Tag: Oil | Page 3 | Vivek Kaul

14 January, 2015

Oil in the 40s: Falling oil price has several negative effects as well

Vivek Kaul

The price of brent crude oil fell by 5.65% yesterday (January 12, 2015) to close at $47.43 per barrel. Many experts who follow oil closely have talked about how a fall in the price of oil will be beneficial for the world at large. The logic is straightforward.
Most countries do not produce all the oil that they consume. Hence, they need to import oil. A fall in the price of oil means that these countries will pay a lower price for oil and in turn petroleum products like petrol, diesel etc.,will become cheaper. This means that citizens of these countries will have more money to spend on other things, which, in turn, will benefit businesses.
There are various estimates about how much this benefit will amount to for oil consuming countries. As Niels Jensen writes in The Absolute Return Letter for the month of November 2014, titled Snail Trail Vortex: “A $20-per-barrel drop in oil prices transfers $6-700 billion from oil producing nations to consumers worldwide or nearly 1% of world GDP. Assuming consumers will spend about half of that on consumption, which historically has been a fair assumption, the positive effect on GDP in consumer countries is c. 0.5%.”
Author Satyajit Das in a recent research note titled The Reverse Oil Shock makes a similar assessment, when he writes: “A US$ 40 fall in oil prices equates to an income transfer of around US$1.3 trillion (around 2 percent of global GDP) from oil producers to oil consumers. A sustained 10 percent cut in the oil price is generally assumed to increase global GDP by 0.20 percent per annum.”
The price of oil has fallen by around $60 per barrel since end of May 2014. Using the numbers provided by Jensen and Das, we can conclude that an income transfer of around $2 trillion will happen from oil producers to oil consumers.
This money when spent by citizens of oil consuming countries will lead to economic growth. This is a straightforward conclusion that can be drawn from this data to the condition that governments of oil consuming countries pass on the benefits of low oil prices to their citizens.
But this hasn’t happened everywhere in the world. As Das writes: “A number of governments, such as Indonesia and India, have taken the opportunity presented by low prices to reduce fuel subsidies. While positive for public finances and economic efficiency, the diversion of the benefits from consumers to the government is contractionary, reducing the effect on growth.”
The Indian government has increased the excise duty on petrol and diesel thrice since October 2014, in order to shore up its revenues. There are several other negative effects of a low oil price. The world at large is still in the process of coming out of a huge debt binge and hence, will use the money saved from the low oil price to repay debt. As Das writes: “A significant overhang of debt, employment uncertainty and weak income growth may result in the transfer being saved or applied to reducing borrowings, reducing the boost to consumption and growth.”
Further, with falling oil prices the amount of money being spent on “energy exploration, development and production,” will come down. “One estimate puts the decrease in investment spending as a result of the fall in prices at almost US$1 trillion. This entails the deferral or cancellation of deep water, arctic oil, tar sands and shale projects as well as further investment in mature fields such as the North Sea projects, which require high prices to be economically viable,” writes Das.
This can’t be good for energy security over the long term. A newsreport suggests that there has already been a drop of “almost 40% in new well permits issued across the United States in November.”
A major reason for a fall in oil prices has been the massive amount of shale oil being produced in the United States. Oil production in the United States has jumped by 4 million barrels per day since 2008. Almost all of this increase in production has come from an increase in production of shale oil.
Shale oil is expensive to produce and much of it is only viable if oil prices remain higher than $70 per barrel. As Jensen puts it: “A high percentage of the industry breaks even with an oil price in the $55-65 range…With an oil price around $50, oil producers could go belly up, left right and centre.” This can’t be good news for the United States because shale oil companies have been a major reason behind the job boom in the United States. And if they start shutting down, this will have an impact on job creation, which will in turn have an impact on consumer spending and US economic growth.
The United States is the shopping mall of the whole world and if consumer spending slows down, it will have an impact on many exports of many countries.
Further, the oil exporting countries are losing out because of lower oil prices. “Many oil producers are now fiscally profligate, using strong oil revenues to finance ambitious public spending programs or heavily subsidise domestic energy costs. Lower oil prices will force these governments to curtail programs and subsidies or increase debt, which might reduce the positive effects on growth,” writes Das.
These countries are now in a major problem. Saudi Arabia leads this pack and is now forecasting the biggest fiscal deficit in its history. Fiscal deficit is the difference between what a government earns and what it spends. The deficit for 2015 is expected to amount to $38.6 billion and was recently announced on state television. The Saudis can ride through this because they have a huge amount of foreign exchange reserves amounting to over $700 billion. Other oil exporters are not so lucky.
Nevertheless Saudi Arabia has plans to limit wage growth. As a Bloomberg report points out: “The Finance Ministry said the government will continue to invest in areas such as education and health care, while exerting “more efforts” to curb spending on wages and allowances, which make up about 50 percent of spending.” This can’t be good for global economic growth.
What all these points suggest is that there are many negative impacts of falling oil prices, which are not being highlighted at all.

