The team at Casey’s Energy Opportunities believe that planned government buying or selling of crude oil for SPRs actually have very little impact in the overall market. However, an overall drawdown of worldwide inventory could put downward pressure on the price of oil. The various countries also have their particular reasons and influences in decisions to tap their reserves.

So which countries are executing preparedness plans to fill their strategic reserves with $70 oil now (as opposed to $140+)? Below are the 10 countries that consume the most oil in the world, as of 2008, the latest figures available from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy:

Russia, Canada, and Saudi Arabia can leave the list, as they are net exporters of oil and thus do not actually require a strategic reserve, at least in the short term. We’ll also bump Brazil, because its balance of imports is dwindling every year, and it should become a exporter before it requires a reserve. That leaves six countries to examine:

The United States

Not surprisingly, America has the largest strategic reserve in the world in an absolute sense. Its 727 million barrels are stored in four hollowed-out salt domes (and one pending) along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico. These add up to some 62 days’ worth of imports, according to government sources. The United States government currently has plans to push this to 1 billion barrels, or about 85 days’ worth of imports, which would make the reserves equivalent to those of Japan and Korea.

The SPR build-up will be accomplished by expanding two of the current facilities, for an additional 113 million barrels, and (probably) building a new one in Richton, Missouri, for 160 million barrels. The Richton project has met local opposition, because it would require pumping 50 million gallons of freshwater per day from the Pascagoula River to dissolve enough salt to open up another subterranean cavern. The total cost of the program is estimated at US$3.7 billion, not including the cost to fill the reserves. Oil purchases are likely to be slow, at around 100,000 bpd (barrels per day) before 2014 and 150,000 bpd thereafter.

In a real emergency, the combined American strategic and commercial reserves (the latter held by private corporations, especially refiners) may seem unnervingly thin from the perspective of energy security. Add to that the fact that the government can release them at a rate of only 4.4 million barrels per day, or about half its imports.

Still, the 108 or so days’ reserve it has between government and commercial sources are considered adequate by international standards. The United States has used this reserve twice in the past 20 years (Desert Storm and Hurricane Katrina) to combat severe demand or supply disruptions. It also has the luxury of importing more oil from Canada in an emergency.

Scenarios that could force a sustained drawdown of reserves:

• Sustained hyperinflation in the United States due to actions by the Federal Reserve that causes oil-producing countries to look for better markets to sell oil.

• A prolonged general embargo by OPEC on the United States, forcing America to look to traditional partners such as Canada and Mexico, though they might not have sufficient oil.

• Another war, potentially in North Korea or Iran, requiring a large amount of oil input from America that it simply does not have.

• A particularly active hurricane season that knocks out a large amount of production capacity in the Gulf of Mexico, and the United States releases from the SPR to help.

China

China’s strategic reserves began being built in 2004, when leaders in China began to realize that the country had no adequate government-controlled reserves to combat any disruptions in the supply of oil. China is a large importer and is dependent on the same sources of foreign oil as the United States. China is even more anxious to build such a reserve, as two of its neighbors, Korea and Japan, both have large strategic reserves.

China currently has four government reserves with a total reserve potential of 272 million barrels, which translates to about 30 days’ consumption. Two of the four have been confirmed full, and there are rumors that all four are and that China has taken advantage of the recent precipitous drop in the price of oil to buy up. According to Chinese government sources, however, the reserves are likely not to be completely full until 2010, and 2009 buying of oil will be at around 42 million barrels.

The government has also announced plans to increase the country’s reserve from 30 to 100 days of consumption. The next stage of the development will call for an additional 170 million barrels in eight storage facilities. The locations of the facilities are as yet secret.

In an emergency, China would likely turn to Russia to buy oil, though only the naive would be surprised if Russia added a premium for the privilege.

Scenarios that could force a sustained drawdown of reserves in China:

• Worldwide embargo on China due to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

• High oil prices force Chinese industries out of business, pressuring the government to keep oil prices low domestically by selling some of the reserves to domestic companies.

• North Korea asks for oil from China to support military action on the Korean Peninsula, and China ships it to them on the black market.

• Russia slows or stops its exports as part of the Russian “dominance via energy” strategy, leaving Chinese pipelines trickling and Chinese industries disrupted.

Japan/South Korea

We have placed Japan and South Korea’s reserves together, as the two countries have a treaty that allows them to share their strategic reserves.

Resource-poor Japan has one of the world’s largest strategic oil reserves, enough for 82 days of imports. State-controlled reserves are run by the state-owned Japan Oil, Gas, and Metals National Corporation. The reserves consist of 320 million barrels in 10 different locations, which makes them second only to the United States in absolute volume. Japan’s island geography means that having an emergency supply of crude oil is crucial, and the Japanese government obviously has not ignored this aspect.

South Korea is in one of the global “hotspots” in the world, right beside North Korea. As the country is under an almost constant threat of war, the government has stocked up some 76 million barrels, with capacity for an additional 40 million barrels.

Scenarios that could force a drawdown of reserves:

• Just one at this time, from two possible sources: political instability in the region caused by either the Taiwan or the Korea conundrums disrupts tanker transport, perhaps even forces them to port.

India

India has a small reserve it began to build in 2004. This stockpile is sufficient for perhaps only two weeks of consumption. The country eventually wants to raise this level to 45 days, though the first phase has not even been completed yet. The projects are estimated to come online in 2012, which means it has taken eight years from planning to completion. These figures imply that India will not even have a somewhat sufficient strategic reserve until 2016, given that the expansion project was approved in 2008.

Germany

Germany has the largest reserve in Europe and is among the top in the world as well. Its government has satisfied a federal law that regulates storage be at least 90 days’ worth of net imports. More than half of the storage is in Southern Germany, where large salt caverns exist. Germany is well prepared in its strategic oil reserves, and there are no glaring factors that would force a drawdown of reserves, barring a global catastrophe. Furthermore, the reserves of Germany, France, and Italy are pooled and can be used by any of the three countries in an emergency.

So How Much Do the Reserves Matter?

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates, some 2 billion barrels are held in government-owned strategic reserves around the world. Though this seems like plenty of oil, does it really impact the spot price of oil? Collectively, the answer is yes, as this volume corresponds to 23 days’ worth of global consumption. If drawn down together over a short period of time, the effect on spot price could be substantial.

For illustration’s sake, suppose that countries collectively draw down their entire reserves over the period of a year. This rate would make up for 10% of the daily worldwide trade of crude oil, which could certainly impact price (imagine ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil both going under at the same time).

Individually, however, even China and the United States have a limited impact on the spot price of oil over a single year. If the United States’ inventory were drawn over an entire year, it would only make for a 4% increase in supply. Under normal buying patterns of each country’s strategic reserves, the impact is even smaller. Since China’s 42-million-barrel purchase is over one year, their purchase would not even make a dent in the daily trade of oil.

Thus, a concerted effort by the worldwide reserves can definitely keep prices down in the short term (within a year, two at best), but cannot make for a paradigm shift in the supply/demand model of oil or the Peak Oil argument. And from the buying side, if governments plan the filling of their strategic reserves, the impact on the spot price of oil is likely to be minimal.

Perception is a tricky horse to ride, however, as we all know. Given a worldwide panic for oil à la the 1973 oil embargo, oil prices could spike in the short term, because government reserves would likely raise purchases 10% or so in a real emergency. This effect would be short lived for the foreseeable future, though, as worldwide reserves are already reaching their limits.

In short, if everything goes according to “plan” by the governments, even filling a large reserve such as the Chinese SPR would have little impact on the price of oil. For SPRs to truly impact the spot price of oil, it would have to be a global situation, with war and embargo the two most likely scenarios. Even then, the impact would be mellowed by limitations on how quickly governments can either release or purchase the oil.

Regards,

Marin Katusa

Source: Who’s Buying Oil?

Not to crunch too many metaphors right here at the top, but a consensus seems to be firming up in the animate jello of the Internet that we have entered the Season of the Witch. An odor of ripeness fills the virtual air — something between dead carp and apples baking.

