The Oil Drum: Canada

I recently looked through news articles to see which energy sectors were being affected by the credit crisis. I was amazed at how widespread and how devastating the impact is.

There are really two closely related problems. One is reduced access to credit, making new borrowing difficult for nearly every business that requires debt. Prices for all commodities have been dropping as well. At least part of the reason for this price decline is the lack of availability of credit—many of the less credit-worth buyers drop out of the market. This leaves fewer buyers and almost the same number of sellers, so the price drops.

In this post, I examine how reduced access to credit and the concomitant decline in commodity prices is affecting energy companies.

Recently, two major actuarial organizations asked members to submit essays on the financial crisis. The only limitation was that the papers had to be very short--they should fit on two typewritten sheets of paper.

Since I have written in the past on the financial crisis, I took the opportunity to respond. This was my summary of the current financial situation, its connection to our limited resources, and what we need to do to solve the crisis. I never actually use the words "peak oil" and, in fact, the precise timing of peak oil is irrelevant. The issue is really the financial squeeze that occurs when resources starts to become expensive to deliver, and that doesn't really require peak oil.

Our World Is Finite

We all know the world isn’t flat. Any of us would be laughed out of the room if we built a model with a flat earth as one of its major assumptions.

We also know that the world isn’t infinite. There are a finite number of atoms in the earth and its atmosphere. The ability of our atmosphere to absorb pollutants is limited. The ability of our soil to withstand repeated mistreatment is limited. The amount of our non-renewable resources is limited.

Fossil fuels, especially oil, are a particular problem. Even though the amount of resources seems huge, the cost of extraction (in terms of fossil fuel resources, man-hours, and fresh water) increases greatly after we have extracted the easy-to-extract oil, natural gas, and even coal. Substitutes (such as ethanol and solar voltaic) are expensive in terms of fossil fuel use, man-hours, and fresh water. It is also difficult to ramp up quantities to the level needed to substitute for fossil fuels.

Editor's note: the following post is by Dr. Charles Hall and his Phd student David Murphy (EROI Guy), and is part of our on-going series reviewing the World Energy Outlook 2008, recently published by the IEA. It is also the first post of a new 'channel' on The Oil Drum: TOD:EROI, where we will be posting essays, papers, and analysis on the biophysical aspects of energy. Our intent is to be a real time central clearinghouse for biophysical/net energy research and ideas. We have debated on calling it EROEI - Energy Return on Energy Invested, but have decided to keep it consistent with the acronym from the energy literature. The post below critiques the neoclassical economic assumptions underpinning the IEA report and proposes future 'energy watchdog' reports utilize an alternative approach grounded in biophysical concepts.

In the second post in this series on suburbia and peak oil, I’ll consider one of the threats that peak oil poses to suburbia: the increasing cost of commuting to and from work for suburban residents. My conclusions may surprise readers: suburbanites aren't particularly vulnerable to the rising cost of gasoline. Instead, like all of us, they are vulnerable to general economic shocks that may be caused by peak oil, but the elasticity of their commuting budgets may better position them to deal with these shocks than urban residents.

Jeff Rubin, Chief Economist at CIBC World Markets, in a recent report, is now saying that the current recession is caused by high oil prices. Defaulting mortgages are only a symptom of the high oil prices. We should be blaming the underlying cause--higher oil prices--rather than the symptom. These higher oil prices caused Japan and the Eurozone to enter into a recession even before the most recent financial problems hit. Higher oil prices started four of the last five world recessions; we shouldn't be too surprised if they started this one also.

Figure 1 - Shows that four out of the past five recessions have followed spikes in oil prices

Many argue that suburbia was a terrible idea—a giant waste of land, capital, and culture. I largely agree. But there you have it: suburbia happened, with no refund available. It is a sunk cost—not only the millions of homes, but the vast infrastructure for transportation, employment, governance, and distribution that is fundamentally intertwined with the suburban model. Looking into a future of energy scarcity and economic challenge, it is time for the discussion to shift from “suburbia sucks” to “what are we going to do about it?” Is it possible to build a vibrant, sustainable, and self-sufficient civilization on the framework of existing suburban development? More importantly, is there any viable alternative? This four-part series will take a critical look at suburbia in an environment of peak oil, beginning with this post’s discussion of sunk costs and credit markets as they impact our options.

A few days ago, I wrote a post titled Why Are Oil (and Gasoline) Prices So Low? Since then, OPEC has voted to cut oil production 1.5 million barrels a day. In spite of this, the price of oil is about 5% lower. The purpose of this post is to add an update, with a little more of the story about why the price of oil is dropping more than some of us would expect.

One of the issues I mentioned in that story was

4. Rising value of the dollar

I noted in that post that the price of oil seems to drop as the price of the dollar rises against currencies such as the Euro. As I delve into the question more, I am starting to learn more about why the value of the dollar has recently been rising. It seems that the rising value of the dollar is tied to a combination of things--one is the flight to the US dollar for safety, another is the unwind of the carry trade, and a third is margin calls on hedge funds and other borrowers. The rising level of the dollar because of these issues seems to be a major contributor to the recent decline in oil prices.

In my recent post on coal seam gas (CSG) I noted that BG's bid for Origin Energy was the event that kick-started the boom in interest in Australian CSG producers.

BG's bid for Origin eventually failed (with ConocoPhilips instead buying a share of Origin's CSG assets), but they have now returned to the fray - this time with a $5 billion bid for QGC (Queensland Gas Company).

BG already owns 9 per cent of QGC (and 20 per cent of QGC's CSG reserves) and is keen to secure supplies for planned LNG export plant at Gladstone.

We all know that oil prices are lower than they were in the recent past because supply is greater than demand. In fact, OPEC oil ministers are meeting this week to try to fix supply, so it will be more in line with demand.

All of this seems a little strange, though. We are going into the winter months, when demand for oil normally rises because many people around the world heat their homes with oil. We are using somewhat less gasoline in the United States, but apart from the hurricane disruptions, not very much less than earlier this year. While we are going into a recession, it doesn't seem to have hit with full force yet. What other factors may be involved in the current lower prices? In this post, I will discuss factors besides those we usually think of as supply and demand that may be involved.

Figure 1. EIA Chart of WTI oil spot prices - One measure of oil price

As the world slowly awakens to the concept that all wealth perhaps can't be measured by digits in the bank, the global economic and political elite have been meeting to potentially form a "new Bretton Woods," kick started by global guarantees of banking deposits, direct government investment in banks, and global rate cuts. Though the markets have so far reacted with glee (or short covering), pumping fiat money into the system with no biophysical linkage to the real economy has (at least) two major problems. First, it accelerates the growing gap between financial capital and real capital, and second, it tacitly acknowledges our current "ends" as acceptable, and that all forms of capital can and should continue to be directed towards the positional consumption of "stuff" that our culture currently advocates (perhaps via momentum alone). In crisis times such as these, our leaders would do well to recognize that the human economy is a subset of a larger, finite system, and is subject to the natural laws forthwith. Furthermore, a plethora of new economic, psycholgic, and neuroscience research also suggests that "more" does not equate with "better".

Below the fold is a guest commentary explaining these themes written by my thesis co-advisor, Robert Costanza, director of the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont.