Weak American demand for everything from oil to automobiles led to shrinking imports, which fell faster than exports, reducing the gap by 9.7% to $36 billion, compared to the $38 billion Wall Street expected, the Commerce Department said Friday in Washington.

“The narrowing reflects the ongoing economic downturn. U.S. consumers are pulling back and that’s resulting in fewer imports while exports are falling,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com in West Chester, Pa., told Reuters. “It reflects how bad economic conditions are everywhere.”

For the first time since 1982, total world trade is expected to decline this year as businesses and consumers cut back on spending in response to relentlessly poor economic news. Even China chimed in early this week reporting its exports plunged 25.7% in February from a year earlier, while imports declined 24.1%.

The narrower gap is bad news for the U.S. economy because it mainly reflects a drop in petroleum prices. Excluding petroleum, the deficit was little changed at $21.3 billion.

The numbers used to calculate gross domestic product (GDP), which eliminates the influence of prices, showed the trade deficit widened to $44 billion, the most since October, Bloomberg News reported.

Imports slid 6.7% to $160.9 billion, the least since March 2005, led by a $4.3 billion drop in crude oil purchases. Foreign automobile sales plunged by $3.3 billion.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) deficit dropped to $3.9 billion, the smallest since November 2003, and the gap with Japan plummeted to the lowest level since 1998.

The shortfall with the European Union was sliced by half from $7 billion in December to $3.5 billion in January.

The largest concern for the United States is the dive in exports, as foreign demand for American-made goods slackened. Exports plunged 5.7% to $124.9 billion, the lowest in two and a half years, as sales of automobiles, computer chips, telecom equipment and drilling gear dropped, the report showed.

U.S. exports of food, feeds and beverages were up marginally in January, but important categories like consumer goods, capital goods and industrial supplies all showed declines.

“It’s not a good report for U.S. manufacturing,” Julia Coronado, a senior U.S. economist at Barclays Capital Inc. (BCS) in New York, told Bloomberg. “This is certainly a sign that the global weakness is feeding into the domestic economy through the export channel.”

After shrinking at an annual rate of 6.2% in the fourth quarter of 2008 – the most since 1982 – U.S. GDP is forecast to contract further this quarter. The collapse in U.S. exports led to a widening in the trade gap that subtracted 0.5% from growth last quarter.

Source: Economic Slump Narrows U.S. Trade Gap to Lowest Level in Six Years

Schlumberger is pulling back as a collapse in petroleum prices led to a sharp drop in exploration spending by its customers.

Commodity prices have plummeted in recent months, as recessions in some of the world’s largest economies dampened demand. Like all oil producers, Schlumberger has been hurt by the plunge in the price of oil, which has fallen from $147 per barrel in July to about $42 per barrel now. The company has also seen its budget for exploration cut by 40%.

Schlumberger reported net profit of $1.15 billion, or 95 cents per share, down from $1.38 billion, or $1.12 per share, although revenue rose nearly 10% to $6.87 billion.

Schlumberger Chief Executive Officer Andrew Gould told investors on a conference call that the company was cutting 5,000 jobs out of 87,000 worldwide, and did not rule out more cuts in the first half of 2009, if necessary.

“It is a good sign that they’re coming front and center and acknowledging things have gotten a lot worse,” Mark Brown, an analyst at Pritchard Capital Partners in New York, told Bloomberg News. “We had to get this negative news out there.”

Schlumberger’s results echoed the sentiment of energy analysts who have forecast spending by oil and gas producers would drop by one-fifth or more in 2009 as companies move to conserve cash.

Spending by companies around the world on oil and natural gas exploration will fall to $400 billion in 2009, according to a Dec. 19 report by analysts James Crandell and James West of Barclays Capital Research.

The biggest decline in exploration spending is expected to come in North America, where U.S. spending will fall 26% to $79 billion and Canadian spending will slide 23% to $22 billion, Barclays said. By contrast, capital spending outside North America will fall only 6% to $300 billion.

