I ran across an interesting article and comment just before I decided to drop off to sleep. I will share my response with you and you can tell me what you think.

The original post is LET THE ENERGY GAMES BEGIN. The comment was:

Rick Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 2:05 am e
Please give me a reference to the statement that “George Bush’s own Energy Department has said that if we opened up new areas to drilling today, we wouldn’t see a single drop of oil for seven years…”
I want authoritative facts so I can warn others that it is not a quick fix to the high gas prices as republicans want to mislead them to believe.

My response is

Rick,

I did not write this post, but I am very aware of the issues it discusses. And I wanted to take a moment to address what has been said so you have a full understanding of what is before all Americans.

It is a fact that crude oil prices have increased roughly 1000% since 1972. It is a fact that oil usage in the U.S. has increased dramatically over that same time period. And it is also a fact that Democrats have long sought to prevent domestic drilling.

But to say that only Republicans are at fault for the current, and future, dependence on oil would be a lie. Inaction by both Republicans and Democrats since the 1970’s are the cause of the crisis. Neither side has effectively presented a plan of action, nor explained to the general public the cost of failing to seek a new alternative.

Currently America will spend some $700 billion on foreign oil. Part of that reasoning is due to the idea of using up foreign sources of oil while maintaining reserves for the future – ensuring the continuation of the American quality of life. That reasoning was solidly in place 30 years ago, and far less so today.

Another reason has to do with ethanol. The U.S. chose to use corn as the base for ethanol, whereas other nations have chosen and effectively use grass and sugar. All these bases for ethanol result in a fuel that is only 75% as useful as gasoline, thus requiring more fuel to be burned. In addition there is a debate on whether ethanol production is amplifying the dead-zones found in the Gulf of Mexico. Lastly by using corn as the base food prices have been forced higher, which is a core inflation factor.

Oh by the way, there is currently a glut of ethanol, with a mandate from the Government to increase that glut by 60% next year. Ethanol is currently available only in 5 states, of which only 2 allow its sale to the public (those 2 being Illinois and Michigan).

Solar energy, geothermal, wind, biomass, oil shale, and all other alternative sources at this time are either ineffective or inefficient.

Because of these facts, the only options that will effectively provide the energy that America requires to maintain it’s current quality of life and allow for research and development of new energy sources are coal, nuclear, and oil.

Coal is available, and starting to gain greater interest though many ecologically sensitive groups are against its use because even the latest developments create too much carbon dioxide and residue.

Nuclear has long been an energy source that Democrats oppose. Fear, without regard for advances in science and safety, and political preferences have held back the development of any new nuclear plants since the 80’s. This is in the face of significantly greener nations like France that use this as an energy source.

Thus we are back to oil. If we are to maintain current energy usage oil is the only logical and constant source. Since dependency on foreign oil is expensive and unreliable domestic drilling makes sense. The money saved can be used to fund alternative sources of fuel.

But will domestic drilling tomorrow cause oil prices to drop tomorrow? Yes and no.

Crude oil is priced like a stock or more accurately an option. Thus the price reacts in advance of actual events most of the time. When OPEC cuts production the price of oil rises long before the supply is affected. When a nation that produces or ships oil is under strife or war the price fluctuates whether production is affected or not.

So on that basis the knowledge that domestic drilling will decrease the demand by the largest buyer, prices will drop for a period of time until other buyers step in to make up that difference. If OPEC does not just reduce production to maintain current prices.

But more importantly if nothing is done today, as it was not in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, and on then you are guaranteed to have higher prices 2 years from now as well as 10. And where will the alternatives be then? As more money, maybe $1 trillion dollars a year or more, goes to foreign nations, where will America get the extra money to fund the 2nd, or 4th, or 7th year of research?

And lastly I want to inform you of something that many Democrats, particularly Speaker Pelosi have not made public. Nancy Pelosi makes money every time alternative energy is funded. She owns a substantial position in alternative energy stocks. It’s to her benefit to not allow domestic drilling. It fills her pockets with money every time that the debate lingers.