Whatever else appears to be going on in the upper stories and verdigris-tinged turrets of capital finance — currency rackets, gold switcheroos, interest rate arbitrage games, concealment of losses under rugs and behind curtains, Chinese fire drills performed by Spanish prisoners, executive three-card-monte set-ups, boardroom work-arounds, accounting quicksteps, Peter-to-Paul-shuffles, check kitings, pigeon drops, Ponzi schemes, hugger-muggers, bezels, shucks, jives, and enough monkeyshines to make Lord Greystroke cry for mercy — apart, in other words, from business-as-usual, such as it is these days, on Wall Street, there is a rising collective sense of anxious expectation that things are about to shake loose in the sad-ass shell of what remains of our economy. And the most perplexing part is that there hardly seems any safe place to preserve one’s savings.

The showmen over at the Financial Sense website, have put on an excellent month-long series of interviews and debate podcasts between leading inflationistas and deflationistas — Daniel Amerman, Peter Schiff, Robert Prechter, Mark Faber, Michael “Mish” Shedlock, Harry Dent — and after weeks of sedulous listening I still remain flummoxed as to where to stash the dwindling cash.

Harry Dent was a curious case in point this week. He has made some howlingly wrong calls before (e.g. in 2006, predicting a Dow 40,000 at the conclusion of the post-2001 bubble). Perhaps he missed the crack-up aspect of the most recent boom. He did not foresee the long gruesome meltdown of late 2007 to March 2009, or rather, his timing was off, since he called for the commencement of a new Great Depression in 2010. (And I hasten to insert here that my own timing of events has not been so great either.) Anyway, Dent sees a “winter” of finance and economy looming from here forward, characterized by extreme deflation, based on his view that the amount of private debt going bad (est. $40 trillion) far outweighs government’s ability to create new “money” (a few measily trillion) and hence that there is no chance in hell we’ll find ourselves in an inflationary situation for some time ahead. The private debt workout has to be completed first.

Most curious, though, was when the interviewer, Jim Puplava, probed Dent about his views on Peak Oil. Dent said he didn’t believe in it; that when he was in college in the 1970s (remember the OPEC oil embargo of ‘73), he learned to disregard any suggestions that we are “running out of oil.” He stated this, by the way, as a simple assertion, without any further explanation, and Puplava didn’t belabor him with arguments. But it was a weird moment. Of course, it hardly need be said that Peak Oil story has never been about “running out of oil” per se, but rather about declining flows, geopolitical management of flows, and the effects of depletion on industrial economies — in particular the effect on regular, expected, cyclical “growth” of the type that financial markets utterly depend on to power the trade in investment paper.

It is exceedingly odd that this does not factor into Dent’s thinking, because what Peak Oil inescapably does is introduce the very sobering idea of discontinuity — that is, that the game has changed radically, especially where all our assumptions about continued “growth” are concerned. In that brief exchange on Peak Oil, Dent seemed to take the position that the “winter” part of any historical financial cycle always produced “new technology” that invariably saves the day, putting this seemingly very smart man in the camp of so many techno-cornucopian triumphalists all wishing for the same outcome: that some mythical “they” will “come up with” a set of rescue remedies to keep all the cars circulating on the freeways, and all the WalMarts groaning with swag.

Like so many major league prognosticators, Dent arrives at his ideas by building models of reality, assembling “data” to create charts of trends in prices, interest rates, and especially demographics – what age group of people are buying a lot of what in which stage of their lives. The whole business seems very rational and reasonable except when you realize that it is just another “narrative” — to borrow one of Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s terms — girded with statistical justification. One can hardly fault it from a strictly procedural point of view — since, in our culture, conclusions ought to proceed from evidence — but one can’t escape the feeling that it amounts to little more than old-fashioned augury… that someone examining the entrails of a dead chicken, spread over the front page of The Wall Street Journal, might arrive at very similar conclusions. All that said, Dent was an appealingly confident personality on-the-air, the kind of authoritative voice you’d like to believe, if only it were possible.

Prechter was much the same a few weeks earlier, and he, too, foresees a darker American future, based on a different set of models called Elliot Wave principles. His forecasts derive from a picture of “social mood” as much as economic data flows. He, too seems to disregard the Peak Oil story and its implications as the master resource driving growth in industrial economies.

Personally, I am not at all sure that the Peak Oil story, or its associated general resource scarcity story, will shed a whole lot of light on the question of inflation-or-deflation. I say this because I think it is a short way down the road of depletion-and-scarcity before the major complex systems we depend on for daily life become so unstable that general socio-economic collapse ensues. After all, capital finance is only one of these many complex systems — some other biggies being food production, trade and manufacture, transportation, electric power distribution, infrastructure maintenance, the military, and governance. Inflation-or-deflation will only be symptomatic of larger failures and instabilities in these systems necessary for modern, civilized life.

All of it begs the question not only whether you or I will have two nickels to rub together, or two gold eagles, or a bundle of six month US Treasury bills, or a zillion shares of Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), or a gainful vocation, or a roof over our heads, or a hot meal at the end of the day, or a safe place to sleep, or a country we can recognize. I’ve done my share of forecasting, with some episodes of notably bad timing. I don’t do it for grandstanding effect but to provide some basis for knowing what to do in the years directly ahead, so we can hope to construct lives worth living. I’m impatient with models, charts, and statistical analysis. Perhaps this is childish. I’d rather tell a story or paint a picture. So, I’m going to spend the rest of the week finishing the last chapter of World Made By Hand Two: The Witch of Hebron while the US economy wanders where it will.

Regards,
James Howard Kunstler

Source: Inflation, Deflation, Peak Oil and Complex Systems

Brazil had clearly become the new “must-play” market for investors.

And then they had to go and spoil it all.

As promising a market as Brazil had become, it was the discovery of the massive Tupi oil field off of the country’s east coast – that really transformed Brazil into an investor’s dream. The oil and natural-gas reserves are located beneath heavy salt beds in deep offshore water. These reserves are 23,000 feet to 26,000 feet down, a depth that wasn’t even accessible until recently.

These Tupi reserves appear to contain at least 60 billion barrels of oil, worth $4 trillion at today’s prices. Tupi oil is expected to start hitting the market in 2011 or 2012. When that happens, it will revolutionize Brazil’s economy and its shift its balance of payments.

The exploration of the Tupi oil fields had been carried out by the Brazilian oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA (NYSE ADR: PBR) – more commonly referred to as Petrobras – in partnership with some of the international majors. The contracts call for the Brazilian government to receive royalties on any oil found.

Brazil is now one of only three top oil-producing countries to not assert state ownership of its oil reserves. Canada and the United States are the others.

This was very reassuring for the international oil majors. They’re used to dealing with fruitcake kleptocratic regimes in Venezuela, Angola, Nigeria and most of the Middle East. As a result, the Tupi deposits generated real excitement both among oil companies and among international investors in general. The feeling was that Brazil was about to end its two centuries of failed economic hopes. Fueled by oil revenue and additional economic activity, Brazil appeared ready to claim its true destiny as a wealthy country.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t to be.

Although there are several reasons for this, a key culprit is the election scheduled for next year. Incumbent Brazilian President Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva can’t run again. But he’d very much like to choose his successor. The most likely candidate: current Chief of Staff Dilma Rousseff.

Rousseff was put in charge of devising a scheme to capture more of the Tupi oil revenues for the Brazilian government and, nominally, the Brazilian people. Tales were spun of how the new revenue would finally eliminate Brazilian inequality, and bring its poorest citizens up to Western living standards.

The new system announced this month reflects this aspiration. A new state oil company, Petrosal, would be created to manage the reserves. Petrobras – aided by outside investor capital – would carry out production. And Petrosal and the outside investors would share the output.

This plan will imbue Petrosal with a lot of power. The company would control half the votes on the operating consortium. And it would have veto rights over production and capital expenditures.