The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on Jan 13, 2015

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

17 December, 2014

Foreign investors exit Russia lock, stock and barrel: Rouble crisis has lessons for India

Vivek Kaul

The Russian rouble has been in trouble of late. The value of the currency crashed from 55 roubles to a dollar as on December 11, 2014, to nearly 73 roubles to a dollar as on December 16, 2014. Since then the currency has recovered a little and as I write this around 67 roubles are worth a dollar.
What caused this? A major reason for this has been the fall in the price of oil by 50% in the last six months. As I write this the Brent Crude Oil quotes at slightly less than $60 to a barrel. The Brent Crude price dropped below $60 per barrel only this week.
The Russian government is majorly dependant on revenues from oil to meet its expenditure. The money that comes in from oil contributes around half of the revenues of the government and makes up for two-thirds of the exports.
As The Economist points out: “The state owns big stakes in many energy firms, as well as indirect links via the state-supported banks that fund them.” Given this excessive dependence on oil, Russia needs the price of oil to be in excess of $100 per barrel, for the government expenditure and income to be balanced.
As Javed Mian writes in the Stray Reflections newsletter dated November 2014: “Today, Russia needs an oil price in excess of $100 a barrel to support the state and preserve its national security.” The Citigroup in a report puts the break-even cost of the Russian government budget at an oil price of $105 per barrel. The oil price, as we know, is nowhere near that level.
The rouble lost 10% against the dollar on December 15 and another 11% on December 16. Why did this happen? Foreign investors are exiting Russia lock, stock and barrel. The Russian central bank recently estimated that capital flight could touch $130 billion this year.
The foreign investors are selling their investments in roubles and buying dollars, leading to an increase in demand for dollars vis a vis roubles. This has led to the value of the rouble crashing against the dollar.
The Russian central bank has tried to stem this flow by buying the “excess” roubles being dumped on to the foreign exchange market and selling dollars. It is estimated that on December 15, 2014, it sold around $2 billion to buy roubles.
But even this did not help prevent the worse rouble crash since 1998. This forced the Russian central bank to raise the interest rate by 650 basis points (one basis point is one hundredth of a percentage) to 17%. Despite this overnight manoeuvre, the rouble continued to crash against the dollar and fell by 11% on December 16.
The Russian central bank has spent more than $80 billion in trying to defend the rouble against the dollar this year and is now left with reserves of around $416 billion. The question is will these reserves turn out to be enough?
Russian companies and banks have an external debt of close to $700 billion. Of this around $30 billion is due this month and another $100 billion over the course of next year, writes Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Telegraph.
He also quotes Lubomir Mitov, from the Institute of International Finance, as saying that any fall in reserves below $330bn could prove dangerous, given the scale of foreign debt and a confluence of pressures. “It is a perfect storm. Each $10 fall in the price of oil reduces export revenues by some 2 percent of GDP. A decline of this magnitude could shift the current account to a 3.5 deficit,” Mitov told Evans-Pritchard.
