The unrest that began in Tunisia and Egypt has now destabilized a country that exports important quantities of petroleum, and the oil market is reacting in earnest. With Libya in violent turmoil, UK Brent crude traded above $108 per barrel today, and even West Texas Intermediate (WTI), which has been massively discounted due to excessive inventory at its Cushing, OK delivery point, hit $98 in early trading before falling back to the mid-$90s. Unless events in Libya resolve quickly and positively, oil's price moves will shortly translate into higher gasoline prices. As I considered these events over breakfast, it also struck me that GM and Nissan could turn out to be very lucky indeed in launching their electric vehicles now, instead of a year or two ago when gas prices were lower and less volatile.
The media commentary I've seen so far concerning Libya's oil production has missed some key details that explain why a disruption of exports that in theory can be covered by OPEC's ample spare capacity--currently at a multiple of Libya's output--could be disproportionately large. Instead of focusing on Libya having Africa's largest oil reserves--a fact that is important for the long run but essentially irrelevant in the current situation--what matters is production and exports, and especially the location and quality of the latter. Libya produces around 1.7 million bbl/day of crude oil and exports much of that, due to its small domestic market. As oil companies evacuate personnel, that output will drop, and exports from Libya's ports are at risk of disruption by the chaos unfolding there. The majority of those exports stay in the Mediterranean, where they are key inputs for Italian, French and Spanish refiners. Very little of it comes to the US, for which Libyan oil made up less than 1% of our imports in 2009. So any effect on US markets will be indirect, but no less dramatic for that.
On the surface, OPEC is more than capable of making up for the loss of a bit over 1 million bbl/day from the market, if it wished. However, most of the cartel's roughly 5 million bbl/day spare capacity is on the Arabian peninsula--near another focus of instability in Bahrain, which is no longer an oil exporter. Nor is most of OPEC's remaining capacity of a quality comparable to the typically light, sweet crude types that constitute most of Libya's output. These crudes are well-suited for making the diesel favored in Europe, and it would be difficult for many European refiners to switch on short notice to a diet richer in Saudi grades that are higher in sulfur.
Various analysts have noted that US gas prices were already reflecting higher world oil prices, rather than the lagging WTI indicator. With April gasoline futures trading above $2.75/gal. on the NYMEX this morning, that would yield an effective average US retail unleaded regular price of around $3.45/gal, after factoring in excise and sales taxes and typical dealer margin. That's well above the $3.18/gal. average that the Lundberg Survey reported for last week. It would also be the highest average at the pump since October 2008, when prices were unraveling from their $4-plus peak of that summer.
It's too soon to predict an imminent return to those heights, although no one can gauge what will happen next in Libya, where it's not clear even who's in charge at the moment. (It does seem safe to predict that the US will not lead a NATO invasion of Libya, as Fidel Castro has apparently warned.) Still, it is worth thinking about how consumers might react if the current chaos persisted. The last time gas prices rose sharply, we saw significant drops in both US vehicle miles traveled and gasoline consumption. We also observed a noticeable increase in the sales of hybrid cars, which have lagged recently. There were no mass-market electric vehicles available at the time, but it doesn't require a leap of faith to envision a healthy boost in EV sales from their low initial levels, too. That would be good for both GM and Nissan, which have invested enormous sums--and their corporate reputations--bringing their Volt and Leaf models to market. It might not be so positive for sales of clean diesels, despite their high efficiency, if constraints on Libyan oil tighten European diesel supplies and drive up world diesel prices.
Events in North Africa and the Middle East will determine how high oil and gasoline prices rise in the weeks ahead. If Libya's dictator departs as readily as President Mubarak did, things could settle down quickly, unless the unrest spreads to another major oil producer. It's still too early to call this a new oil crisis, but it's not too soon to consider our options if it proved to be one. Although that would be a very unwelcome shock to an economy just regaining some momentum, we have many more options than in 1979, when the Iranian Revolution sent oil prices to levels that it took nearly three decades to exceed, in real terms.
Libya's Ripples for Energy Markets
Other Posts by Geoffrey Styles
E15's Problems Are Symptomatic of A Failing Biofuels Policy - May 22, 2012
Are Chesapeake's Problems A Red Flag For Shale Gas? - May 17, 2012
Where Gas is Already $10 per Gallon - May 9, 2012
Resources from Space? - May 4, 2012
US Natural Gas Price Nears $10 per Barrel Equivalence - April 30, 2012
» Already a member? Login now to comment!