The revenue would be managed by a new state fund. The fund would devote this new cash to poverty relief, education and infrastructure.

In the meantime, the existing royalty system would remain in place. Under this system, outside investors would pay both royalties and a production share. In one acknowledgement of marketplace realities, concessions already granted would not be torn up.

There are two major problems with this system. First, it makes life much more difficult and less profitable for oil companies wanting to invest in the Tupi oil field. Had Brazil torn up existing contracts, I believe the oil majors would have left. In the past two years, the world’s Big Oil firms already saw existing agreements torn up in Nigeria and Venezuela. There’s just no point investing large amounts of money under such risky conditions.

As it is, the new Brazil agreement applies only to new contracts. So I believe the oil companies will probably put up with this new system – at least as long as oil prices remain high. It’s not as if these firms have a lot of alternatives right now.

However, given how expensive it will be to extract this oil, if market prices drop, it may end up being difficult to attract Big Oil players.

The more dangerous problem is this fund, which is little more than a huge pool of money that politicians can play with.

As I mentioned, Brazil’s economy has been one of the world’s best performers. This year, in the face of a worldwide recession, Brazil’s gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to decline only 1%, according to the forecasting panel of The Economist magazine.

Inflation is 5% and the budget deficit is only 2.8% of GDP – both excellent figures in this difficult year. Brazil’s monetary policy is an example to the world, with short-term interest rates still at 8.65%, well above the inflation rate.

But this money pool plan puts that performance at risk.

Brazilian public spending is already 35% of GDP, very high for such a poor country. State bureaucrats have feather-bedded contracts guaranteed to them under the 1988 constitution. So this “slush fund” will just fuel Brazilian corruption, diverting still more of that country’s economy into the pockets of politicians, their friends and favoured interest groups.

It’s no use for Brazilian spin-doctors to point out that Norway and Alaska have funds of this nature. Norway and Alaska have small populations and relatively un-corrupt political cultures. This fund must inevitably represent at least 3%-5% of Brazilian GDP. And it will be mostly wasted, spent without the market having any say as to its use or destination.

I’ve been watching Brazil for more than 30 years; since I began travelling there for the merchant bank Hill Samuel [now part of Lloyd's Banking Group PLC (NYSE ADR: LYG)] in the late 1970s. It’s a maddening country: Just when you think the Brazilian authorities have finally got their act together, and that the country is ready to achieve the enormous economic growth predicted for it since at least 1900, something unexpected and foolish goes wrong.

This appears to have happened again. And that’s a real pity – for Brazil’s citizens, and for global investors.

Source: The World’s Most Exciting Market – Until They Spoiled it

However, a report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicated that demand is recovering more quickly than previously thought, and that OPEC may be playing catch-up as the global recovery gathers steam.

The IEA increased its outlook for global oil demand by nearly 500,000 barrels per day (bpd) for 2009 and 2010, to 84.4 million and 85.7 million bpd respectively.

Perhaps the biggest reason for the increase was surging demand in China, where the Red Dragon’s $587 billion (4 trillion yuan) stimulus plan has resuscitated manufacturing and helped China grow into the world’s largest auto market.

China’s imports of oil hit a record high in July, soaring 18% from the month prior to 19.63 million metric tons, or about 4.64 million barrels a day, according to the nation’s General Administration of Customs.

China’s economy grew by 7.9% in the second quarter, and Beijing estimates 8% growth for the year, compared to an expected 3% dip for the United States.

Chinese demand for oil this year will grow by 2.8%, according to the IEA.

“I am more confident today than what I was back in May,” about China’s economic recovery, Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi told Bloomberg.

The rise of China has been a tremendous boon to OPEC – which controls 40% of the world’s oil supply – particularly since the financial crisis has crimped oil demand in developed nations around the world.

“We’re looking East more these days,” said Kuwaiti Oil Minister Sheikh Ahmad Abdullah al-Sabah.

The IEA expects demand for oil in North America to plunge 4.4% this year. However, that figure is an improvement from last month’s forecast of 5.1%, and could accelerate further as the recovery gains momentum.

Data for gasoline and heating oil consumption in June showed a “hefty” increase in demand the IEA said. That data was further substantiated yesterday when the Energy Department reported a larger-than-expected drop in inventories.

Inventories dropped by 5.9 million barrels for the week ended Sept. 4 – more than three times estimates of analysts surveyed by Platt’s, the energy information arm of McGraw-Hill Cos, according to The Associated Press.

Indeed, even Saudi oil minister Naimi has acknowledged the bullish shift in the market.

“You guys must realize that there is a fundamental change in the market,” he told reporters ahead of the night-time meeting that agreed to keep supplies officially unchanged.”Economic growth is the name of the game, that’s what’s going to drive the price. As long as economic growth is there, the price is going to go up.”

Still, OPEC remained cautious, opting to keep production level until demand in the West returns to its pre-crash levels. Of course, that means the cartel will likely be playing catch-up, boosting production behind price increases as the economic recovery gains momentum.

Oil prices have more than doubled from their February lows, closing yesterday at $72.17 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX).

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) has raised its 2009 oil price forecast to $85 a barrel from $65 and said prices would reach $95 a barrel in 2010.

Source: Oil Prices Gaining Momentum as OPEC Keeps a Lid on Production

The well, known as the Tiber Prospect, is one of the deepest wells ever drilled with a total depth of about 35,055 feet, or 6½ miles. An appraisal will be required to determine the size and potential commercial value of discovery, but preliminary estimates suggest the field is bigger than Kaskida, a 2006 discovery that boasted 3 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe).

“Tiber represents BP’s second material discovery in the emerging Lower Tertiary play in the Gulf of Mexico, following our earlier Kaskida discovery,” said Andy Inglis, BP’s head of exploration and production. “These material discoveries together with our industry leading acreage position support the continuing growth of our deepwater Gulf of Mexico business into the second half of the next decade.”

BP is already the largest producer of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico, generating about 400,000 boe/day. But once they start producing, the Tiber and Kaskida wells could boost the company’s output in the region to 650,000 boe/day.

BP did not say when the Tiber well would begin producing oil, but analysts don’t expect the field to start pumping until at least 2014. That seems optimistic, however, as BP’s last large-scale development in the Gulf – the Thunder Horse field – took nearly twice as long.  That well was discovered in 1999 but didn’t start producing until just last year.

Thunder Horse Platform in the Gulf of Mexico © BP p.l.c.

Of course, the Thunder Horse platform offers a compelling case study for the revival of oil exploration and development in the Gulf of Mexico – once referred to as the “Dead Sea” by oil majors who believed the region was tapped out.

Thunder Horse is ramping up its production to 300,000 barrels per day (bpd), which makes it the No. 2 U.S. producer behind Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay, BusinessWeek reported.

In fact, Thunder Horse and projects like it have added about 1.2 million bpd to total U.S. output. U.S. crude oil production is expected to rise this year for the first time in nearly two decades. In the first seven months, the country has averaged 5.26 million bpd, the highest for the January-to-July period in four years, according to the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group.

The deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico are now “one of the few bright spots in global oil production” Bob MacKnight, an analyst at PFC Energy told BusinessWeek.

The Gulf now accounts for about 25% of domestic oil production and 15% of natural gas output through about 3,800 offshore production platforms, according to the U.S. Minerals Management Service.

Of course, that production has come at a high cost. Exploration wells cost up to $200 million to bring onstream, and actual offshore platforms are even more expensive. Thunder Horse cost more than $1 billion to build and another $250 million more to repair after Hurricane Dennis knocked the massive structure on its side.

Still, operating in U.S. waters in the Gulf of Mexico is easier and less costly taking on projects in countries such as Venezuela, Africa, Iraq, and Russia where political skirmishes and civil unrest often lead to costly setbacks.

Source: BP’s ‘Giant’ Discovery Gives the Gulf of Mexico New Life

Now, Chavez’s aggressive economic policies are again being called into question, this time as the country slides into what could be a protracted period of stagflation, which is defined by the exasperating mixture of torpid economic growth and high inflation.