This has implications for Russia on multiple fronts. With oil revenues falling, the Russian economy will contract in 2015. Before raising the interest rates to 17%, the Russian central bank had said that the economy could contract by 4.7% because of oil prices falling to $60 per barrel.
Also, inflation which before this week’s currency crisis was at 9.1%, could go up further. As The Economist points out: “Russian shopkeepers have started to re-price their goods daily. Less than two weeks ago one dollar could be bought with 52 roubles; on December 16th between 70 and 80 were needed. Shops defending their dollar income need a price rise of 50% to offset this.”
Further, so much money leaving Russia in such quick time, the country may also have to think of implementing capital controls.
The revenue projections of the Russian government have gone totally out of whack. The Financial Times reports that two weeks back, the Russian president Vladmir Putin, “ signed the federal budget for 2015-17 — which is still based on forecasts of 2.5 per cent annual gross domestic product growth, 5.5 per cent inflation and oil at $96 a barrel.” These assumptions will have to junked.
Putin might also might have to go slow on the aggressive military strategy that he has been following for a while now As Mian points out: “Russia is the world’s 8th-largest economy, but its military spending trails only the US and China. Putin increased the military budget 31% from 2008 to 2013, overtaking UK and Saudi Arabia, as reported by the International Institute of Strategic Studies.”
Whether this happens remains to be seen. Nevertheless, the Russian crisis has led to financial markets falling in large parts of the world. As I write this the BSE Sensex is quoting at around 26,700 points having fallen by around 1800 points over the last two weeks.
So, what are the lessons in this for India? The first and foremost is that foreign investors can exit an economy at any point of time, once they finally start feeling that the economy is in trouble. They may not exit the equity market all at once but they can exit the debt market very quickly.
This is something that India needs to keep in mind. From December 2013 up to December 15, 2014, the foreign institutional investors have invested Rs 1,63,523.08 crore (around $25.7 billion assuming$1=Rs63.6) in the Indian debt market. This is Rs 44,443 crore more than what they have invested in the stock market.
Even if a part of the money invested the debt market starts to leave the country, the rupee will crash against the dollar. This is precisely what happened between June and November 2013 when foreign institutional investors sold debt worth Rs 78,382.2 crore.
When they converted these rupees into dollars, the demand for dollars went up, leading to the rupee crashing and touching almost 70 to a dollar. It was at this point of time that Raghuram Rajan in various capacities, first as officer on special duty at the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and later as RBI governor, helped stop the crash.
This is a point that the finance minister Arun Jaitley needs to keep in mind and drop the habit of asking Rajan to cut interest rates, almost every time that he speaks in public. Rajan knows his job and its best to allow him and the RBI to do things as they deems fit. Further, Rajan and RBI are more cued into what is happening internationally than perhaps any of the politicians can ever be.
Also, one reason that foreign institutional investors have invested so much money in the Indian debt market is because the returns on government debt are on the higher side vis a vis other countries. If the RBI were to cut the repo rate (or the rate at which it lends to banks) these returns will come down and this could possibly lead to the exit of some money invested by foreign investors in India’s debt market. And that would not be good news on the rupee front.

