragraphs from Williams's report:
Oil prices hit a new 22-month low Thursday on reports that the world's developed economies are in recession and that energy consumption is evaporating.
Crude has fallen 12 percent this week alone under a daily barrage of economic predictions that industries and consumers have cut back on spending. Gasoline prices have fallen 50 percent since hitting a record national average of $4.11 per gallon in July.
While tumbling gas prices are a relief for consumers who have been shaken by job losses and declining home prices, economist now fear that the resulting decline in exploration and production by oil companies will lead to a massive price spike when economies rebound.
..... on Thursday in Paris, the International Energy Agency slashed its demand forecast more than it has in a decade.
The agency now expects global oil demand to average 86.2 million barrels a day this year, nearly flat compared with 2007, and 86.5 million barrels a day next year. The cuts come on top of those already made in the IEA's October and September reports.
Oil demand within the 30 OECD countries now is forecast to fall by 2.7 percent this year and by 1.6 percent in 2009, in the IEA's latest view.
The agency warned on Wednesday that more than a trillion dollars in annual investments to find new fossil fuels will be needed for the next two decades to avoid an energy crisis that could choke the global economy.
But investment by the oil industry looks increasingly unlikely, at least in the near future.
A less than 3% drop in demand hardly constitutes "evaporation." Since oil is an elastic good (small changes in supply can cause big changes in prices), this drop does explain a lot of the huge oil price drop. But Williams ignored another major factor, namely the stronger dollar. A Reuters report today noted that the greenback is up 20% against the euro since July. That change would explain roughly a third of oil's drop during that time.
As to exploration cutbacks, you would have thought that high prices were a good thing during the presidential campaign season. John McCain's idea of a gas tax holiday was roundly criticized in the press, while Barack Obama was only troubled by how quickly prices rose, not the fact that they rose.
The fact that Williams reports the need for trillions in investment is really hard to handle, as it was Obama and the Democrats who steadfastly opposed offshore drilling on the Outer Continential Shelf until it was clear that impatient voters wanted it. Congress then let an exploration ban that had been renewed annually for decades expire in September. Now that they don't have to fact the voters for a couple of year, word has it that they plan to reinstitute it at their earliest opportunity.
Congress also has flirted with the idea of preventing any form of shale oil extraction. Obama and Congress have also frequently called for "windfall profits" taxes on oil companies, and has acted as if the miracles of alternative energy will negate the need for fossil fuels in the relatively near future. How interesting, then, that a reporter for the wire service that gullibly swallowed such claims during the campaign season now frets that the oil companies won't have the money to invest.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Some economics
November 13, 2008 - 23:44 ET by angryafricanSome economics here would work as well.
Shale oil extraction won't work at such a low oil price. Too expensive. And the environmental impact doesn't make sense if there is no return on this.
This drilling issue. Even if they launch right now, we won't see a drop until 2013. And then how much would it contribute to actual oil needs? 2-5% at most.
Alternative energy is much easier to scale up as it is mostly construction costs. Of course not all alternative energy - bio-fuels can't handle the low prices and the US is not competitive compared to Brazil. More investment needed to make it more competitive. But problem is at low prices most alternative energy sources aren't competitive. But neither is oil investment. So, when you then look at a medium to long term solution... You go for the one that is most cost effective and best return on investment and scale. Oil can't do it. Simple economics. Not some green dream.
Too bad all you need to get
November 13, 2008 - 23:55 ET by SRPwrdToo bad all you need to get oil working is a cylinder strong enough for it and a fuel system, you don't even need a spark plug for a diesel. Nothing will ever match the awesome reliability, useability, and orgasmic sound that a combustion engine makes, nothing.
Hey angryafrican your economics stink
November 13, 2008 - 23:58 ET by cocodrieYou are obviously know very little about the oil business. Better stick with something you are knowledgable in.
No
November 14, 2008 - 07:30 ET by angryafricanNo. actually work with the oil industry. The second largest oil company in the US to be exact.
AA
November 14, 2008 - 07:42 ET by cocodrieDon't believe you. Your views are totally flawed. Try again with something else.
Apply yourself, AA
November 14, 2008 - 08:17 ET by KarmaTaking them to third largest is within your grasp if you work diligently.
No representation, without taxation!
Phooey
November 14, 2008 - 00:02 ET by Tom BlumerThis drilling issue. Even if they launch right now, we won't see a drop until 2013.
Not true, period ("A report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratoria were lifted.").
Even the NYT acknowledged 2010 to 2012 for Alaska.