Before that, however, the period from 2004-2007 was marked by rapid economic growth – punctuated by a miraculous 19.42% burst in 2004. Since that time, unfortunately, Venezuelans have watched as their standard of living was slowly eroded by restrictive price controls, rapid inflation, unsustainable public spending, and widespread nationalizations that have put a stranglehold on industry.

Even as these problems festered, an unprecedented surge in oil prices allowed Chavez to maintain his questionable – and ultimately unsustainable – economic policies. When the bull market in commodities abruptly stalled last year, Venezuela’s economy lumbered to a stop.

Venezuela’s economy grew by 3.2% in the fourth quarter of 2008 and just 0.3% in the first quarter of 2009. Then – for the first time in more than five years – that country’s economy contracted, shrinking 2.4% in the second quarter.

Unfortunately for Venezuela, the decline in gross domestic product (GDP) did little to quell surging inflation.  The annual rate of inflation climbed to 26.2% in July, according to the Central Bank of Venezuela. Many foreign sources have it higher.

President Chavez insists his country is not in the midst of a financial crisis, but analysts believe this is just the beginning of a bad-news saga that will trip up a country whose heavy-handed economic policies have made it few friends.

“To sum up, we could say that such scenario of stagflation has two basic components,” Orlando Ochoa, an economist and professor with Andrés Bello Catholic University (UCAB), told El Universal. “On the one hand, price control, exchange control, nationalizations and restricted distribution of foreign currency damage supply. On the other hand, lower oil prices curtail revenues and have an impact on demand.”

Going forward, Venezuela’s currency controls are perhaps the biggest hurdle for the economy to overcome. Chavez and his cabinet have said they are preparing to announce measures to stimulate the economy, but that may not be enough.

The problems that come with over-reliance on oil and a vast net of unwieldy social programs and the cost burden of nationalized industry aren’t going anywhere. And the nation’s other obstacle – the gap between its official and parallel exchange rates – won’t be addressed until at least the end of September.

An Unparalleled Problem

Indeed, the problems facing Venezuela are many. But President Chavez and his cabinet believe they have the solution.

“There is a remedy,” Venezuelan Finance Minister Ali Rodriguez said in an interview broadcast on state television. “The differential between the official dollar and the [so-called] ‘parallel dollar’ can be reduced.”

Rodriguez was referring to the difference between the country’s “official” exchange rate – which remains at 2.15 bolivars per U.S. dollar – and the so-called “parallel market,” which suggests a rate of about 6.5 bolivars per U.S. dollar.

The official exchange rate of 2.15 bolivars per U.S. dollar was arrived at in 2003, when Chavez imposed currency controls that force Venezuelans who want to import goods to apply for a government permit. Importers that are unable to get permits to buy currency at the official exchange rate have been forced to turn to the parallel market, where they pay three times the official price.

The problem now is that a large drop in oil revenue has sharply reduced the amount of dollars the government has available to exchange. That has driven more importers to the pricier parallel market. Some have stopped importing entirely.

With limited access to imports, Venezuela’s manufacturing sector contracted by 8.5% in the second quarter.

“The manufacturing sector is going to have a negative performance, mostly because of the restriction in imports and dollars, which has caused a drop in the supply of primary materials,” Miguel Carpio, an economist at Banco Federal CA in Caracas, told Bloomberg News. “Add to that the drop in consumption, and this is going to be a very difficult year.”

Now, with the threat of stagflation looming large, Chavez has no choice but to take action. But economists are unsure of what the government will do.

Few analysts expect the government to order an outright devaluation, because it would push inflation beyond the 28% annual rate. (Venezuela last devalued the official rate in 2005, weakening the currency by 11%.)

Instead, the government could try to lower the parallel rate by issuing dollar-denominated debt, by creating a second, separate exchange rate for “necessary” industries, or by doing both those things.

Traditionally, the government chooses to subsidize certain favorite industries – mainly heavy machinery, foodstuffs and medicines – by allowing them to trade bolivars at the official rate and driving other non-essential goods producers to the parallel market.

This could be taken a step further by imposing a tax on lower priority industries seeking dollars at the official exchange rate, Russ Dallen, head trader at Caracas Capital Markets, said in a research note. Or the government could simply create multiple “official” rates for different industries. Venezuela may create four different exchange rates to help the government deal with a drop in oil revenue.

“This complicated system, if implemented, would satisfy the requirements of the government of pretending not to have a formal devaluation of the exchange rate,” Dallen said.

Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE ADR: CS) said in an Aug. 28 report that it expects the government to avoid devaluating its currency by selling dollar-denominated debt to the parallel market. In 2008, after an aggressive sale of dollar-denominated bonds, the administration was able to bring down the parallel rate to around 3 bolivars.

Ultimately, it’s Chavez – who opened the door to speculation in August by saying he would “restore balance” to the parallel rate – who will decide what to do about his country’s quandary. But he won’t be making a decision until later this month.

“Is there going to be an adjustment? I can’t respond to that right now,” Chavez said Sunday at the presidential palace in Caracas. “If any adjustment comes, it will be in September, towards the end of the month.”

But whatever Chavez decides to do, his remedy is likely to fall short, analysts say. That’s because the parallel rate is not the problem – it’s actually a symptom of flawed economic principles. The restrictive price-and-exchange-rate controls, government expansion, and political obtuseness that Chavez has made the cornerstones of his economic policy will continue to conspire against Venezuela until there is reform.

“We always said the situation was only tenable for the government if oil prices not only remained high, but also rose constantly. But that has not happened, and the fall in oil income is now clearly in evidence,” UCAB’s Ochoa told Inter Press Service News Agency. “That’s the first factor contributing to stagflation, to which are added price and exchange controls and restrictions on hard currency availability, which harm supply and investment, and thirdly, the policy of nationalization.”

Venezuela’s Crude Oil Slick

In the years leading up to the financial crisis, Chavez used PDVSA’s growing revenue to finance large social programs, as well as the nationalization of other industries.

Spending on social programs soared 340% from 2000-2005, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research. It rose even higher as oil prices soared into 2008, boosting purchase orders and fueling a spending spree among even the poorest Venezuelans.

But since the financial crisis eviscerated commodities prices, Venezuela’s oil bounty has all but evaporated. Oil brought in $22.8 billion in the first six months of 2009. That’s less than half of the $52 billion it brought in during the first half of last year. For 2008 as a whole, oil generated about $90 billion in revenue for Venezuela.

Meanwhile, FONDEN – Venezuela’s development fund – has already committed all but $3 billion of the nearly $20 billion it had available at the end of January, as the government used most of the money in the first half of the year to sustain fiscal spending.

And while Venezuelan oil traded at an average of $53 a barrel in the second quarter, up from $40 a barrel in the first three months of 2009, that’s still a far cry from last year’s levels.

That means borrowing has had to rise to compensate for the decline in revenue.  Venezuela’s domestic debt jumped 44% during the first half of the year to $20.42 billion from $14 billion at the end of 2008.

“Public spending keeps rising and is financed by more public debt, which increases spending in a vicious circle, while the government defers or postpones workers’ demands, which is itself another sign of the approaching recession, although the government seeks to deny it,” economist Domingo Maza Zavala, a former head of the Central Bank told the IPS.

Calculations based on official figures suggest domestic and foreign debt repayments will total about $19.6 billion between the second half of this year and 2011, the Latin American Herald Tribune reported. Roughly $10 billion of that total will be due on foreign debt, with the remaining $9.6 billion destined for the domestic account. Total state debt is estimated at $50.3 billion.

What’s the government figures don’t include is the cost of compensating private companies that have been taken over or bought out under Chavez’s nationalizations and expropriations.

Chavez’s government earlier this year seized the assets of more than 70 foreign and domestic oil service companies after conflict erupted over nearly $14 billion in debt owed by PDVSA.