The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on Dec 17, 2014

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

11 December, 2014

As tax collections slow down, govt fiscal deficit shoots to its highest level in 16 years

Vivek Kaul

The Controller General of Accounts declares the fiscal deficit number at the end of every month. The cycle works with a delay of month. So, at the end of November 2014, the fiscal deficit for the first seven months of the financial year (April to October 2014) was declared.
The fiscal deficit for this period stood at a rather worrying 89.6% of the annual target of Rs 5,31,177 crore. Fiscal deficit is the difference between what a government earns and what it spends.
One reason the fiscal deficit is number is so high is because the government’s expenditure is spread all through the year, whereas it earns a substantial part of its income only towards the end of the year. But even keeping that point in mind, the fiscal deficit for the first seven months of this financial year is substantially high than it usually has been in the years gone by.
For the period April to October 2013, the fiscal deficit had stood at 84.4% of the annual target for that year. In fact, the accompanying table shows us that the fiscal deficit for the first seven months of this financial year has been the highest over the last sixteen years.

Period	Fiscal deficit as a proportion of the annual target
April to Oct 2014	89.60%
April to Oct 2013	84.40%
April to Oct 2012	71.60%
April to Oct 2011	74.40%
April to Oct 2010	42.60%
April to Oct 2009	61.10%
April to Oct 2008	87.80%
April to Oct 2007	54.50%
April to Oct 2006	58.60%
April to Oct 2005	60.90%
April to Oct 2004	45.20%
April to Oct 2003	56.00%
April to Oct 2002	51.50%
April to Oct 2001	54.50%
April to Oct 2000	45.70%
April to Oct 1999	72.20%
April to Oct 1998	67.00%

Source: www.cga.nic.in

Also, I couldn’t look for data beyond 1998, given that it wasn’t available online. The table makes for a very interesting reading. The fiscal deficit level up to October 2007 was under control. It took off once the government decided to crank up expenditure to meet its social obligations.
Further, the average fiscal deficit for the first seven months of the year between 1998 and 2013 stood at 61.75% of the annual target. Hence, the number for this year at 89.6% of the annual target, is very high indeed.
Why has this happened? The income of the government during the period has gone up by only 5.3%. The budget presented in July earlier this year assumed that the income would grow by 15.6% in comparison to the last financial year.
The collection of direct as well as indirect taxes has been significantly slower than what was assumed. The direct taxes (corporation and income tax primarily) were assumed to grow at 15.7% in comparison to the last financial year. They have grown at only 5.5%.
The indirect taxes (customs duty, excise duty and service tax) were supposed to grow at 20.3%. They have grown by only 5.9%. In fact, within indirect taxes, the collection of customs duty has fallen by 1.7%.
What this clearly tells us is that the finance minister Arun Jaitley made very aggressive assumptions when it came to growth in tax collection and will now have a tough time meeting the numbers.
What makes the situation worse is the fact that Jaitley’s predecessor, P Chidambaram, had made the same mistake. In fact, in 2013-2014, Chidambaram had projected a total gross tax collection of Rs 12,35,870 crore. The final collection stood around 6.2% lower at Rs 11,58,906 crore. Given this, Jaitley could have avoided falling into the same trap and worked with a more realistic set of numbers. But then those projections wouldn’t have projected “acche din”, the plank on which the Bhartiya Janata Party had fought the Lok Sabha elections.