Go ahead, let's hope (and that's all you have, is hope) that we can develop alternative energy that can be competitive for the long-term (10+ years out, at best). But until then, there is nothing wrong with utilizing the natural resources we have available, esp when the alternative is to continue sending hundreds of billions to countries that don't like us or even hate us. And if the alternatives never come, there's plenty of oil. We just need to have the will to discover it, explore for it, and extract it.
Oh, and did I tell you about the trillions in royalties, even at today's lower prices, that could be raised by Uncle Sam and state governments if we did the sensible thing -- drill?
Simple economics, my friend.
aa... Gee, you must read
November 14, 2008 - 00:15 ET by Clear thinkeraa...
Gee, you must read the NYT's for your outdated info. Did you know.... an oil well in west Texas can be brought in within a 6 week period? I didn't think so!
These claims of 'it will be years before we see a drop of new oil' is just more bull shit from ecofascists.
Comrade Obama Post Election Stupidity
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Tinfoil hat time
November 14, 2008 - 07:22 ET by ahusserI dont know how but the drop in oil prices towards 50 per cent in so short a time and the conspicuous timing of the drop around the election smacks of manipulation and politically favors the o man. Could be the unwinding of the perfect storm we saw up to the election. Soros, Chavez and middle east muslim oil are on my list of suspects.
"...no civilization, no matter how rich, no matter how refined, can long survive once it loses the power to meet force with equal or superior force." - Bernard Knox
Not Texas
November 14, 2008 - 07:45 ET by angryafricanI wasn't talking about Texas. I was talking about off-shore drilling. My mistake - I should have been more clear about that.
How come...
November 14, 2008 - 08:34 ET by AJBAnnouncing the lifting of the off-shore ban caused price drops in THREE DAYS? I thought it would take until 2013??
Also, how come SHALE OIL (and the tar sands of Canada) is considered by law to be not-importable into the US? The current adminstration was trying to get congress to change that before January.
It seems clear we're on a path to bankrupt the coal industry, penalize anyone who wants a better lifestyle and jail anyone who disagrees with Comrade Glorious Supreme Leader Obama. The TRUTH SQUAD IS WATCHING AND TAKING NAMES!
I have never understood the
November 14, 2008 - 12:21 ET by MrDavisonI have never understood the argument that "we won't see a drop for 5 years". To me all that means is we should have started 5 years ago. Let's get going now otherwise in 2012 people like you will just say "aw even if we start now we won't see anything until 2017". When does that cycle end? It ends when we get going now.
If you're not willing to do something that won't bear fruit for 5 years, then there are any number of industries that you might as well scrap altogether (obvious sarcasm).
Besides, enough of the oil price is based on speculation that prices will be affected long before the new oil hits the market. It is the expectation of that new market oil that will drive the price down.
My $0.02.
MrD
Well, angryafrican, what
November 14, 2008 - 12:23 ET by jdhawkWell, angryafrican, what "alternative" energy, even with oil at its previous level of $147 a barrel is competitive? I will answer for you: none except when there is massive government subsidies i.e your tax dollars and mine.
Regarding, "alternative" energy, here is an example. Put in solar to heat and cool your home. Typical price for a 2500 sq.ft. home is $25,000. At present electicity pricing, it will take you 20 years for pay back. And, if you have excess electricity only a handful of states allow you to sell it back to your local electicity provider.
By the way, with oil consumption growing world wide at 2-3% a year, despite the dufus pronoucements of the crAP, if you bring in only "2-5%" more oil where are you? You are neutral when it comes to pricing. Don't do it and oil soars to several hundred dollars a barrel. So, bringing in more supply only keeps you at status quo. All this happy talk, by the industry too, that oil will be cheaper if we drill in ANWR, shale oil and off shore is nonsense. But, if we don't, you won't be able to afford to run your lawnmower, let alone your car in the future.
Who needs oil
November 14, 2008 - 07:34 ET by 10ksnookerWhen the pies are free.
When do the oil companies ask for their bailout?
They Can't
November 14, 2008 - 07:37 ET by ahusserRight now they are in the "evil" column in the Lib ledger. But that could change if the price were right.
"...no civilization, no matter how rich, no matter how refined, can long survive once it loses the power to meet force with equal or superior force." - Bernard Knox
Once again
November 14, 2008 - 08:03 ET by BobAnthonyThe AP proves why it's the last two letters in the word CRAP!
For the record, I am NOT RECOGNIZING BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ODINGA AS
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! I would like to become part of a
secession front!