How is Nancy Pelosi different than the charges made of Republicans when she is in the pocket of Big Wind?

So to answer your question is oil going to resolve all America’s fuel needs forever? Of course not. Will domestic drilling drop the price of crude oil significantly tomorrow, or short-term? Not overly likely, though some effect will happen. Do Republicans understand this, and the alternative? More than you are giving credit to.

But the real question should be this, what alternative is being proposed by Democrats that will ensure the energy needs of America now, and provide any hope of reduced cost and increased energy in the next 2 years? Or 4? Unless you don’t mind not heating your home during the winter, or being unable to use the internet when you wish.

Oil is not the answer, we can all agree on that. But by using oil, particularly domestic oil, we improve our ability to create new sources of energy.

Labels: alternative energy, Crude oil prices, domestic drilling, ethanol, Nancy Pelosi, nuclear energy, oil shale, OPEC

How bad is the energy situation in America? We all are aware of the increases in the price of oil in the past couple of years. In fact there has been a massive amount of attention to every rise and fall of the price per barrel. That attention has of course translated into greater speculation fueling great price fluctuations, happier members of OPEC, richer brokers, and tighter margins for virtually every type of business in America.

But how bad is it? Does this compare to say the 1970’s and that oil disaster? Actually very well. In fact there is virtually no comparison. From 1970 to 1980 the price of oil went up 1566%. Again that was an increase of 15x in 10 years or 1.5x every year for that decade. In the past 10 years oil has increased a mere 300% or 3x counting today’s high.

So what other factors have been involved in the run up between then and now? Considering the fact that oil consumption in America has increased 21% since 1980 alone (I couldn’t find data since 1970). Of course that is 28 years or .75% a year. So that does not explain the price increase, especially when you consider that the price of oil only increased 33% from 1980 to 1990. So there must be another reason.

Perhaps it’s the fact that there is a limited supply of oil in the world. Knowing this, and the fact that the Middle East has no other major exportable good, it makes sense that as demand continues to be steady or increase the price will rise. But that still does not explain the recent dramatic (moreso due to media influence) increase.

Until you look at speculation. In the 1970’s perhaps 15%, maybe 20%, of the nation was involved actively with the stock market. In the 1980’s there was a huge increase in trading of everything, backed up with a healthy helping of movies from Hollywood fueling interest (recall Trading Places, Wall Street, Other People’s Money). As a result the investing populace doubled. Then with the tech bubble we saw the numbers swell to around 60-70%.

As these numbers swelled, more and more people became aware of alternative investment vehicles. Commodity trading along with spot trading became the new penny stocks. With an upfront cap of only 5% of the total investment oil was primed to run as the housing market had its bubble burst. And here we are today.

The only other major factor has been the fact that since the 1970’s neither Republicans or Democrats have done anything about America’s energy needs beyond polispeak. Every administration has talked about alternative energy sources, and funded no research. Each decade has passed without increases in domestic drilling while OPEC made more money. As the years passed the number of oil refineries has dropped to roughly half as many in operation today as in 1970. And speculators made money.

Why is America in an oil shock, and complaining about gasoline prices (which have had a fractional increase in price as compared to oil) – not to mention soon to be reeling from home heating oil prices? Because we have politicians that have been more concerned with fueling special interest groups (eco fanatics and oil companies alike) rather than the average American.

So what is our answer? What are we the people going to do? We can either sit back and accept yet more polispeak about creating advances while ethanol kills the Gulf of Mexico and sits unused in the 5 states that actually have it available to the public or we can get real change. We can either leave domestic oil sources untapped and penalize our economy or use oil and fund research for other sources. We can either do something or suffer the consequences of inaction and polispeak promises.

That is the choice in front of us. Every other option is just a stopgap answer that will placate anyone with a short memory and nothing else. Because the energy situation in America is hardly bad…yet. But soon it will be a real crisis, and one that will give this generation and the next an understanding of the 1970’s that will make them pray for alternative day fuel lines.