Even with such a huge fall in tax collections, Chidambaram managed to beat the fiscal deficit target that he had set by essentially pushing expenditure of more than Rs 1,00,000 crore into the next financial year (i.e. the current financial year 2014-2015).
Chidambaram essentially ended up passing on what was his problem to Jaitley. Jaitley cannot do that because he will continue to be the finance minister (or someone else from the BJP government will).
So what can Jaitley do if he needs to meet the fiscal deficit target of Rs 5,31,177 crore or 4.1% of GDP that he has set? The first thing that will happen and is already happening is that the plan expenditure will be slashed. The plan expenditure for the first seven months of the year fell by 0.4% to Rs 2,66,991 crore.
This was the strategy followed by Chidambaram as well in 2013-2014. The plan expenditure target at the time of the presentation of the budget was at Rs 5,55,322 crore. The actual number came in 14.4% lower at Rs 4,75,532 crore. This is how a major part of government expenditure was controlled.
The government expenditure is categorised into two kinds—planned and non planned. Planned expenditure is essentially money that goes towards creation of productive assets through schemes and programmes sponsored by the central government.
Non-plan expenditure is an outcome of planned expenditure. For example, the government constructs a highway using money categorised as a planned expenditure. But the money that goes towards the maintenance of that highway is non-planned expenditure. Interest payments on debt, pensions, salaries, subsidies and maintenance expenditure are all non-plan expenditure.
As is obvious a lot of non-plan expenditure is largely regular expenditure that cannot be done away with. The government needs to keep paying salaries, pensions and interest on debt, on time. These expenses cannot be postponed. Hence, the asset creating plan expenditure gets slashed.
The second thing that the government is doing is not passing on the benefit of falling oil prices to the consumers. It has increased the excise duty on petrol and diesel twice, since deregulating diesel prices in October.
The third thing the government will have to do is to get aggressive on the disinvestment front in the period up to March 2015. The disinvestment target for the year is Rs 58,425 crore. But until now the government has gone slow on selling shares that it owns both in government and non-government companies because of reasons only it can best explain.
The recent sale of shares in the Steel Authority of India Ltd(SAIL) was pushed through with more than a little help from the Life Insurance Corporation of India and other government owned financial firms. This is nothing but moving money from one arm of the government to another arm. It cannot be categorised as genuine disinvestment.
This is something that Chidambaram and the UPA government regularly did in order to meet the disinvestment target. Despite this they couldn’t meet the disinvestment target in 2013-2014. The government had hoped to earn Rs 54,000 crore but earned only Rs 19,027 crore.
Also, selling assets to fund regular yearly expenditure is not a healthy practice. If at all the government wants to sell its stake in companies, it should be directing that money towards a special fund which could be used to improve the poor physical infrastructure throughout the country. Right now, the money collected through this route goes into the Consolidated Funds of India.
In the months to come we could also see the government forcing cash rich companies like Coal India (which has more than Rs 50,000 crore of cash on its books) to pay a special interim dividend to the government, as was the case last year.
This is the way I see things panning out over the next few months. Nevertheless, the proper thing to do would be to put out the right fiscal deficit number, instead of trying to use accounting and other tricks to hide it.
The first step towards solving a problem is to acknowledge that it exists.