PDVSA demanded that service companies accept a 40% cut in their bills; when they refused, the Venezuelan government seized at least 12 drilling rigs, more than 30 oil terminals, and about 300 boats.

The demonstration was a pointed reminder of a 2007 incident, which is still playing out in the international courts. Two years ago, Venezuela forced six oil majors to hand over equity stakes of 60% or more to PDVSA. However, Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM) and Conoco Phillips (NYSE: COP) opted to walk away from their contracts rather than accept a minority role.

This conflict is still being disputed, and last year Exxon won a court order to freeze $12 billion in assets from PDVSA as compensation for its lost projects. Additionally, Chavez’s heavy-handed policy has cost the country untold billions worth of oil-related investments, as many oil majors now refuse to operate there

“There is the uncertain outlook over how the extensive nationalization pursued over the past 12 years will pan out,” Alvise Marino, an analyst at Ideaglobal, told The Wall Street Journal. “Based on the government’s unimpressive track record on the economic management front, we tend to take a less-than-optimistic view.”

The Colombia Conundrum

In addition to alienating foreign oil majors, Chavez has also sequestered Venezuela from many of its neighbors, especially Colombia. Chavez has ordered his country to prepare for an outright “rupture of relations” with Colombia after that country gave the United States permission to use its military bases.

The United States says access to the bases will help it fight drug trafficking, but Chavez has his own theory. He says American use of the bases could be used as a launch point for an invasion of his oil rich nation.

“Those seven military bases are a declaration of war,” Chavez said last week. “We must prepare for the rupture in relations with Colombia. There is no possibility of a return [to normal relations] with Colombia, an embrace.”

However, cutting off ties with Colombia poses yet another economic hurdle for the Venezuelan economy to overcome. Colombia provided about $6 billion in products to Venezuela in 2008, or about 15% of Venezuela’s total imports, according to Venezuela’s government statistics institute INE.

In fact, when Chavez closed the border for three days in 2006, there was shortage of food in Venezuela.

Chavez can turn to other South American countries, but his credit extends only so far.

“Nobody wants to sell to Venezuela if payment isn’t made in advance,” José Rozo, president of Fedecámaras Táchira, the region’s main business association, told the Latin American Herald Tribune

About 70% of trade activity in Venezuela depends on imports from Colombia, Rozo said, adding that the only country that had been willing to export on credit had been Colombia.

Without Colombia, Venezuela will have to settle for trade terms that heavily favor its partners.

For instance, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner made a visit to Venezuela last month, and signed no less than 22 accords. Virtually all of the deals were in Argentine’s favor, the Tribune reported.

“We’re going to drive a horse and cart through all the regulations if they want to do business with us,” an Argentine official told the paper prior to the signing of the deals. “Prompt payment. Simple procedures. Fewer controls. Less bureaucracy. No delays. Hard currency. I’ll tell you the rest when I’ve thought of them.”

That means if Venezuela wants to keep doing business with Argentina, it’s going to have to pay more.

And that will fuel inflation.

“The cost of purchasing in Argentina is higher, and that means that prices will be higher in Venezuela,” Abelardo Daza, an economics professor at Caracas-based IESA business school, told The Journal.

Source: Is Venezuela’s Stagflation the Beginning of the End for Chavez?

Good day… We had more rain here last night, but the storms have cooled things off and it is starting to feel a bit like fall around here. Chuck flies off to San Francisco today to speak at the Money Show, so I will be bringing you the Pfennig for the next few days. The dollar has rallied just a bit overnight, clawing back some of the losses which occurred mid morning yesterday.

And what, you might asked, caused the dollar to rally yesterday? You can re-read a bit of yesterday’s Pfennig for the answer: “The data cupboard has been emptied out and is looking to get restocked today… So the only thing besides sentiment moving the markets today will be the direction of stocks…” Yes, Chuck was right on in predicting what would drive the currency markets yesterday, as the dollar got sold off as stocks moved higher.

Without any data to push the markets one way or another, investors began moving back into riskier assets, selling their ’safe haven’ US treasury holdings. The currency markets have been trading on the risk theme lately, and don’t seem ready to break this pattern anytime soon. Risk appetite is the main driver of the currency markets, with the dollar gaining with investor worries, and falling back down as investors feel more confident.

I spoke at an investment conference last week in Chicago, and listened to several good presentations on the current state of the economy. While every speaker had differing opinions on how to invest during the next few months, they all seemed to agree on one thing; the recent rally and ‘recovery’ would reverse, and the US will likely head back into another downturn. The timing of this next downturn is hard to pin down, but most believe we will see the US economy falter again toward the first quarter of 2010. If and when this occurs, the dollar could see a temporary rally as investors flee back into US treasuries. But longer term, everyone at the conference was in agreement with what Warren Buffet said in his op-ed piece yesterday: the US$ will ultimately lose value.

Speaking of Buffet, I re-read his op-ed last night during dinner, and had to laugh a bit as much of what he wrote could have been taken directly from the presentation I gave last week. The following lines were especially poignant, so I decided to include them in the Pfennig:

“An increase in federal debt can be financed in three ways: borrowing from foreigners, borrowing from our own citizens or, through a roundabout process, printing money. Let’s look at the prospects for each individually — and in combination.

The current account deficit — dollars that we force-feed to the rest of the world and that must then be invested — will be $400 billion or so this year. Assume, in a relatively benign scenario, that all of this is directed by the recipients — China leads the list — to purchases of United States debt. Never mind that this all-Treasuries allocation is no sure thing: some countries may decide that purchasing American stocks, real estate or entire companies makes more sense than soaking up dollar-denominated bonds. Rumblings to that effect have recently increased.

Then take the second element of the scenario — borrowing from our own citizens. Assume that Americans save $500 billion, far above what they’ve saved recently but perhaps consistent with the changing national mood. Finally, assume that these citizens opt to put all their savings into United States Treasuries (partly through intermediaries like banks).

Even with these heroic assumptions, the Treasury will be obliged to find another $900 billion to finance the remainder of the $1.8 trillion of debt it is issuing. Washington’s printing presses will need to work overtime.

Slowing them down will require extraordinary political will. With government expenditures now running 185 percent of receipts, truly major changes in both taxes and outlays will be required. A revived economy can’t come close to bridging that sort of gap.”

This is what we have been preaching over the past several years, that the deficits, if unchecked, will ultimately lead the government to put the printing presses in overdrive, and we will attempt to inflate our way out of debt. This will cause the value of the US$ to drop. Buffet ended his piece with the following line: “Unchecked carbon emissions will likely cause icebergs to melt. Unchecked greenback emissions will certainly cause the purchasing power of currency to melt. The dollar’s destiny lies with Congress.”

Sorry to spend so much time on Warren Buffet, I know he isn’t the most popular guy with many Pfennig readers. But you can’t deny that he has been an extremely successful investor, and the piece he wrote for the NY Times was just right on in my opinion.

Lets get back to the currency markets. Good news helped propel the Norwegian krone higher overnight. Norway’s economy grew last quarter, pushing the worlds fifth largest oil exporter out of recession. Norway’s mainland economy (ex oil and gas) was able to grow .3% during the second quarter. Economists had predicted Norway’s economy would contract by the same margin. The overall economy still contracted, as oil revenues declined, but the recent move higher in crude should help keep Norway on the growth path in the second half of 2009. Petroleum exports make up a quarter of Norway’s output, so a global recovery is definitely good news for Norway. This currency, which was called the safest in the world by the NY Times, should be part of every investors portfolio.

The UK economy is doing quite as well as Norway’s, as Britain reported a record $13.2 billion budget deficit in July. This is the largest deficit reported for July since records began. Quarterly tax payments usually boost the revenues in July, but the recession has taken its toll on tax revenue, and unemployment benefits are pushing outlays higher. The UK is predicted to have the biggest deficit in the G20 next year according to the IMF. The pound sterling was the largest loser vs. the US$ on the back of this reported deficit.

