Oil and the Bully Pulpit

Commentary
June 28, 2011 Posted by:

The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of SVB Financial Group, or Silicon Valley Bank, or any of its affiliates.

Last week the administration decided to release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). For the first time, the move was coordinated with other reserve releases around the world bringing the total to about 60 million barrels. With a daily consumption of 89 million barrels, world governments put an additional 16 hours of supply on the market. The price impact was immediate and surprisingly large: about a 5 percent decline. It seems the move took a little wind out of the sails of the speculative long positions. The decision was also cleverly timed to drop prices at the pump just as Americans load up their gas-guzzling SUVs and head out for their summer driving holidays.

The move was publicized as an offset to the disruption of supply from Libya due to the civil war there. Assorted administrations have used the reserves, but not often have they sought to offset disruption in oil producing countries, which tend to be politically chaotic and unpredictable. So that explanation is a bit thin. We do hope that the administration is thinking about the impact it had and how the oil market operates considering the role of producers, refiners and those "evil" speculators. This last group adds a lot of value in terms of price discovery and liquidity. Speculators must constantly assess correctly a myriad of economic and political factors which might affect supply and demand.

If economic growth declines, so will demand, putting downward pressure on prices. If supply is constrained — be it for weather (Katrina), or economics (the oil crash of the 1980s and 1990s), or politics (the embargoes of the 1970s) — prices will rise. We would hope that one conclusion drawn by the administration's economists is that the marginal speculative price, which ultimately drives the price at the pump, can be easily influenced by simply changing the expectations of the future. You don't actually need to add to supply to affect prices as in the case of the SPR release, but simply create the expectation that supply is going up.

 

With that notion in mind, we offer up the chart nearby. On July 14, 2008, President Bush announced that he was lifting the ban on offshore drilling, sending a message to the market that the U.S. government was in favor of lower oil prices.

Bush's opponents reacted with derision. In particular Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house at the time, said, "Once again, the oilman in the White House is echoing the demands of Big Oil. The Bush plan is a hoax. It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence." Prices began dropping immediately and eventually bottomed out 70 percent below the level at the time of the Bush speech. We're not sure how a 70 percent decline in prices helps out "Big Oil," but we are willing to listen to any and all arguments from the former speaker or her staff.

What is perhaps more interesting is the apparent market impact of the Obama administration's decision in February of 2009 to once again ban offshore drilling, essentially putting the world on notice that the largest consumer of petroleum products was comfortable with higher prices. Prices have been on a saw-tooth rise ever since. Now, as we stated before, there are hundreds of factors involved in oil price movements. So despite our little chart, it is impossible to infer that 100 percent of the price move is related to the U.S. government's view on domestic oil production. But if we turn that question on its head and ask, all other things being equal, what would happen to prices if one of the world's largest sources of supply decided to move aggressively to constrain future production? Economics, common sense and experience tell us prices must rise.

We know there is a great tendency in Washington to think that there is some oil cabal that manipulates prices and decides from on high what they will be. This view is understandable because that is how many in our nation's capital see the world and their place in it: a few really smart people deciding all the important things for the rest of us. Our hope is that one day our leaders in Washington accept that some laws of economics are not up for amendment or repeal. They just need to live with them. The reality is that for every price move there are winners and losers in the oil market. As they say, it takes two to tango or contango, as the case may be.

Posted by Chris D., June 29, 2011 at 12:37 PM
"That's some simplistic historical revisionism. Funny how an economic collapse set in right about the time of Bush's announcement. I wonder if that depressed prices at all. Then some massive ibank bailouts began around the time Obama stopped the offshore drilling that had never begun in the first place. I wonder if that helped push them up.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/07/16/oil-slick-why-are-crude-prices-falling/"
Posted by Michael Dornbrook, June 30, 2011 at 6:11 PM
"I've been reading your ISO's every week for many years, but this one stretches credulity. You seem to ignore the fact that the biggest world-wide financial meltdown and subsequent deep recession started just after the peak oil price, and that markets worldwide had started to recover the following spring (coinciding with the bottom of your chart price).

Using your simplistic narrative and a different chart (say, the DOW Index), we could infer that George Bush's move to open offshore drilling led to a huge stockmarket crash, and Obama's change in policy caused a rebound. It would be equally misleading.

You can do (and have done) better."
Posted by SVB Financial Group, June 30, 2011 at 6:37 PM
"Mike,

Thanks for your note. You are, of course, making the key point.

The likely main driver of most of the decline was the drop in expected future demand from the emerging economic dislocation. Economists with more computing power and staff will need to determine whether simply talking about U.S. supply to the global markets has any impact on prices and how big that impact might be. OPEC statements about what they will or won’t do, will sometimes affect prices. But those statements often have no effect as they lack credibility with various nations cheating on the agreement. Every President since Richard Nixon has pounded the podium for “energy independence” yet those assertions never have any impact on prices because the oil market knows we are not serious about it. Coupling that assertion with real programs to increase supply or exploit credible alternatives (I’m not thinking about wind here), would send a stronger message to the market.

As you point out, anytime we try to look at economic or political events in isolation it can lead to troubling conclusions. I will try to do better in the future.

I did think it was a provocative chart, however.
- Jim Anderson"

Comment

Not a Member?
Register now and join discussions in the SVB Professional network. Best of all, it's FREE.

Register Login to Comment

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy