Month: December 2014

Oil at $65: Where oil prices go will depend on who blinks first, shale oil producers or OPEC

oil

Vivek Kaul

The West Texas Intermediary (WTI) crude oil price has touched a five year low of $65 per barrel. As I write this, the WTI price stands at $64.5 per barrel. WTI is one of the grades of crude oil and is used as a benchmark to set oil prices.
This fall in oil prices has come about after the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries(OPEC) in a meeting on November 27, 2014, decided not to cut their production. In the past whenever oil prices fell, OPEC used to cut production in order to ensure that prices did not continue to fall. This has not happened this time around.
The primary reason for the same has been the rise of the shale oil producers in the United States. The United States was producing around 4 million barrels of oil per day in mid 2008. Since then the production has jumped to 8.97 million barrels per day (as of end of October 31, 2014). The entire incremental production has come from shale oil.
This has meant that the United States which is the biggest consumer of oil in the world is importing far lesser oil than it was in the past. Amrborse-Evans Pritchard writing in The Telegraph points out that “America has cut its net oil imports by 8.7m barrels per day since 2006, equal to the combined oil exports of Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.” This is a reason to worry for OPEC and it has decided to not cut production significantly, and in the process it hopes to make shale oil producers unviable.
Prtichard also quotes Chris Skrebowski, former editor of Petroleum Review, as saying that Saudi Arabia wants to cut down the annual increase in the production of US shale oil from the current one million barrels per day to 500,000 barrels per day. Saudi Arabia is the leader of the OPEC cartel and OPEC largely does what Saudi Arabia wants it to.
Given this it is not surprising that OPEC has continued to maintain a production of over 30 million barrels per day, despite falling oil prices. As Javed Mian writes in an investment letter titled Stray Reflections and dated November 2014: “It is not surprising to see OPEC production – relative to its 30 million barrels a day quota – rising from virtual compliance to one where the cartel is producing above its agreed production allocation. Output rose to 30.974 million barrels per day in October, a 14-month high led by gains in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Libya.”
The production of OPEC in the month of November 2014 stood at 30.56 million barrels per day. This was lower than the production in October, but still higher than the target of 30 million barrels per day.
OPEC is working with the assumption that shale oil is expensive to produce Nevertheless as I pointed out in an earlier piece on shale oil there are as many estimates on the production cost of shale oil going around, as there are analysts.
In a September 2014 report Bank of America-Merrill Lynch had put the production costs of shale oil from $50-75 per barrel. Mian whose newsletter I have quoted earlier put the break-even price at $57 per barrel. Analysts at Citibank recently said that the price of oil would have to fall below $50 a barrel for completely halting shale oil production in the United States.
Evans-Pritchard goes even lower. As he writes: “The International Energy Agency said most of North Dakota’s vast Bakken field “remains profitable at or below $42 per barrel. The break-even price in McKenzie County, the most productive county in the state, is only $28 per barrel.” He quotes Edward Morse, Citigroup’s commodities chief as saying that the  “full cycle” cost for shale production is $70 to $80, but this includes the original land grab and infrastructure. Nevertheless, the remaining capital expenditure “to bring on an additional well, could be as low as the high-$30s range.”
A Bloomberg report points out “Only about 4% of US shale output needs $80 a barrel or more to be profitable, according to the International Energy Agency. Most production in the Bakken formation, one of the main drivers of shale oil output, remains commercially viable at or below $42, the Paris-based agency estimates.”
What these data points tell us is that the Saudi led OPEC will have to drive down oil prices further, in order to ensure that production of shale oil becomes unviable. At least that is the observation one can make from all the data that is available.
The question is till when OPEC keep driving down prices. Mian estimates that “the current oil decline has potentially cost OPEC $250 billion of its recent earnings of $1 trillion”. Further, “lower the price of oil falls, the greater the need to compensate for lower revenues with higher production, which paradoxically pushes oil prices even lower,” Mian writes.
Most OPEC countries have built their budgets around high oil prices. “Once all the costs of subsidies and social programs are factored-in, most OPEC countries require oil above $100 to balance their budgets. This raises longer-run issues on the sustainability of the fiscal stance in a low-oil price environment,” writes Mian.
Hence, the oil price at which the budgets of OPEC countries and other oil exporting countries breaks even, is very high. “The fiscal break-even cost is $161 for Venezuela, $160 for Yemen, $132 for Algeria, $131 for Iran, $126 for Nigeria, and $125 for Bahrain, $111 for Iraq, and $105 for Russia, and even $98 for Saudi Arabia itself, according to Citigroup,”writes Evans-Pritchard.
Given this, while the OPEC is trying to make shale oil unviable it is bleeding as well.
Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia seems to have decided that it wants to drive down the price of oil and that is what is important. The Kingdom has the ability to withstand lower oil prices for a few years, feels Mian. As he writes “Saudi Arabia appears to be comfortable with much lower oil prices for an extended period of time. The House of Saud is equipped with sufficient government assets to easily withstand three years at the current oil price by dipping into their $750 billion of net foreign assets.”
The question is who will blink first, the Saudi Arabia led OPEC or the shale oil companies. And that will decide how far the oil price will fall.

The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on Dec 2, 2014

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

Why governments, politicians and businessmen hate gold

gold
Yesterday Switzerland voted on whether its central bank should be holding more gold as a proportion of its total assets. Gold currently makes up for around 7% of the total assets of Swiss National Bank, the country’s central bank.
The proposal dubbed as “Save Our Swiss Gold” had called for increasing the central bank’s holding of gold to 20% of its total assets. It was more or less rejected unanimously with nearly 78% of the voters having voted against it.
This proposal was backed by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party and came out of the concern that the Swiss National Bank had sold too much of its gold in the years gone by.
Interestingly, Switzerland was on a gold standard till 1999 and was the last country to leave it. In a gold standard the paper money issued by the central bank is backed by a certain amount of gold held in the vaults of the central bank.
What this means is that the central bank and the government cannot issue an unlimited amount of paper money. The total amount of paper money that can be issued is a function of the total amount of gold that the central bank holds in its vaults.
In April 1933, when the Great Depression was on in the United States, the Federal Reserve of the United States had around $2.7 billion in gold reserves, which formed around 25 percent of the monetary gold reserves of the world. At the same time, the ratio of paper money to gold was at a healthy 45 percent, more than the decreed 35–40 percent. (Source: J.W. Angell, “Gold, Banks and the New Deal,” Political Science Quarterly 49, 4(1934): pp 481–505)
That’s how the gold standard worked.
Getting back to the Swiss vote on gold, other than the Swiss People’s Party, the other parties as well as businessmen were opposed to it. As the Wall Street Journal reports “The initiative was widely criticized by Switzerland’s political and business communities.”
This isn’t anything new. The politicians over the last 100 years have not liked the gold standard because it limits their ability to create money out of thin air. And as far as businessmen are concerned they usually tend to go with what the politicians are saying.
As Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales write in Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists: “The First World War and the Great Depression created great dislocation and unemployment… Workers, many of whom had become politically aware in the trenches of World War I, organized to demand for some form of protection against economic adversity. But the reaction really set in during the Great Depression, when they were joined in country after country by others who had lost out—farmers, investors, war veterans, the elderly.”
The politicians could not do much about it given that most of the world was on the gold standard. And given this, they could not print money and flood the financial system with it. “The gold standard … imposed tight budgetary discipline on governments, which made it difficult for them to intervene much in economic affairs… Politicians had to respond, but such a large demand for protection could not be satisfied within the tight constraints imposed by the gold standard. Hence, the world abandoned the straitjacket of the gold standard… With their ability to turn on or turn off finance, governments obtained extraordinary power,” write Rajan and Zingales.
This explains why governments hate gold.
In 2012, I had the pleasure of speaking to the financial historian Russell Napier. And he made a very interesting point about the rise of democracy and paper money having gone hand in hand. As he put it: “The history of the paper currency system, or the fiat currency system is really the history of democracy… Within the metal currency, there was very limited ability for elected governments to manipulate that currency.”
Napier further pointed out that most people don’t have savings. As he explained: “And I know this is why people with savings and people with money like the gold standard. They like it because it reduces the ability of politicians to play around with the quantity of money. But we have to remember that most people don’t have savings. They don’t have capital. And that’s why we got the paper currency in the first place. It was to allow the democracies. Democracy will always turn toward paper currency and unless you see the destruction of democracy in the developed world, and I do not see that, we will stay with paper currencies and not return to metallic currencies or metallic based currencies.”
With paper currencies around, politicians (even honest ones) feel that they have the ability to bring an economy out of a recession, by getting their central banks to print money and flood the financial system with it, so as to maintain low interest rates.
At low interest rates the hope is that people will borrow and spend more. In a gold standard all this wouldn’t have been possible. But that as we have seen over the last few years has led to other problems.
Having said that, the fundamental problem with paper money, that it can be created out of thin air, remains. Or as Ben Bernanke, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve of United States, put it in 2002: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”
This is what the US government has done with the help of its central bank, the Federal Reserve, over the last few years, largely during the years in which Bernanke was the Chairman.
As on September 17, 2008, two days after the investment bank Lehman Brothers went bust, and the financial crisis well and truly started, the Federal Reserve held US government treasury bonds worth $479.8 billion. Since then, the number has jumped up to $2.46 trillion. Where did the Fed get the money to buy these bonds? It simply printed it. And then it bought bonds to pump that money into the financial system.
In fact, it also printed money to buy bonds other than treasury bonds as well. This was done so as to flood the financial system with money, in the hope of keeping interest rates low, in order to get people to borrow and spend again, and hopefully create economic growth.
While that has happened to a limited extent, financial institutions have borrowed this money at low interest rates and invested this money in large parts of the world chasing returns.
The Fed decided to stop printing money towards the end of October 2014. But now it needs to keep telling the financial markets that it won’t go about withdrawing the trillions of dollars that it has printed and pumped into the financial system, any time soon. We need to see what happens when it decides to start withdrawing all the money it has printed and pumped into the financial system.
To conclude, it is worth remembering what economist Stephen D. King writes in When the Money Runs Out “A central banker who jumps into bed with a finance minister too often ends up with a nasty dose of hyperinflation.”

The article appeared originally on www.equitymaster.com on Dec 1, 2014