Labels: commodity markets, Crude oil prices, ethanol production, Hollywood, Middle East, OPEC, penny stocks, Polispeak, stock market

Lately my conversations with ultra-liberals have began to take a repetative tone. I’m hearing complete paragraphs of conversations that are verbatim. I’ve begun to wonder if it’s some kind of Ipod track that they have hooked up to their mouths. It’s as if their brains have shutdown to any original thought or the concequences of the party line.

Ok so some of the conversations have not been quite that bad. Some. But there have been massive misconceptions, faulty facts, and a complete disregard for consequences.

So let’s look at a couple of common quotes.

Oil companies are bad for making big profits.

Since when is making a profit a bad thing? Is that not part of the American dream? Isn’t that why every small business in America was created?

But go deeper. Beyond the jealousy of the profits they make, look at the impact they have. Oil companies do not make more money with higher oil costs – OPEC does. Gasolines price is ~60% based on the cost of oil. In the past year oil has more than doubled in price; yet gasoline has only risen ~40% in the same time. That means the oil companies are doing a good job of keeping the cost down.

The profits that oil companies make is not isolated to 2 people as ultra-liberals would like you to think. Millions of mutual funds and IRA’s hold large positions in these oil companies. When they make a profit (which is their job) their stock goes up and investors and retirees have more money. Capping their profit in fact will take money away from retirees and investors, thus hurting the average American.

Capping profits will not stop the need of an oil company from making a profit. To get that profit they will need to cut jobs and stop research into efficiancies, exploration, and alternatives. That means the unemployed in the nation will go up. That will hurt the economy. And if they cut jobs, hundreds of other companies that work directly with this industry will have to cut back too. And by the way, the price of oil will not be forced down a penny while this happens.

We need to leave Iraq now.

As I have said many times that’s not only impossible, it’s stupid. You cannot end a fight just by walking away, not after people have died. Walk away and the orphans (possibly created by the people we are fighting and having nothing to do with our troops) will turn to the only people with power in the area. A great many of those people want to kill every American because we exist. They are the same people that created 9/11 and several other terrorist acts that have failed in the over 2300 days since 9/11. Those orphans will be fed hate against America, and I will guarantee will be committing terrorist acts against us in 5 years from an immediate pullout.

Add to that the fact that if Al Quida and Iran get to boast about making the ‘cowardly Americans run away’ they will gain respect and recruits to their causes.

We will have troops in Iraq for 100 years.

Pay attention to what you are hearing and being told. Troops in Iraq is not fighting a war in Iraq. We have had troops in Germany for 50 years, Japan for 50 years, Korea for 40 years, and Vietnam for 30 years (ronding off the years). Last I checked we are not at war with any of these countries. Nor are we removing those troops and bases in any decade in the near future.

President Bush has ruined America.

How? As far as I have lived and am aware there is nothing I do today that I have not been able to do in the past. There is no restriction to travel, doing business, paying bills, dating, or any other aspect of life that did not exist 30 years ago. So how has America been ruined?

We still elect officials and create laws. We still drive cars and build homes. We still criticize the government and elected officials when they do or porpose something stupid. We are till the most free nation in the world, with tens of thousands entering the nation every year for that reason (illegally or not).

What I think is really meant by that is someone saying that does not like President Bush. I agree that President Bush may be the least articulate, least intelligent Presidents ever. I agree that he has failed the nation in several aspects. But he is not the horrendous life-threatening force that some want to see him as.

So many want to live in the past. They can’t get past the decision, made by Senators and Cogress – of both political parties – to go to war in Iraq. But that was the past, as is who to blame. The 2008 election is about the future and answers to issues happening now, not in 2002.

I want change. Real change.

This is a really stupid statement. Unless the definition has been altered since I was in 3rd grade, the 2008 elecetion guarantees change. No matter who wins, change is a fact. The comment makes about as much sense as saying that a person is “keeping it real”.

The statement should be ‘I want to change X’ or ‘I want a positive change in Y’. Better yet is the statement ‘I will change Z like this and it will be positive’. But if a politician were to say that then you might actually form an opinion on what they think and intend to do. Some would agree others not. You could lose an election (or gain a landslide) for such comments. Having a plan and a clearly stated objective is a boon and a bane.