The article originally appeared on www.equitymaster.com as a part of The Daily Reckoning, on Dec 11, 2014

13 November, 2014

Eight things you need to know about falling oil prices

Vivek Kaul

The price of oil has been falling for a while now. As I write this the brent crude oil is selling at around $80.4 per barrel. There are several reasons behind the fall and several repercussions from it as well. Let’s look at them one by one.

1) The Chinese demand for oil has not been growing at the same rate as it was in the past, as Chinese economic growth has been falling. As Ruchir Sharma, head of Emerging Markets and Global Macro at Morgan Stanley Investment Management wrote in a recent column in The Wall Street Journal “The growth rate in Chinese demand for oil has plummeted to nearly zero this year, down from 12% in 2010. This is arguably the main reason why oil prices are down.”
2) In the past when oil prices fell, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) led by Saudi Arabia used to cut production to ensure that supply fell and that ensured that prices did not continue to fall. This hasn’t happened this time around. As the Saudi oil minister Ali Naimi told Reuters on November 12, “Saudi oil policy has been constant for the last few decades and it has not changed today.” He added that: “We do not seek to politicise oil…for us, it’s a question of supply and demand, it’s purely business.”
And what is this pure business Al Naimi is talking about? The United States and other western nations like Canada have had a boom in shale oil production. This boom has led to the United States and Canada producing much more oil than they were a few years back. Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that United States in 2013 produced 12.35 million barrels per day. This is a massive increase of 35% since 2009. In case of Canada the production has gone up by 22.8% to 4.07 million barrels per day between 2009 to 2013.
Shale oil is very expensive to produce and depending on which estimate one believes it is viable only if oil prices range between $50 and $75 per barrel. Hence, by ensuring low oil prices the Saudis want to squeeze out the shale oil producing companies in Canada and United States.
3) So is the Saudi policy working? The US Energy Information Administration in its latest Drilling Productivity Report said that the seven largest shale oil companies will produce 125,000 barrels more per day in December 2014 in comparison to November 2014.
Hence, the Saudi strategy of driving down oil prices to ensure that the production of oil by shale oil companies is no longer viable, hasn’t seemed to have had an impact yet. Nevertheless that doesn’t mean that a fall in oil prices will have no impact on shale oil production.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has said that the investment in shale oil fields will fall by 10% next year, if oil prices continue to remain at $80 per barrel. Faith Bristol, chief economist of IEA recently said “there could be a 10 per cent decline in US light tight oil, or shale, investment in 2015 [from full-year 2014 levels]”…I wouldn’t be surprised to see statements from different companies in the weeks and months to come [outlining a change in] their investment plans and reducing budgets for investments in North America . . . especially the United States.” And this will have an impact on the production of shale oil in the medium term, if Saudis continue to sustain low oil prices.
4) Nonetheless, the interesting thing that the United States and other Western nations may never have to increase production of shale oil, just the threat of doing that will act as an insurance policy. As Niels C. Jensen writes in the Absolute Return Letter for November 2014 “There is nothing easier to get used to in this world than higher living standards, and the populations of most oil producing nations have seen plenty of that in recent years. Shale [oil] is a threat against those living standards, and falling oil prices are the best assurance they can hope for that shale [oil] will never become the major production factor that we are all being told that it could become. It is very expensive to produce and thus requires high oil and gas prices to be economical.”
But even with that shale oil can act as an insurance policy against high oil prices, feels Jensen. As he writes “In a rather bizarre way, shale [oil] has thus become an insurance policy, as the western world never have to ramp up shale production to levels that have been discussed. The sheer threat of doing so should keep the oil price at acceptable levels.”
5) Also, low oil prices are going to benefit nations which import oil. “A $20-per-barrel drop in oil prices transfers $6-700 billion from oil producing nations to consumers worldwide or nearly 1% of world GDP. Assuming consumers will spend about half of that on consumption, which historically has been a fair assumption, the positive effect on GDP in consumer countries is 0.5%,” writes Hunt. And this is clearly good news for oil importing nations like India. Falling oil prices are also benefiting airlines and shipping companies given that oil is their single biggest expense.
6) News reports suggest that China is using this opportunity to buy a lot of oil. As a recent report on Bloomberg points out “The number of supertankers sailing toward China’s ports matched a record on Oct. 17 and is still close to that level now.”
7) The countries that are likely to get into trouble if oil prices continue to remain low are primarily Russia and Iran. Russia relies heavily on exports of oil and gas. As a recent article on cnbc.com points out “In 2013, for example, Russia’s energy exports constituted more than two-thirds of total exports amounting to $372 billion of a total $526 billion.” Further, the Russian government’s budget gets balanced (i.e. its income is equal to its expenditure) at an oil price of anywhere between $100-110 per barrel. Iran’s case is similar. Hence, both these countries need higher oil prices.
As a recent Oped in the Los Angeles Times points out “Russia and Iran compete with Saudi Arabia in the international oil market, and both need oil prices to be at roughly $110 a barrel in order to balance their budgets. If oil prices remain at $80 a barrel, the strategic ambitions of Tehran and Moscow could be severely undermined.”
8) Saudi Arabia also gets hit by a lower oil prices. “Saudi produces close to 10m barrels per day, similar to Russian output. A $20 fall in the oil price, costs Saudi Arabia about $200m per day,” a recent article in The Independent points out.
But Saudi Arabia has more staying power than the others. The fact that Aramco (officially known as Saudi Arabian Oil Company) has deep pockets is a point worth remembering. As Vijay Bhambwani, CEO of BSPLIndia.com recently told me “Saudis can produce low cost arab light sweet crude very cost efficiently and only the recent state welfare schemes implemented after the arab spring, have raised the marginal costs. Even a slight rollback / delayed released of the additional welfare payments (US $ 36 billion) can add sizeable cash flow into the Saudi national balance sheet and give it additional staying power.”
To conclude, there are many different dimensions to falling oil prices and the way each one of them evolves, will have some impact on oil prices in the days to come .