“At current prices, most of the new categories of hydrocarbon resources are not economic to develop,” Gould said in the statement. “We expect 2009 activity to weaken across the board with the most significant declines occurring in North American gas drilling, Russian oil production enhancement and in mature offshore basins.”

Russia is part of Schlumberger’s largest regional market, which includes Europe and Africa.

In Canada, big producers like EnCana Corp. (ECA), Canadian Natural Resources and Husky Energy Inc. (PINK: HUSKF) have cut 25% to 30% from their capital budgets, according to Gary Leach, president of the Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada.

“Right now it’s way cheaper to buy gas and oil on the market than to go drill for it,” Leach told the Calgary Herald.
But all those spending cuts may soon lead to a significant rebound in prices, Gould said.

Despite heavy spending by producers to develop new resources in recent years, the supply situation is still depressed and the cuts in investments hitting the industry now will “sow the seeds of strong rebound,” Gould said.

That seemed to be reflected in at least one of Schlumberger’s units.

Even though it posted a 68% drop in profit and a 25% drop in revenue in the quarter, Schlumberger’s WesternGeco seismic business – which measures prospective oil and gas reservoirs – is sitting on a record $1.77 billion order backlog.

And the gloomy earnings report from Schlumberger did nothing to dispel the notion among investors that oil prices will move higher.

“The fact that because this wasn’t the quarter that was prophesying the end of the world, it’s causing people to rethink their pessimism,” Bill Herbert an analyst at Simmons & Co. in Houstonsaid told Bloomberg. Indeed, oil services stocks rebounded in trading Friday.

Source: Schlumberger Sees End in Sight for Slumping Oil Prices

[Perhaps President Chavez could be tempted out of his chaos-causing rule in Caracas with the offer of a rich and perk-filled oil-analyst’s job at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS)].

My colleague – Money Morning Investment Director Keith Fitzgerald – agrees with Chavez that oil prices are headed much higher: In fact, since back in December, when crude oil was trading at $90, Fitz-Gerald has been predicting that petroleum prices would reach $187 a barrel. And there’s growing support for his view: In mid-March, Goldman Sachs forecast oil prices of $175 within two years while just yesterday (Tuesday), noted MSNMoneycentral columnist James Jubak predicted that oil would reach $180 a barrel in the next few years.

What’s “Fueling” the Oil Price Rocket?

Crude oil rose to a record $119.90 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange yesterday, as the greenback dropped to an all-time low against the European euro. Crude oil is up 24% so far this year, and 88% from this time last year, Bloomberg News reported.
With this unrelenting march, it’s no wonder that industry observers continue to roll out ever-higher target prices for the “black gold.”
If we’re only considering economic factors, the steep crude prices now being predicted would be unlikely to stick for any protracted period; there are huge new oil sources of oil that become economically profitable once oil rises above $100 per barrel. The Orinoco tar sands in Venezuela and the Athabasca tar sands in Canada – each of which contains larger oil reserves than the entire Middle East are viable even at $50 per barrel (Orinoco holds an estimated 1.8 trillion barrels and Athabasca 1.7 trillion barrels, versus a current Middle East estimate of 1.6 trillion barrels).

Then there’s Colorado oil shale – also containing at least 1.5 trillion barrels of reserves – that becomes economically viable at about $100.

The bottom line: If oil prices stayed at $180 to $200 per barrel for more than a year or two, huge new oil supplies would come on line, causing crude prices to plummet and tipping the market decisively back towards consumers. The environmental cost of getting really large quantities of oil out of Athabasca and Colorado would be immense, particularly if we attempted to supply the needs of the entire U.S. market from these sources, but at $180 per barrel, I’m confident that the economic necessity would probably trump the environmental problems.

As we said, however, these scenarios consider only economic factors. And as we’ll see, there are two additional factors that make this a much-less-straightforward analysis, meaning oil prices could linger at significantly higher prices for a much-longer period than economics alone would justify.

I’ve labeled these two “wild card” factors as “politics and a paradigm shift.” Let’s look at each one.