But just ambigously wanting to change things, since that is the only predictable outcome of the 2008 presidential election, is safe and allows voters to inject their emotions. That definitely will win an election. To bad that it makes no impact or potential steps torwards improving anything. It can’t since it doesn’t even attempt to define what it will change or how.

In the 2006 mid-term elections Democrats were elected under the rally call of change. What change happened is that millions of taxpayer dollars were used to hold a multitude of Congerssional meetings on issues that never involved a single law being broken, the health of professional athletes, pointing the finger of blame at one political party or another. Please tell me how any of that prevented the mortgage crisis, put food on a table, or money in anyones pocket? But you can’t call them liars, because it was a change.

Is Senator John McCain President Bush? No. So a 3rd term of Bush is a stupid and feeble statement based on capturing an emotional response and not the benefit of the nation. Is global warming real? Probably not, but there is nothing wrong with having a cleaner world. Can you fix an economy (ie giving people more money in their pockets) by increasing the taxes they pay? It’s never worked before.

So when you think of the Presidential election think of this – How do you want to change the issues you think are important to America? How will those changes happen without hurting other Americans? Who has a plan to attain those changes? What plan is based in the reality (and not emotion) of the world today?

Labels: 2008 election, Crude oil prices, Democratic Party, Iran, Iraq War, OPEC, President Bush, Senator John McCain

Over the past 9 days the potential for a Democratic nominee to be identified in the U.S. Presidential race became clearer, crude oil has topped $100 a barrel, China has begun to recover from winter ice storms and started the Lunar Year of the Rat. Each of these items has helped to place upward pressure on the spot price of the precious yellow metal commodity gold. Thus today we are at a point where record profits are being reported by some gold mining stocks, and gold spot prices have breach historic levels.

And I’m not surprised.

I have mentioned,

“As these facts are absorbed by the markets, increased volatility and further upward pressure on gold should continue. It’s likely that the Philadelphia Gold and Silver Index and Amex Gold Bugs Index will reflect this pressure. Several Canadian gold miners are also likely to have a short-term boost as they will have increased sales due to lack of competition.

Perhaps most important will be the timing of all these events. If they are moderately spread out and occur individually I expect that they will not be able to retard the move in gold. Combined or occurring close together the effect will be magnified.”

When I made this statement gold spot prices were above $920, now on February 21st they have reached $948. That’s roughly a 3% increase in 9 days, and a continuation of the trend established at the beginning of this year. And it’s not limited to just gold commodity prices.

Barrick Gold Corp reported a 28 percent gain in fourth-quarter profit, or 61 cents a share, beating the estimate of 14 analysts. Barrick was able to attain this while production in 2007 fell 6.7 percent to 8.06 million ounces.

Given that fact, what would an investor or analyst think when you consider that supply is in the throes of shrinking due to power outages and other factors in South Africa. One example is DRDGold, which dropped production 13% in the 4th quarter, and yet is up 4.4% today.

But the growth is not limited to just these companies.

The TSX material stocks gold sub-sector is up 1.4 percent. That includes the aforementioned Barrick and Goldcorp. Other companies around the world on the rise include Exxaro, AngloGold Ashanti, and many others.

The facts are that China and India need gold. Even in a global slowdown their demand has increased pressure on supply. Recession and inflation fears and a lagging stock market in the United States have not diminished though they are not leading world headlines this moment. Oil prices are foreseeable going to continue higher and place more pressure on world economies, especially if OPEC cuts production rates as expected. And the prospect of a Democratic President in America is generally seen as a negative for the stock market, further spurring a move to gold to hedge investments. I have said,

“All stock markets, all financial markets, move on emotion first. That’s given. And few things are more emotional that 1.25 basis point moves by the Fed in a week. But fundamental facts of the markets always come to fore and correct the emotion. To me, $1000 gold, and higher gold stocks across the world, is as fundamentally sound today as when I discussed it earlier this month and in December of 2007.”