Minutes of the BOE’s August 6 meeting were released yesterday, and it showed BOE Governor Mervyn King pushed for an even looser monetary policy. King pushed to expand the ‘quantitative easing’ which the BOE began in March. The pound lost more ground after the release of the report, as investors lost faith in King as an inflation fighter.

Chuck sent me this note last night and wanted me to include it in today’s Pfennig:

“I forgot all about the fact that this is that time of year again when Central bankers and economists from around the world have a boondoggle at Jackson Hole Wyoming… You might recall that last year they all hunkered down and tried to think of ways to keep the financial mess forum worsening, only to have Lehman Brothers collapse a few weeks later!

Well… I’m sure we’re going to hear a lot of rhetoric about the “recession coming to an end”… but they have it all wrong! this isn’t a recession it’s a depression…

With pockets of risk remaining, such as the collapsing U.S. commercial real estate market, and the double digit unemployment rate… I would think that these guys who missed seeing the subprime meltdown coming and then when it was presented to them, told us it wouldn’t filter out into the economy… should just keep their opinions to themselves and read newsletters like The Pfennig and The Currency Capitalist, and the Daily Reckoning, and the 5-minute Forecast… OK I’ve had my say, thank you for letting me vent! Have a nice day!”

Yes, the ‘top’ economic minds (minus Chuck) will be meeting in Jackson Hole and Ben Bernanke will undoubtedly trumpet the fact that data shows the US economy is starting to pull out of its recession. This morning we will get the index of US leading economic indicators which is projected to show a move up in July; the fourth consecutive positive monthly move. The weekly jobless claims are also expected to be a bit positive, with a fall to 550k from last weeks 558k. But the jobless rate is still projected to reach double digits (the real number has been in double digits for a while!) and housing will continue to be a drag on the economy.

The administration will also announce the US deficit for 2009 will be slightly less than what was forecast in May. Yes, our government’s deficit will total just $1.58 trillion, about $262 billion less than the previous estimate. But the change isn’t due to increased revenues, it is mainly due to the administration’s scrapping of a $250 billion contingency plan to aid the financial industry. With the recent signs that the economy is starting to pull out of recession, the Obama administration decided it no longer needed to hold the quarter trillion dollars in reserve to meet predicted bank failures. But I would still be a bit worried if I were the administration, as there will likely be a few more ‘big’ bank failures down the road. Personal bankruptcies continue to climb, and as Chuck pointed out above, the commercial real estate market still has a few ’surprises’ in store for the economy.

Even after this adjustment, the deficit figure would amount to 11.2% of the GDP, the largest share since 1945 when we were paying for WWII. And unfortunately, with growing outlays for Social Security, and interest on the debt eating up a larger overall percentage, the deficits won’t be shrinking in the near future.

A jump in oil prices and a reversal of risk aversion caused the South African rand, Mexican peso, and Australian dollar to rally. South Africa led all currencies vs. the US$ overnight, with a .54% appreciation. Mexico’s peso rose for a second day as oil moved back above $72 per barrel. Oil revenue funded 38 percent of the Mexican government’s budget last year, so the peso is somewhat linked to the price of crude. The jump in oil also helped the Canadian dollar reverse earlier losses.

The Australian dollar rallied as risk investors moved back into higher yielding currencies, and good news in the Asian stock markets continued the rally. The Aussie dollar also benefitted from the rally in oil, Australia’s fourth most valuable raw material export. The Aussie dollar is one of the best performers over the past 3 months, with only the New Zealand dollar and Brazilian real out performing it vs. the US$.

Currencies today 8/20/09: A$ .8289, kiwi .6731, C$ .9105, euro 1.4219, sterling 1.6461, Swiss .9376, rand 7.9792, krone 6.055, SEK 7.1810, forint 191.02, zloty 2.9211, koruna 18.009, yen 94.15, sing 1.4477, HKD 7.7508, INR 48.695, China 6.8318, pesos 12.8717, BRL 1.8415, dollar index 78.62, Oil $71.92, 10-year 3.47%, Silver $14.01, and Gold… $943.27

That’s it for today…Hope everyone has a Tub Thumpin Thursday!!

Chris Gaffney

Source: Stocks Push the Currencies Higher…

Table of Contents:

• Oil Production: Why OPEC’s Keeping a Lid on Production
• Oil Prices: Why Crude Thrives on the Diving Dollar
• Oil Outlook: The Coming Oil Price Shock
• Investing in Oil: The Best Companies, Stocks and ETFs

Oil has staged an impressive rally since dropping below $35 a barrel in mid-February.
And while there remains a risk that prices will retreat further due to sluggish demand, there are also three very compelling reasons why oil is still a safe long-term bet:

• OPEC has made substantial progress in reducing the amount of oil on the market.
• The dollar has been made vulnerable by the U.S. Federal Reserve’s aggressive policy of quantitative easing.
• And low oil prices and tight credit have reduced global energy investment, putting future supply at risk.

There’s no question that downside risk remains. On April 13, the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) lowered its demand forecast by 1 million barrels a day, and now expects the world will use about 83.4 million barrels per day in 2009. That would be 2.4 million barrels a day, or 2.8% less than last year.

But so far dwindling demand has failed to contain oil prices.

As Money Morning predicted in its annual outlook series, the first quarter was a volatile one, in which oil prices tested the low $30s before surging over $50 in recent market rally.

And analysts are almost completely united in the view that, despite its short-term volatility, declines in production, exploration and development, and the value of the dollar will drive oil prices substantially higher in the years ahead.

Oil Production: Why OPEC’s Keeping a Lid on Production

The members of OPEC generated tremendous revenue from oil prices that soared over $147 a barrel last year. However, just as the world’s top oil producers began looking for ways to spend their massive stockpiles of cash, prices began a plunge that would see crude lose more than three-quarters of its value.

In a desperate effort to put a floor under oil prices, OPEC – supplier of 40% of the world’s oil – has issued three production cuts totaling 4.2 million barrels per day (bpd), or nearly 12% of its capacity, since September.

While the cuts have not yet been able to return oil prices to the group’s desired price range of $60-$70 a barrel, the cartel abstained from making any further reductions at its latest meeting in March and even voiced optimism that crude would reach $60 a barrel by the end of the year.

“That suggests to us that not only does OPEC have the firepower to support this oil price, but there’s enough internal agreement between OPEC members that they can actually achieve it,” Tom Nelson, an analyst for the Guinness Atkinson Global Energy Fund told BusinessWeek.

Many analysts had speculated that OPEC members would ignore the quotas and continue to produce oil to generate income, thereby rendering the cuts ineffective. But OPEC’s discipline has proven many critics wrong.

Despite foot-dragging from Iran and Venezuela – two countries that rely heavily on oil revenue to fund massive social programs – OPEC has gotten about 80% compliance on the 4.2 million bpd production cut. Historically, the cartel only gets about 60% compliance on such cuts.

As of February, Saudi Arabia accounted for about 46% of the 3.4 million bpd decline in production, according to PFC Energy. And the United Arab Emirates have fully complied with their share of the cuts. Iran’s compliance by that time was only 33% and Venezuela had only adhered to half of its commitments.

Still, Abdallah El Badri, OPEC’s Secretary General, estimates the production cuts will take about 800,000 bpd of supply off the market, significantly reducing the overhang in global markets, BusinessWeek reported.

OPEC officials from Libya, Algeria, and Iraq have all said that oil prices will reach $60 a barrel by the end of the year.

“One of the reasons why OPEC felt able to roll over quotas was that they do appear to have set a floor for prices,” Mike Wittner, an analyst at Societe Generale SA (ADR: SCGLY), told Reuters. “According to a lot of the balances, including ours, if you have OPEC holding steady or cutting a bit more, you get a big, counter-seasonal stock draw in the third quarter.”

Oil Prices: Why Crude Thrives on the Diving Dollar

Crude futures doubled from July 2007 to July 2008, soaring from about $74 a barrel to a record-high $147 a barrel. Much of that rise can be attributed to supply and demand, but there was another catalyst for the soaring prices that few investors recognized: The rapid decline of the dollar.