First, political factors are increasingly restricting the areas that can be explored for oil. In fact, there are a number of places on earth where large reserves are known to exist, but political obstacles make it impossible to drill for—and remove—the crude.

So there it stays, heavily dampening an increase in production that would otherwise be taking place.

Second, world economic growth has been exceptionally rapid, and two huge population centers, India and China, have simultaneously been introduced to the joys of the automobile culture. And that’s created a major global paradigm shift that promises to shift the auto center of the world from Detroit to Shanghai, while simultaneously causing worldwide oil consumption to soar.

Now that we understand the demand side of the equation, let’s consider the outlook for supply.

Foreign Intervention

Countries that allow foreign oil-sector participation and avoid punitive taxation can reap two distinct benefits. First, production from existing fields is increased by greater efficiency. Second, modern exploration techniques are brought to bear, often resulting in new reserve finds in areas that have been closed to international exploration for decades.

For instance, it is especially noteworthy that Saudi production peaked in 2004, and that Saudi oil reserve figures are in doubt; indeed, most Saudi oil reserves derive from fields that were discovered in the 1970s, if not before.

To see how production may stagnate without the benefit of such outside participation, just take a look at Russia.

After 2000, Russia was the principal source of new oil outside the Middle East. Since 2003, however, the most efficient Russian oil company – Yukos NK OAO – has been dismembered, contracts with foreign oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDS.A and RDS.B) and BP PLC (BP) have been forcibly renegotiated, and Russia has imposed an 80% tax on oil revenue above $27 per barrel.

The result of these heavy-handed machinations has been pretty much what you’d expect: We recently learned that Russian oil production declined by 1% in the first quarter of 2008, following several years of rapid growth. An oil industry with capitalism, foreign partners and modern technology has given way to autarky and state control.

When it comes to foreign oil companies, other companies are adopting a game plan that’s very similar to that of Russia. Mexico bars foreign participation in oil exploration, and expropriates almost all the net revenue of its oil monopoly Petroleos Mexicanos, more commonly referred to as Pemex. Consequently, Mexican oil production is undergoing a steep decline: It is currently about 12% below its 2006 average, according to the International Energy Agency.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon is attempting to change that, by allowing Mexico to sign joint-venture agreements with foreign energy companies (the first such agreement under discussion is not with a hated “Yanqui,” but is instead with Brazil’s Petroleo Brasilero SA (PBR), usually referred to as Petrobras – itself a state-controlled enterprise, albeit one that’s much-more open to modern exploration techniques). However, even without proposing the politically impossible privatization of Pemex, Calderon’s attempted legislation is running into huge political opposition. 

Other examples abound. Venezuela recently seized majority control of foreign owned oil concessions, so even with the world’s largest oil reserves in the Orinoco tar sands its production has declined by about 6% since 2006. Nigeria taxes foreign oil companies at 98%, so its production has declined 10% since 2006.

There are a few counterexamples. Where the oil industry is open, new reserves are found and production increases. Brazil’s Petrobras participates freely with foreign companies, and has discovered several large offshore fields recently. Iraq’s oilfields were opened to foreign participation after 2003, and Iraq’s estimated oil reserves have since doubled to 200 billion barrels, ranking it second behind only Saudi Arabia as having the largest crude-oil reserves in the entire Middle East.

Globally, oil production from existing fields has declined 7.7% annually since 2000, with British and Norwegian offshore fields showing a particularly sharp decline. That means that large new oil discoveries are required simply to keep pace with demand and to halt oil prices from spiraling up toward infinity. Allowing international participation in oil exploration and production is essential to this process, but the list of countries in which such participation is allowed has declined and appears to be diminishing further.

But now that their darkest days are behind them, solar stocks represent a big play opportunity for any investor savvy enough to buy in while valuations are still low.

At Money Morning, we’ve said repeatedly that alternative energy isn’t an alternative anymore. Indeed, soaring energy costs and heightened awareness about global climate change have ushered solar power into the mainstream over the past year.