I’m no analyst, nor am I making an advisement. But I do believe that the factors are in place, and the results are like dominoes falling. Unless investor sentiment changes, which actions by Warren Buffett and the IMF have not been able to counter to date, I see nothing to stop this trend.

Now I will go one step better. If supply remains constrained, as we can see is likely, and the U.S. economy has the mild recession now being stated by the Federal Reserve. If oil production is cut, in combination with the recent U.S. refinery accident that has placed pressure on capacity, and Senator Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee for the President of the United States. If all those actions occur, which seem 80% probable to me at this time, then I believe that gold spot prices in excess of $1125 are possible by the end of this year. Commensurate with this move should be gains among the gold mining stocks across the world.

Labels: AngloGold Ashanti, Barrick Gold Corp, China, DRDGold, Federal Reserve, gold spot prices, Goldcorp, OPEC, Senator Barack Obama, stock market, U.S. economy, Warren Buffett

Well it would seem that I am wrong and right. Both of which seem to be occurring sooner than I would have ever imagined. And the implications of this is going to have repercussions for quite some time.

With crude oil closing above $100 on Tuesday I am proven right in my expectation of an increase in the price. But I am incorrect for the reasoning and timing. It was my expectation that OPEC would cut production and this would help to fuel further price increases on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The OPEC meeting is on March 5th, and there are still expectations that production will be curtailed. So this may fuel even higher prices.

The cause of this sudden rise was not my presumption of actions in Venezuela and Iran either. It in fact is directly connected to the refinery accident in Texas on Monday. The refinery handled 67,000 barrels of oil a day and as such will have an impact rather quickly in the U.S. This explosion was a tragic accident that could not be expected nor factored.

But in looking at the results from this and the comments over the weekend of Hugo Chavez there are some things we can understand. Chavez, by the way, has backed off his threat to cease sales to the U.S. Obviously the threat was not a major problem for the U.S. as others nations were willing to cover any gap and the total volume from Venezuela is not enough to impact the nation. Cutting sales would impact Venezuela though. In addition I would imagine that Iran was not willing to back their friends in Venezuela on this matter.

According to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service the price for gasoline hit a national average price of $3.032 a gallon. Expectations by the Energy Department target the cost per gallon to exceed the $3.23 that was reached last May in this year. This expectation seems to be a forward indicator of higher crude oil prices, and futures contracts seem to support that theory.

I previously mentioned

“Beyond this scenario the more likely thing to expect is that OPEC will be cutting production levels during the March 5th meeting. Without a dramatic downturn in the U.S. and world economies, in that order of importance, a return to $100 a barrel will likely happen again for a brief period before the summer and then drop back into the mid -90’s. But I believe a surge will occur along with a resurgence of the American economy in the 3rd and 4th quarters. I will say that by the end of 2008 oil breaking $110 is likely.”

Without accounting for the unforeseeable, there has been nothing that has changed except the accelerated increase in crude oil prices and futures contracts. Given that, I continue to stand by my outlook, with one change. I expect that the short-term prices will likely run to about $110 before backing off. My new target, adjusting for this accelerated move in prices, is that by the end of 2008 crude oil will exceed $125 - $130.

Hopefully there will be no more tragedies for the entire year that could accelerate this move higher.

Labels: Crude oil prices, Energy Department, hugo chavez, New York Mercantile Exchange, Oil Price Information Service, OPEC, Venezuela

Crude oil prices have been on a seesaw of volatility, most notably since hitting $100 a barrel in January of this year. Since that time there have been recession fears in America, massive rate cuts by the Federal Reserve, horrendous losses by most financials due to the mortgage sub-prime loans, and drops in the stock markets to near bear levels. That says nothing of the current growing battle between Venezuela and Exxon.

Overall the pressure has been on the downside of pricing, as many of the indicators express a likelihood of reduced demand as industries slow down. Yet not all the pressure is one sided. And the economic outlook is seen as not as bleak as once thought.

"The market has been struggling with whether we are recession-bound or not," John Kilduff, senior vice president for energy at brokerage MF Global in New York said. "That's an indicator [Japan’s economy] that whether or not we are, there's some life out there in the rest of the world and energy demand could hold up."