The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on Nov 13, 2014

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

7 October, 2014

Why oil prices are falling despite the rise of ISIS

Vivek Kaul

All other things staying the same, oil prices have always been inversely proportional to peace in the Middle East. The moment any tension or war breaks out in the Middle East, oil prices start rising. The logic is pretty straight forward given that the region has some of the biggest oil fields in the world and produces bulk of the oil that the world consumes.
Any tension is seen as a threat to supply of oil in the future, and taking that possibility into account, oil prices start to go up.
But this theory doesn’t seem to be working in the recent past. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has been waging a war in the region for a while now, but oil prices instead of going up, have been coming down. The international crude oil price of Indian Basket as on September 30, 2014, stood at $ 95.34 per barrel (bbl). The price must have fallen more since then, but no new data has been released given that the government has been on a five day holiday.
The brent crude oil is currently trading at around $92.8 per barrel. This is a fall of more than 19% since June 2014. The more ISIS has grown stronger in the Middle East, the more oil prices have fallen.
How does one explain this dichotomy? There are multiple reasons behind this. ISIS has managed to capture the largest oilfield in Syria and now controls 60% of the oil production in the country. Nevertheless this has had no impact on the price of oil globally. The reason for this is straightforward. Syria is the 32nd largest producer of oil in the world and in 2013 produced only 0.48% of the oil produced globally.
ISIS has also managed to take over a number of oil fields in Iraq. But they haven’t been able to move into the Southern part of the country where the majority of the oilfields are located. Iraq is the seventh largest producer of oil in the world and in 2013 produced around 3.75% of global oil. Hence, any disruption of oil supply in Iraq will have some impact on global prices. But that hasn’t happened.
As Crisil Research explains in a research report titled Falling crude, LNG, coal prices huge positive for India “This is because the likelihood of Islamic State progressing towards southern Iraq, which has about 65-70% of the country’s oil production and reserves, seems minimal. For one, that part of Iraq is dominated by Shia Muslims who do not support Islamic State.”
Further, ISIS also needs money to keep running their operations. And that means that they need to keep pumping oil out of the oilfields that they have captured. The oil is sold at a discount to the world price of oil, to Turkey, which in turn, resells it in Europe. This is another reason why oil prices haven’t risen. The supply from the captured oilfields is still hitting the world market.
Over and above this, the oil supply from Libya is coming back. A newsreport points out that Libya is pumping close to 925,000 barrels of oil per day. This has been the highest since Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown from power in Libya. Libya in 2013 produced around 0.85% of global oil production. These are the short term reasons as to why the price of oil hasn’t gone up, despite the advance of the ISIS.
There are several long term reasons as well. The United States and Canada are producing much more oil than they were a few years back. Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that United States in 2013 produced 12.35 million barrels per day. This is a massive increase of 35% since 2009. A recent report in the www.businessinsider.com points out that “In 2010 the [United States] still imported half of the crude it consumed, but the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts that will fall to little more than 20 percent next year.”
In case of Canada the production has gone up by 22.8% to 4.07 million barrels per day between 2009 to 2013. This massive increase in oil production has come from a boom in shale oil output. As a recent report in the Financial Times pointed out “Booming shale oil output has pushed US production to a 28-year high at the expense of imports.”
This has led to a situation where the United States has stopped importing oil from countries it was doing earlier. Take the case of Nigeria. The country did not import a single barrel of oil to the United States in July 2014. The country till four years back was one of the top 5 exporters of oil to the United States.
In fact as a October 2 blog on the Financial Times website points out “At its peak in February 2006, the US imported 1.3m b/d from Nigeria – equal to roughly one super-tanker the size of the Exxon Valdez every day. By 2012, Nigeria was already selling just 0.5m b/d, but was still one of the top-5 suppliers to the US, alongside Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela.”
Columbian oil exports to the United States have also fallen by a one third up to July this year, in comparison to the same period last year.
All this oil which was going to the United States earlier is now hitting the world market and is a major reason why oil prices have not rallied in the recent past. Interestingly, the US production of oil is now more than one third of the oil being produced in the Middle East. All this has had a huge impact on oil prices given that the United States is the biggest consumer of oil in the world.
Higher supplies from Iran are also expected to hit the market. Currently the country is facing international sanctions and is not allowed to sell a major portion of the oil that it produces. In 2013, Iran produced 4.77% of the total global oil production and was the fourth largest producer of oil in the world. As Crisil Research points out “In case of Iran, production is expected to return to the pre-sanctions levels of 4.4 mbpd from current levels of 3.1 mbpd as Iran is expected to co-operate with the international community after the change of regime post-elections.”
This is expected to happen because over the last two years international sanctions have had a severe impact on Iran. “In 2012 and 2013, Iran’s GDP registered a negative growth, inflation rose more than 60% cumulatively, and Iranian Rial depreciated by more than 85% cumulatively. Since Iran’s economy is oil-dependent, with oil exports contributing to ~85% of total exports, it will have to increase its oil exports to repair its economy,” Crisil research points out.
All these reasons, along with the fact that China’s economic growth is slowing down have ensured that oil prices haven’t gone up in the recent past. China is the second largest consumer of oil in the world after the United States.
In the recent past several analysts have suggested that Saudi Arabia and United States are working together to drive down the price of oil. This is being done to cut off the funding of ISIS. As oil prices fall, the price at which ISIS will have to sell oil will fall further. And that way, they amount of money they earn will come down. The question that needs to be answered is that how much truth does this theory have. I will try and answer that in the next piece. Watch this space.
The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on Oct 7, 2014

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