» Not a member? Register to comment!
mityo101v said:
Hello,
my name is Mityo Stoynov I'm student in ''Economics and Management in Energy, Infrastructure and Utilities''
Can you tell me in few words:
How will the events in Libya impacts the Energy markets?
Thank you!
ahmet sibdial sau said:
I think this is a opportunity for oil companies to charge more per gallon, U.S. embassy inTripoli, shows Gaddafi's government exerting heavy pressure on U.S. and other oil companies to reimburse Tripoli the $1.5 billion Libya had paid in 2008 into a fund to settle terrorism claims from the 1980s.
Ski Milburn said:
It would seem prudent to plan for the possibility that the leaders of Lybia and Bahrain will fall, and the Saudi Royal Family would then be at great risk of the same fate. If that happens, all this talk off "OPEC's spare capacity" goes in the dustbin, and even if the new regimes move quickly to restore production and export revenues, we're in for another full-fledged oil crisis.
This puts the world in the distinctly uncomfortable position of either supporting the legitimate democratic aspirations of the peoples of the Middle East, or of supporting "stability" in the name of our economic interests. Not only is it a no-win game, but to the degree that we support stability now, the less likely we're going to see it from what comes next.
It also doesn't do much good to cry over past opportunties for a better outcome that have been forever lost. We had a wake-up call 37 years ago. It takes about 30 years to transform a national-scale infrastructure. Anything we could possibly do now will inevitably be too little too late.
We might just get lucky and muddle this one through, but the wise will assign a high probability to a very bumpy ride and prepare accordingly.
Geoffrey Styles said:
Ski,
In the event things turn out that way, one good decision we did make 37 years ago becomes one of the few things that can help, even though we could certainly have made it better and more useful in the last few years: the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. See Thursday's posting:
willem Post said:
Increased energy efficiency would be the best way to deal with future higher energy prices.
Houses and apartment buildings are being built to the Passivhaus standard that use about 10% of the energy a similar code-built housing uses.
Imagine if you lived in such a house. You would not need to worry about your energy bills, because they would be so small.
Energy efficiency will have a much bigger role in the near future, as energy system analysts come to realize that tens of trillions of dollars will be required to reduce CO2 from all sources and that energy efficiency will reduce CO2 at a lesser cost and more effectively.
Energy efficiency projects:
- will make the US more competitive, increase exports and reduce the trade balance.
- usually have simple payback periods of 6 months to 5 years.
- reduce the need for expensive and highly visible transmission and distribution systems.
- reduce two to five times the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and create two to three times more jobs than renewables per dollar invested; no studies, research, demonstration and pilot plants will be required.
- have minimal or no pollution, are invisible and quiet, something people really like.
- are by far the cleanest energy development anyone can engage in; they often are quick, cheap and easy.
- have a capacity factor = 1.0 and are available 24/7/365.
- use materials, such as for taping, sealing, caulking, insulation, windows, doors, refrigerators, water heaters, furnaces, fans, air conditioners, etc., that are almost entirely made in the US. They represent about 30% of a project cost, the rest is mostly labor. About 70% of the materials cost of expensive renewables is imported; PV panels from China, inverters from Germany, wind turbines from Denmark, Spain.
- will quickly reduce CO2 at the lowest cost per dollar invested AND make the economy more efficient in many areas which will raise living standards, or prevent them from falling further.
- if done before renewables, will reduce the future capacities and capital costs of renewables.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46252/thermal-solar-california-desert
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46824/impact-csp-and-pv-solar-feed-tariffs-spain
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46142/impact-pv-solar-feed-tariffs-germany
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46652/reducing-energy-use-houses
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/47519/base-power-alternatives-replace-base-loaded-coal-plants
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46977/impacts-variable-intermittent-power-grids
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/50167/impact-pv-solar-peak-electric-demands
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/50925/electric-vehicle-hoopla
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/51642/dutch-renewables-about-face-towards-nuclear
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/52228/impact-closing-vermont-yankee-nuclear-plant
Geoffrey Styles said:
Willem,
You get no pushback from me on efficiency, except that making houses more efficient will have next to no impact on oil prices and vice versa, because so little oil is used to power or heat homes, outside the US Northeast. (~1.5% of US oil consumption.) The most popular fuel for home heating, and the one currently determing the cost of electricity at the margin, is natural gas, which we now know is far more abundant than most of us thought just a few years ago. And it's priced at less than $27/bbl, on an energy equivalent basis.