It’s this factor that has added to the price of crude oil recently, topping $95 a barrel on February 14th. But I think there is an aspect that has yet to be factored into the market. That factor has nothing to do with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s thoughts the U.S. economy will rebound at the end of the year. It has little to do with the lack of effort of states like Michigan to create a renewable portfolio standard. It has everything to do with Venezuela.

It’s a given that the 90,000 barrels of low quality crude exported by Venezuela to the U.S. is a fraction of what the nation used. The threatened cut of sales to the United States is more likely to have a negative effect on Venezuela than effect America or impact crude prices significantly. But it’s the ally of Venezuela, or more accurately the ally of Hugo Chavez that matters. That ally would be Iran.

Iran is a major oil exporter, and no friend of America. In recent months there have been several conversations of mutual support between Iran and Venezuela, and condemnation of the U.S. It is this mutual anti-American sentiment that could drive up prices beyond an OPEC reduction in supply might create.

If the current court actions continue to favor Exxon over Petroleos de Venezuela, and negotiations fail with ConocoPhillips causing them to follow in Exxon’s direction it could start a landslide against that nation. In the face of that kind of pressure, and the refusal to sell oil to America, Iran may join with Venezuela in a stance against America. This combination of political action and national leadership prejudices is an unknown that I have yet to see any analyst or blogger mention. It’s probable that the reason for that is the unlikely nature of it coming to pass. But unlikely is not improbable.

Beyond this scenario the more likely thing to expect is that OPEC will be cutting production levels during the March 5th meeting. Without a dramatic downturn in the U.S. and world economies, in that order of importance, a return to $100 a barrel will likely happen again for a brief period before the summer and then drop back into the mid -90’s. But I believe a surge will occur along with a resurgence of the American economy in the 3rd and 4th quarters. I will say that by the end of 2008 oil breaking $110 is likely.

Now let’s see if this comes to pass.

Labels: Ben Bernanke, ConocoPhillips, Crude oil prices, Exxon, Federal Reserve, hugo chavez, Iran, John Kilduff, MF Global, OPEC, Petroleos de Venezuela, Venezuela

The ripple effect from the mortgage crisis here in America continues to reverberate around the world. As in China and Asia

“With the chance that U.S. markets will be receiving another rate cut by the Federal Reseve, Hong Kong rallied and took much of the Asia markets with it. Even the Chinese banks, which are expected to raise the reserve ratio to a high of 17%, gained with expectation”

the actions by President Bush and the expectations on the Fed have affected gold prices and stocks.

“This re-iterates that in America they will do anything to stop sub-prime. It has put confidence back into the US market, and that is why guys are going out of gold.”

Even with this resurgence in confidence, and the prospect of lower rates in American and subsequently the rest of the world markets, there is still the possibility that a recession is in America’s future.

Several factors remain in the air that will influence the outcome of the economy and the price of gold and gold stocks. Sales for the holiday season, and the amount of discount being provided by retailers, are being watched closely for clues on year end and first quarter corporate numbers. Energy prices, which were recently as high as $100 dollars for a barrel of oil, has helped to put pressure on the economy as well.

“When will oil prices break thru the $100 a barrel mark? That is a question that Europe and America are considering now, even as OPEC has decided to hold production levels steady, and the question of an American recession loom on the horizon.”

Not to mention the predictions of Goldman Sachs

“Goldman Sachs said today that investors should sell gold in 2008 to take advantage of the steadying dollar.”

Yet with all of this gold rose above $800 on Tuesday. To say that speculation is in the air is the least of things. With so many factors inter-related, geo-political unknowns and the impending primary voting on the horizon there is no surprise that February gold futures contracts were recently quoted at $855.

Will the futures contracts be accurate? Will America fall into a recession? Will a Democrat be elected President? No one is quite sure, but the answers will become apparent very soon.

Labels: 2008 election, china stocks blog, Energy prices, February gold futures contracts, Federal Reseve, Goldman Sachs, mortgage crisis, OPEC, President Bush