On Friday, light, sweet crude for May delivery rose 20 cents to $110.31 a barrel in afternoon trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange – just below the record price of $112.21 a barrel set Wednesday. Notwithstanding a much-criticized Energy Department projection that the escalation in petroleum prices will stop by June, there have been few – if any – real indications that oil and gasoline prices will retreat heading into the summer driving season.

That’s particularly bad news for consumers who are already feeling the pinch from the credit crunch and sinking home values. But it’s another round of good news for solar energy, which will almost certainly receive more attention – from the public, and from elected officials who feel compelled to extend, and even broaden, tax subsidies for renewable energy.

Reuters recently reported that a new bipartisan proposal by U.S. senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.) would extend existing tax credits for the clean energy sector. Many Wall Street analysts have said the measure has a good chance of passing because it is not linked to a tax hike or to “Big Oil.”

In addition to offering an alternative to costly and politically contentious foreign oil, solar power is also popular with environmentalists. That’s because solar power emits, per unit of energy, about one-tenth the amount of carbon dioxide emissions given off by more-conventional power sources.

Also, advances in technology have made solar cell production even more eco-friendly. A recent study by the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y., found that for each unit of energy produced by solar cells, the pollution that’s emitted during the cells’ manufacture is only 2% to 11% the amount produced by power plants in the United States and Europe.

In fact, newly developed solar cells can “pay back” the energy required for their production in just one to three years. And improvements in manufacturing efficiency could reduce emissions from solar power by another 50% in five to 10 years.

There have been tremendous advances in the production and efficiency of solar technologies. And those advances couldn’t have come at a better time. Political support for the industry is at an all-time high as oil prices and environmental awareness both continue to rise.

The “First” Option in the Solar Sector

The shares of First Solar Inc. (FSLR) were badly battered during the first quarter. After climbing as high as $280.91 a share in December 2007, First Solar shares tumbled to $165.60 in February. Since then, they’ve battled back and are currently trading near their 52-week high.
And there’s good reason for all the company’s forward momentum.

First Solar’s reliance on low cost thin-film cells helped the company avert a silicon shortage that has savaged the bottom lines of countless other solar companies. As a result, the Phoenix-based solar module manufacturer has been able to produce solar cells for a lower cost than its rivals.

“First Solar’s new technology that uses cadmium telluride is much cheaper,” Matthew Patsky, portfolio manager of Winslow Green Mutual Funds (WGGFX), told FOXBusiness. “The cost of their solar cells is much less than the cost of the traditional [silicon-based] cells, so if you’re doing an installation on any scale, they are the best alternative right now.”

First Solar’s ability to undercut the competition helped it to rake in a $62.9 million profit last year. That’s a 686.3% improvement from the $8 million posted in 2006. Revenue nearly quadrupled to $200.8 million.

First Solar expects revenue to rise again this year, to between $900 million and $950 million.

To fuel that surge in revenue, the company will rely heavily on its globally diversified production base. Company officials said last year’s earnings were boosted by the full increased efficiency at their factory in Germany. This year they expect additional savings from a brand new plant in Malaysia.

“As we’re moving to Malaysia, I think our models imply a 20 cent cost-per-watt reduction,” Jens Meyerhoff, First Solar’s chief financial officer, told a Piper Jaffray investment conference.

The company expects its first Malaysian production line to start running this year, followed by three fully operational lines in 2009.

First Solar is also in talks with several U.S. utilities to build renewable energy projects. Chief Executive Michael Ahearn told Reuters the company was “having multiple discussions” with U.S. utilities.

“What we are trying to get to this year is some initial relationships and pilot projects,” he added.

Impressed with the company’s prospects, Winslow Green’s Patsky took advantage of First Solar’s turbulent first quarter.

“In January, the stock dropped to around $160 and we re-established a strong position,” Patsky said. “If it hits $300 in the near term, we might trim our position again; but our target is really for it to be trading at $380 over the next 12 months – the estimates are too low and I don’t think the street is as aggressive as what we expect.”

Canaccord Adams recently reiterated its “Buy” rating on the stock and added First Solar to its “Best Ideas” list.