Supply Killer

63.00 USD is a supply killing level for the price of oil. This is well below the price band of 70.00-100.00 so often mentioned by global producers, from Statoil to Petrobras, over the past three years. It’s a level that’s below the calculation used by TAQA, which they have used in deals from deepwater to the oil sands. It’s a level that bruises Russian exports, crushes enhanced oil-recovery projects, and wipes out future expansion plans in Alberta. The supply killing process is now underway.

Aggravating the problem, however, is that the energy required now to extract fossil fuels is significantly and structurally higher than it was just 10 years ago. 2008 NG, and 2008 Oil bears almost no relationship to the same versions of these commodities from only just 10 years ago. Go back 30 years, and it’s like two different worlds.

Net energy is the key concept. And net energy the world over, is in decline.

To be sure, there are still places in the world where “stuff” comes out of the ground at a cost that is more closely tied to the cheap extraction costs of the past. But even in Saudi, they are no longer able to stick a straw into the sand, and start sucking. Now, they too must engage in massive engineering projects to bring on new supply. And massive engineering projects have delays.

Over at the Oil Drum, Nate Hagens is dropping hints like he’s going to take a shot at the Net Energy equation. Cutler Cleveland has already done so, in a fine piece called Ten Fundamental Principles of Net Energy. Again, very tough to quantify but the theoretical idea is as follows: it’s not so much about Peak supply or Peak extraction (though, those are indeed also key concepts)–instead, it’s about Peak net energy extraction. What is your actual energy surplus after you’ve had to blow through a ton of energy, to extract your unit of energy?

This is why many of us who do oil analysis are seeing 63.00 on the way down quite differently, than 63.00 on the way up. The point here is that a tremendous amount of true, structural change had to occur to get oil above 40.00, and then above 60.00, and then above 100.00. Those levels would not have held were there not actual changes occurring in the net energy equation. Price is just our vehicle to try and quantify the underlying change.

My views over the past two years are in total alignment with people such as Norrish and Horsnell at Barclay’s. The problem is that oil at 63.00 sets us up again for another enormous spike, as demand returns next year over a crimped supply landscape. It would be very rough indeed were oil to make a new high above 160.00 in late Q3 2009, were the global economy still sluggish. But that is exactly what could happen were oil to stay below 70.00 for another 3-6 months.

Updated: one of my readers has pointed out that supply killing dynamics are already appearing in Agriculture.

-Gregor

  • The opecs and non-opecs are addicted to cash. They just aren't going to cut supply if they're not as profitable. They aren't that flexible, efficient and frankly there are ferraris and Breguets to be purchased.
  • i read 6 months ago gas price at the pump could drop to below 3.00 a gallon only to soar into the summer of 2009. this seems to dovetail with your forecast of higher prices for oil 3rd q of 2009. i am an oil and solar bull. suffering for the moment.
  • gregor.us
    See Carolyn Baum's column and how she really dissappointed today, because she has convinced herself that the only response to high prices is demand destruction. She doesn't consider demand suppression. We have seen evidence of both. So, we are going to see some demand that was highly discretionary not come back here in the States. And frankly that is a good thing. Driving the SUV to get some milk really needed to end.

    But demand suppression is also real. We saw this Summer that as soon as gasoline prices broke, demand that had been suppressed, not destroyed, came back hard.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarch...

    G
  • Gregor, I'm an engineer...an old professor I had (a controls prof, not specializing in energy, it is relevant that he teaches controls), said that the rate we can pull oil from the ground will actually be the limit of supply, in ~5 years? I figured innovation would put that notion to rest...and shrugged it off as It was february '08 and I had thought the oil bubble was about to burst. But, do you know how much truth there is to what he mentioned?

    BTW, I've more than thought about the net energy balance, I haven't studied it like you have...but I'm really glad you're thoughts are in-line with my logic. You're an inspiration to what I want to be, for the water industry, in 20 years.
  • gregor.us
    Keep thinking about the net energy balance. We need as many people as possible working on quantification. Seriously.

    And thanks. But you won't need to wait 20 years to claim expertise on Water. You only need about 5 years to start. And then you just keep going!

    G
  • I remember a Ted Talk from Amory Lovins advocating putting in a synthetic price floor on oil using a tax... any thoughts?

    Here's the link: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/amory_lovins...
  • gregor.us
    I reluctantly agree with Lovins because while I like the idea its probably unworkable politically. Though, after dislocation, mayhem, and other historic events, it becomes easier to put in place previously inconceivable policy. (as an aside, I regard Lovins other project as largely a waste of time--the electric car).

    If I am correct however that we have entered a a time where the amplitude of oil's price is going to drive the average person crazy, then a floor may be more accepted by society. The key thing of course is taking the volatility away which makes investment in alternative energy nigh impossible. It's not just the lower price, but the uncertainty.

    Are you aware of google.org's project on coal? RE<C

    G
  • I'm hesitant to dismiss electric cars outright. We'll see how Better Place does in Israel.
  • gregor.us
    That's fair and good point. And I would argue that local electric car systems can work really well. As I have been to Israel myself, I would put IZ in the small/local category. So yes I see a place for electrics at the margin in US cities. However, my central transition thesis holds that Light Rail, Commuter Rail and then high speed rail (in that order of priority) are the only solution in the US. Then a much larger power grid to run it all will be needed, with utility grade solar, wind, and nuclear feeding into that grid.

    I suspect Better Place will do well either in current form, or some iteration thereof.
  • Zebra
    Supply destruction applied to agriculture. Same principle, but cycle is faster.

    Farm-Credit Squeeze May Cut Crops, Spur Food Crisis

    Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) -- The credit crunch is compounding a profit squeeze for farmers that may curb global harvests and worsen a food crisis for developing countries.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarch...
  • gregor.us
    Yes zebra. Well spotted. Same thing, exactly. I need to grab that article for my delicious page. Cheers, G
  • Excellent followup to last week's piece Gregor. As an oil bull, I tend to agree although admittedly I didn't see this level of decline likely in such a short period of time.
  • gregor.us
    No one did. Except for those who have spent the entire decade saying oil was a bubble, and who never bothered to learn anything about oil.

    What's interesting is to listen to the best analysts over the past year, talking about future oil prices and the cost of the incremental bbl. I think many of us have long been well aware oil can go to any level for a short period of time. 250.00 was possible, and so was 50.00--just not likely.

    But have you seen the massive contango in the crude oil futures curve? It's been as much as 20 dollars or more from front month to DEC 2016.

    What's that telling us? (Probably nothing--untill it's sustained)

    G
  • Great post! I've never thought about this "net energy" concept before, but I see just how important it is.
  • gregor.us
    It's a big subject. And the work is ongoing. Saudi is a great laboratory, as their net energy from their giant fields was for many years, like a profit margin, very high. However, one things I like to look at is how much Time is takes now for them to bring on new production. It takes them years now.
blog comments powered by Disqus