From July 2007 to July 2008 the dollar plunged 16% against the euro. And as the dollar became less valuable the cost of commodities around the world skyrocketed.

At the time, inflation – not deflation – was the predominant concern among the world’s leading economists, as a decade of low interest rates and unconstrained lending in the United States sucked the life out of the dollar. And while inflation is nowhere near the levels it reached last year, it’s important to recognize that the policies of the U.S. Federal Reserve are no less inflationary.

The Fed has cut its benchmark lending rate to a range of 0%-0.25%, and soon after, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said the central bank would purchase up to $300 billion of longer-term Treasury securities and $750 billion of mortgage-backed securities as it pursues a policy of quantitative easing.

This announcement by the Fed, along with a corresponding rise in equities, has been the driving force behind oil’s recent rally.

Ultimately, the same fear of inflation that typically drives investors into the gold market is similarly buoying oil prices. And even though the dollar has yet to be seriously affected, there’s no ignoring the fact that the more than $1 trillion worth of government bonds and mortgage-backed securities injected into the market will imperil the dollar’s value.

Oil Outlook: The Coming Oil Price Shock

Now that a weak dollar and reduced production have bolstered oil prices, there is a growing concern about how much higher crude will climb once demand returns. Tighter lending conditions and a trough in oil prices have badly crimped investment and jeopardized future supplies.

More expensive energy projects such as oil sands have been put on hold and the number of drilling rigs at marginal shallow-water fields around the world has been scaled back to a three-year low.

Oil drilling activity dropped 43% in the 12 months through March, with year-over-year oil exploration in the United States alone down 38%. High bids for offshore drilling rights in the central Gulf of Mexico fell by more than 80% compared with last year.

OPEC has said that with oil generating substantially less revenue as many as 35 new projects could be delayed past 2013.

“I have often described unsustainably low oil prices as carrying the seeds of future spikes and volatility. In a low-price environment, the trend is often to focus on survival instead of expansion,” said Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister. “If we place a low priority on preparing for the future, that lack of action can come back to haunt us through supply shortages and another round of high prices.”

The current economic crisis could reduce future oil supply growth by 8 million bpd, according to a recent study by the Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA).

CERA now says that production will grow by just 7.5 million bpd over the next five years, down from the 14.5 million bpd increase it predicted last summer. According to the research group, as demand recovers throughout that span, production will struggle to keep up and a new commodities bull market, similar to the one seen in 2008 will begin.

“Seven consecutive years of rising oil prices – unprecedented in the history of the oil industry – have come crashing down, thus burying the notion that the commodity price cycle was a historical relic,” said the report.

CERA isn’t the only organization worried about the lack of investment in new oil projects, either. The International Energy Agency (IEA) – energy advisor to 28 industrialized nations – has also issued warnings about a coming supply crunch.

The IEA estimates daily oil demand will rise from the current level of 86 million barrels to 106 million barrels by 2030. To meet that demand, the agency estimates that the world needs $26.3 trillion in supply-side investments over the next 21 years.

China, India and other developing countries, alone, will need investments of $360 billion a year through 2030, the agency said.  About 7 million bpd of additional capacity needs to be added to the market by 2015.

“Unless sufficient companies have the will and financial ability to invest through the down cycle, there is a real risk that supply growth may lag the eventual rebound of demand, leading to substantial price increases – possibly as early as this year,” Richard Jones, the IEA’s executive director said at a recent conference in London.

Jones estimates that as much as 2 million bpd of expected new oil production has already been deferred.

The IEA predicts that, by 2015, a lack of investment and rising demand will create a “supply crunch” – that will once again send oil prices up into the triple digits.

“There remains a real risk that under-investment will cause an oil supply crunch in that time frame,” the IEA said in an executive summary of its “2008 World Energy Outlook.” “The gap between what is currently being built and what will be needed to keep pace with demand is set to widen sharply after 2010.”
The agency predicts that crude will average more than $100 a barrel from 2008 to 2015 and rise above $200 a barrel by 2030, as demand far outpaces supply.

“Every bull market in oil is really born in the zenith of a bear market,” said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. “The cutbacks we see today are going to lead to a spike somewhere in the future. The big question is when it’s going to happen.”

Investing in Oil: The Best Companies, Stocks and ETFs

When it comes to investing, the oil sector poses some very clear risks, especially given the murky near-term outlook. However, there are a number of large-cap integrated oil companies that may offer some truly compelling values at current prices.

Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Chevron Corp. (CVX) are currently trading at multi-year lows, making them exceptionally cheap in both relative and absolute terms. These companies also have strong balance sheets (Exxon is “AAA”- rated and has more cash on its balance sheet than debt), generate strong cash flows, and have traditionally increased their dividends on a regular basis.

”Chevron is the kind of company that is capable of continuing to post large profits – propelling its share higher from current levels – even if oil-and-gas prices were to drop from current levels over the next three years,” Money Morning Contributing Editor Horacio Marquez said. “That’s because Chevron’s business is well cushioned, since refining, marketing and chemicals margins would expand dramatically if market ’spot’ prices were to decline. Also, the company’s production is poised to expand strongly and Chevron uses some selective hedging that works very well in downside oil markets.”USO

Offshore drillers, particularly those capable of drilling in the deepest waters, also offer value at current levels. Petroleo Brasileiro (PBR), also known as Petrobras, is particularly appealing, as it recently discovered one of the largest offshore oil fields on earth off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. Known as Carioca, the field could hold 33 billion barrels of oil and gas, making the world’s largest discovery in at least 32 years.

Keith Fitz-Gerald, Money Morning’s Investment Director, suggests investors look at China National Offshore Oil Corporation, or CNOOC Ltd. (ADR: CEO). The Hong Kong-based company recently got approval for a $29 billion exploration project in the South China Sea. The company expects to produce 50 million tons of oil equivalent per year from that region during the next 10-20 years. That would equal the production of China’s biggest project, the Daqing Oil Field.

Petrobras and CNOOC are also attractive because, as foreign companies, they will also get a boost from any devaluation in the U.S. dollar.

All of these companies have been hit hard by the combination of commodity-price weakness and credit market turmoil. But these operators do not require peak-cycle commodity prices to generate stellar results and have little or no credit-market exposure.

For a more direct play on oil prices, you might also try an exchange-traded fund (ETF), such as the United States Oil Fund LP (USO), the iPath S&P GSCI Crude Oil Total Return Fund (OIL), or the United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA).

Source: Three Big Reasons Oil Prices Will Rally Back Big Time

Chavez’s government and seized the assets of 60 foreign and domestic oil service companies after conflict erupted over nearly $14 billion in debt owed by the country’s state-owned energy company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

PDVSA accumulated the debt as oil prices took a dramatic slide from over $147 a barrel last July to less than $35 a barrel in February.

PDVSA has attempted to slash expenditures 60% by reducing salaries for managers by 20% and imposing a wage freeze on the majority of its employees. But the company still owed contractors and suppliers $13.9 billion by the end of last year, according to The Wall Street Journal. The majority of that total remains unpaid and some of the debt dates back to last August.
Irate over a growing backlog of invoices, many of the companies threatened to halt operations – something PDVSA and Chavez can ill-afford. The company is accounts for about half of Venezuela’s revenue, and is largely responsible for funding and administering the social programs that Chavez has employed to court popular support.

PDVSA brought in more than $120 billion in revenue in 2008, but this year, it will likely make just $50 billion.

With its back against the wall, PDVSA is demanding that service companies accept a 40% cut in their bills.

“We will not pay contractors that have tried to speculate and don’t care about our company,” PDVSA President Rafael Ramirez said in April. “We have to renegotiate what we pay them.”

Last Friday, the government began expropriating equipment and projects from foreign oil service firms that refused to renegotiate their debt. At least 12 drilling rigs, more than 30 oil terminals, and about 300 boats were seized, the according to The Financial Times.