willem Post said:
In Vermont, a gallon of propane is about $3 delivered to my tank; fuel oil about $3.50. This year my total heating bill is about $2,500; I pre-buy which turned out great this year.
My house, about 3,500 sq ft, is very efficient. I designed and built it about 26 years ago. Recently, I added a 200 sq ft, R-40 room. It has 6 inches of Dow blueboard under the 4" concrete slab, 8 inches in the walls and 10 inches in the ceiling. A thermostatically controlled, 0.5 kW electric heater keeps it at 65F, when outside it is 0F.
I wish my entire house was built like that. My heating AND electric bills would be about 50% less; heating systems use electricity. The reduction would be a much larger percentage for a standard US house.
A significant percentage of the US national electric and heating capacity would not be needed, if all housing were built to strict energy codes, as is the case in Sweden, etc; R-85 roofs!!
The US people have been living on a different planet regarding energy consumption. If the US were a small nation it would not matter, but it has a huge energy footprint. It has an obligation to be at the forefront of energy efficiency.
Geoffrey Styles said:
willem,
We're not living on another planet; we're living with the logical outgrowth of our past. We built the country you see at a time when the US was more sparsely populated and seemingly drowning in energy. Unlike Europe, which always had to be more frugal with energy, in 1970 the US had 200 million people and net energy imports equivalent to less than 3 million bbl/day of oil, which cost $2/bbl. Add 100 million bodies to the same infrastructure and let energy production fall behind for a variety of reasons and here we are. The economics of transforming what we have into what you advocate are challenging, to say the least. We'll get there, more or less, but it will take a lot longer than many would like.
RickEngebretson said:
Geoff: "we're living with the logical outgrowth of our past." Thanks for another important truth.
Perhaps that's why I get too upset with those who criticize and offer little better. The world isn't perfect, but if you aren't impressed with the progress of the industrial age you're pretty rare. I have a deep appreciation for the skills and labors of past generations; and if they created an imperfect world for us it wasn't for lack of trying..
What is so amazing to me is how fast the delusion of cheap, clean, abundant, safe energy came and went. We are in a race against time.
In this regard, Taylen Peterson's Trombe Wall article has personal relevance. I moved to this area 30 years ago from the U. area. I picked up all the scrap iron and rock I could grab. I found Indian artifacts, logging camp sites, and replaced rotten wood footings in barns and many other structures with steel, rock and concrete. Menaced by deer flies and ticks, sunburn, ice, etc.; I tip my hat to our past and truly don't know how they did it, but I'm very glad they did.
Geoff: "The economics of transforming what we have into what you advocate are challenging, to say the least. We'll get there, more or less, but it will take a lot longer than many would like."
Paul O said:
Willem,
I have read your multiple allusions to efficiency in your posts, and while it is certainly ultimately the way to go the problem is affordability.
I'd certainly love to live in a passivehaus standard home, but the house I live in was built in the 60's and renovated in the 70's, I bought it as a first time home buyer 3 years ago. For better or for worse, my house is my house. There are millions of home owners out there just like me who are struggling to meet mortgage and other obligations. In the same vane, my buick gets me to work and carries my family on travelling trips when we need it to, I'm certainly not ditching it for a Leaf.
Quite appart from the point Geof made (my home is Natural Gas heated), I am not certain that even the Federal Govt. is up to the task of helping us grass roots Americans to acheive the Passivehaus standard you espouse. They just don't have that kind of money anymore.
PS. Right away I start thinking that rather than building windmills, the Feds should help us upgrade our homes. That might actually work better for jump starting the economy. Unfortunately I suck at economic math.
Ed Reid said:
Paul,
Ultimately, the feds don't have any money they don't take from us; and, they always siphon some off in the process. Even the money they don't have and spend anyway ultimately must come from us.