“To God what is God’s, and to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” Chavez told a throng of supporters, the FT reported. “Today we also say: To the people what is the people’s.”

Tulsa, Okla.-based Williams Cos. (NYSE: WMB) was among the firms that saw its assets taken. The firm said last week that it would write down a $241 million payment default by PDVSA. Drilling contractor Helmerich & Payne Inc. (NYSE: HP) is due $116 million from PDVSA, and is idling seven of its 11 operating rigs in the Andean country while it negotiates payment.

“Chavez has sent a shot across the bow for the entire oil service sector,” Patrick Esteruelas, an analyst with political risk consulting firm Eurasia Group, told the Journal.  “This is a very strong message for oil rig companies playing hardball and reluctant to agree on a write-down of their bills.”

But the brash gesture will also bring negative consequences that could significantly jeopardize the nation’s oil production, which is already in decline.

Venezuela’s oil production fell to 2.36 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2008, after climbing as high as 3.18 million bpd in 1997, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) estimated the country’s output was about 2.24 million bpd in December.

The expropriation of the oil service companies “increases the risk of additional declines in oil production since PDVSA is not likely to be as efficient an operator of these businesses and assets as the private sector contractors,” Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) said in a report.

The seizures “might turn into an expedient and quick political solution to the current large payment arrears to suppliers, they might also entail large medium-term costs in terms of foregone production and overall economic efficiency,” the report said.

The expropriations will also crimp badly needed investment, which in Venezuela is declining almost as quickly as output. Private investment in the nation’s oil sector fell to $500 million last year from twice that level in 2007, BusinessWeek reported.

“Venezuela’s aggressive fiscal terms and the country’s persistent trend toward nationalization of oil industry activities will make it more and more difficult to attract foreign investment and competitive bids from qualified operators,” David Voght, a director at IPD Latin America, which advises several international oil companies operating in Venezuela, told the FT.

PDVSA has slashed investment in new energy projects by $10 billion. And now the company, which is already overburdened by Chavez’s political and social agendas, will have to absorb 8,000 new workers into a permanent payroll that already exceeds 75,500 employees – nearly twice the number employed when Chavez took office a decade ago, according to the Journal.

And without adequate investment, there’s little hope that Venezuela’s output will reverse course anytime soon.

“PDVSA has to invest in the business,” James L. Williams, heads of oil consultancy WTRG Economics told BusinessWeek. “You have to feed a cow if you expect it to give milk.”

Source: Venezuela’s Oil Production Squeezed by Chavez’s Heavy Hand

For now, the “bottom” is in — that is, the bottom of this society’s ability to process reality. It may continue for a month of so, even after the “stress test” for banks is finally let out of the massage parlor with a “happy ending.” But events are underway that are beyond the command of personalities. We’re done “doing business” in all the ways that we’ve been used to, but we just can’t get with the new program. Let’s count the ways:

1) The revolving credit economy is over. It’s over because we can’t increase energy inputs to the system, which is one way of saying “peak oil.” Of course hardly anybody believes this right now because the price of oil crashed nine months ago, along with global manufacturing and trade. But nothing has changed on the peak oil scene — except perhaps that ever more new oil projects have been cancelled for lack of financing, which will boomerang on us (even if swine flu doesn’t) in the form of much lower future oil production. In any case, the credit fiesta is over, and the “consumer” economy with it, because industrial growth as we have known it is over. It’s over globally, too, though all regions of the world will not experience its demise the same way at the same rate.

The Asian nations may swap things around a while longer but China is basically screwed. They have less oil left than we have (which is saying, not much at all) and they won’t corner the rest of the global oil market without starting World War Three. Meanwhile, they’re running out of water and food. Good luck becoming the next global hegemon. Oh, and Japan imports 90 percent of its energy; India over 80 percent. Fuggeddabowdit.

Credit will not vanish everywhere overnight — even in the USA — because it is not distributed equally everywhere. But it will vanish in layers, and here in the USA a very broad layer of the lower and middle classes are now losing their access to it in one way or another — personally, in small business — and they will never get it back. Anyone who intends to thrive in the years just ahead had better plan on doing it on the basis of accounts receivable — and what they receive might not even necessarily come in the form of US dollars. It may come in the form of gold or silver or in the promise of reciprocal services rendered.

This has enormous implications for two of the items in which our credit-dispensing operations are most deeply vested: houses and cars. Unfortunately, these are exactly the things that economic life has been based on for decades in our nation, which leads to the next categories:

2) The suburban living arrangement is over, along with all its accessories and furnishings. Taken as “all of a piece,” the suburban expansion was one sixty-year-long orgasm of hypertrophy. We did it because we could. We won a world war and threw a party. We had lots of cheap land and cheap oil. It made lots of people lots of money and all its usufructs have become embedded in our national identity to the dangerous degree that the loss of them will provoke a kind of national psychotic breakdown. In fact, it already has. The completely unrealistic expectation that we can resume this way of life is proof of it.

The immediate problem is that we can’t build anymore of it. The next problem will be the failure of the stuff that already exists. The first stage of that is now palpable in the mortgage foreclosure fiasco and, just beginning now, the tanking of malls, strip centers, office parks and other commercial property investments. The latter will accelerate and become visible very quickly as retail tenants bug out and weeds start growing where the Chryslers and Pontiacs once parked. The next stage, which involves large demographic shifts in how we inhabit the landscape, has not quite gotten underway.

3) The Happy Motoring fiesta is over. You’d think that with Chrysler crawling into the bankruptcy court, and GM just weeks away from the same terminal ceremony, the news media would begin to suspect that the foundation of everyday life in this country was cracking. Instead, all we hear is blather about “market share” shifting to Toyota. News flash: not only will we make fewer automobiles in the USA, but Americans will buy far fewer cars made anywhere. We’ll keep the current fleet moving a while longer, but when it’s too beat to repair, we won’t be changing it out for a new fleet — despite all the fantasies about hybrids, plug-and-drive electrics, and so on. The masses will be too broke to buy these things. What’s more, they will be very resentful of the shrinking economic “elite” who can afford them. And, anyway, our roads and highways are destined to fall apart very quickly because there is no way we can sustain the necessary rate of normal maintenance. Meanwhile, we remain completely un-serious about public transit — even about fixing the vestiges that still exist. The airline industry, of course, will be toast inside of five years.

4) Our food production system is approaching crisis. There’s no way we can continue the petro-agriculture system of farming and the Cheez Doodle and Pepsi Cola diet that it services. The public is absolutely zombified in the face of this problem — perhaps a result of the diet itself. President Obama and Ag Secretary Vilsack have not given a hint that they understand the gravity of the situation. It is probably one of those unfortunate events of history that can only impress a society in the form of a crisis. It also happens to be one of the few problems we face that public policy could affect sharply and broadly — if we underwrote the reactivation of smaller, local farm operations instead of shoveling money to giant “agribusiness” (or Citibank -NYSE:C-, or Goldman Sachs -NYSE:GS-, or AIG…). I maintain that this may be the year that the crisis gets our attention, because capital is suddenly harder to get than fossil-fuel-based fertilizer.

All these epochal discontinuities present themselves, for the moment, as a season of muted “hope” and general apathy. The days are suddenly mild. We’ve resumed old and happy habits of grilling meat outdoors and motoring to those remaining places that were not blanketed with franchised food huts and discount malls. We have a new, charming president with an appealing family. Newly-minted dollars are flowing to the “shovel-ready.” The new bad news is less bad than the old bad news (or seems to be). And the year just past has been such a bummer that our hard-wired human nature tells us that good things must be just around the corner.

Personally, I think a lot of good things await us, but not the ones we’re expecting — not a return to buying slurpees on credit cards. It will be very salutary to leave behind the junk empire we’ve accumulated and move into an epoch of quality and purpose. For the moment, though, our hopes reside elsewhere.

Regards,
James Howard Kunstler

Source: The Bottom for Credit Thanks to Peak Oil