If progress toward the passivehaus standard makes economic sense in a particular instance, fine. But it makes no more economic sense to make your house a passivehaus with my money than it does with your money. I'd prefer to use my money to bring my house to the passivehaus standard and save me money as a result, rather than have the feds take my money and give some of it to you to improve your house and save you money. :-)
Ed
willem Post said:
Ed,
.........syphen some off....."
The Feds, with Congress's approval, syphoned off about $2 trillion from the Social Security System "Trust" Fund to pay for government activities. It is the grandest of all larcenies, ever.
Now the SSS payouts are in excess of receipts, which means the SSS "surplus" fund is supposed to make up the difference, but the surplus is nowhere to be found.
Ed Reid said:
It seems only fair to credit this larceny to LBJ and the Congress which served in the last year of his presidency. The larceny was referred to as the Unified Federal Budget and was created to make LBJ's last "guns and butter" budget appear to be balanced.
Paul O said:
Ed,
I am very sympathetic to the ethic which prefers that each attend to their own well being, and also to the truth that taxes are collected from We The People. IOTW the money the Govt. spends is not free, and is doled out at the expense of the poor (or rich) slob who earned it in the first place.
However if the Govt. is hell bent on spending your (and my) money anyway, on Energy Independence Projects and CO2 reduction, then the question should be asked whetherthat money is more wisely spent helping me and other grass roots Americans to insulate our homes to the Pasivhaus (or any other good) standard, rather than spending the money in puting Solar Panels in the desert or Windmills in the sea (or in Texas and North Dakota).
The question should rightly be asked, which one of these activities would better acheive the stated goals of the Govt..
Ed Reid said:
Paul,
It appears that your question is going to be asked frequently, about a great many government programs, before the FY2012 budget is finalized. I believe that is a good thing.
In our current situation, it certainly makes more sense to do research on energy technologies which could produce energy at lower cost; and, to encourage economical energy efficiency investments. Investing in massive commercial installations of technology which is not competitive now and has no chance of being competitive in higher production makes no sense at all.
-
Baby You Can Drive My (Electric) Car
Posted May 11, 2012 by Scott Edward Anderson
-
Siemens develops ABS plastic alternative
Posted May 9, 2012 by Doris de Guzman
-
Reduce CO2 and Slow Global Warming?
Posted April 30, 2012 by Willem Post
-
WGC 2012 - 25th World Gas Conference
June 4, 2012, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
-
Ecwatech 2012
June 4, 2012, Moscow, Russia
-
Intersolar Europe
June 11, 2012, Munich, Germany
Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »
Marc Gunther is a writer, speaker and consultant, who focuses on business and the environment. More »
Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »
Jesse Jenkins is the director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute. More »
Robert Rapier works in the energy industry and writes and speaks about energy and the environment. More »
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »
Dan Yurman is a nuclear energy blogger and writes regularly for Fuel Cycle Week. More »
The Energy Collective
- YOU
- Rod Adams
- Scott Edward Anderson
- Charles Barton
- Barry Brook
- Dick DeBlasio
- Simon Donner
- Big Gav
- Michael Giberson
- James Greenberger
- Lou Grinzo
- Marc Gunther
- Tyler Hamilton
- Christine Hertzog
- David Hone
- Jesse Jenkins
- Lynne Kiesling
- Sonita Lontoh
- Jesse Parent
- Vicky Portwain
- Tom Raftery
- Robert Rapier
- Joseph Romm
- Robert Stavins
- Robert Stowe
- Geoffrey Styles
- Alex Trembath
- Gernot Wagner
- John Whitehead
- Dan Yurman
Hidroenergia 2012
When: Wed, 2012-05-23 09:00
NERC CIP Compliance Training
When: Thu, 2012-05-24 08:00
Webinar on Transported Asset Protection Association’s (TAPA) Freight Security Requirements and Trucking Security Requirements
When: Thu, 2012-05-24 14:00
Global JOJOBAWORLD 2012
When: Fri, 2012-05-25 09:00
NESCO Town Hall: Security Risk Management Practices for Electric Utilities
When: Wed, 2012-05-30 13:00
Ecwatech 2012
When: Mon, 2012-06-04 09:00

About Social Media Today




