Commodity Blog

Posts Tagged ‘fuel’

Corn futures gained as the rising prices for a gasoline caused speculation about an increasing demand for grain-based fuels. The rebound in the U.S. economy has led to expectation that the demand for a fuel will increase. May delivery for corn futures gained $0.0075 (0.2 percent) to $3.4525 per bushel by 10:16 on the Chicago Board of Trade.

Cocoa futures fell in New York on the speculation that candy-makers may cut their purchases until prices will drop. The prices previously have rose on slower exports from Ivory Coast, then later dropped on the outlook for the good harvest. May delivery for cocoa retreated $37 (1.2 percent) to $2,953 per metric ton on ICE.

Cotton futures reached the highest price in more than a week after the weaker dollar spurred the demand for some commodities. The falling greenback and tight supply of the fiber are leading to a fairly strong demand. May delivery for cotton climbed $0.011 (1.3 percent) to $0.826 per pound as of 11:36 on ICE.

Oil gained after forecast about winter storms in the U.S. this week. The National Weather Service is predicting that temperatures will be below average for the next 6–10 days. According to weather forecast Washington temperatures will be 10 degrees Fahrenheit (12 degrees Celsius) below normal as of February 14th, while New York will be 8 degrees below average by February 13th.

U.S. inventories of distillate fuel, including heating oil and diesel, decreased last week after temperatures fell. OPEC governor stated today that global oil supplies are enough to satisfy demand for the first half of 2010.

March delivery for crude oil advanced $0.73 cents (1 percent) to $71.92 per barrel by 11:58 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. March delivery for heating oil rose $0.016 (0.9 percent) to $1.8908 per gallon. March settlement for Brent crude gained $0.61 (0.9 percent) to $70.20 per barrel on ICE. Hedge-funds and other large speculators reduced bets on increasing oil prices for a third week.

Global oil demand will contract for the first time since the early 1980s as world economic growth slows to a near standstill, the US government says.
The forecast for 2008 and 2009 is bad news for energy companies and oil producing nations that depend on robust prices, but could benefit cash-strapped consumers by sending gasoline and heating costs lower, according to a US Energy Information Administration report.
World oil demand is projected to fall by 50,000 barrels per day in 2008 and 450,000 barrels per day next year, the EIA said, led by a 1.2 million bpd contraction in top consumer the United States this year a 200,000 bpd drop in 2009.
The report marked the first major forecast for shrinking energy demand tied to the current global financial crisis.
The lower forecast came as the EIA revised down its projection for 2009 global economic growth to 0.5 per cent next year, from the 1.8 per cent projection it made in its previous report issued in November.
“The current global economic slowdown is now projected to be more severe and longer … leading to further reductions of global energy demand and additional declines in crude oil and other energy prices,” the EIA said.
The last time world petroleum demand fell was in 1983, part of four years of straight declines in oil consumption that began in 1980, the agency said.
The weak economy and lower petroleum demand has already caused US crude oil prices to sink from a record $US147 a barrel in July to $US43 on Tuesday — a slump that has rattled energy producing nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela, and triggered massive cutbacks in investment in oil projects like those in Canada’s oil sands.
“The increasing likelihood of a prolonged global economic downturn continues to dominate market perceptions, putting downward pressure on oil prices,” the EIA said.
Demand still is expected to grow next year in emerging economies such as China, which helped drive the six-year rally in oil prices to record highs. Still, the latest EIA report revised demand from this group down by 40,000 bpd.
Price drop
The EIA slashed its 2009 forecast for crude oil prices to $US51 a barrel from $US63.50 a barrel in its previous forecast.
“I don’t think they are done revising. I think next month will be lower. I’m having a hard time seeing GDP growth anywhere — we may see pockets of growth — but not worldwide or regionally,” said Peter Beutel, president of Cameron Hanover, based in New Canaan, Connecticut.
Meanwhile, the World Bank said on Tuesday that the world financial crisis will sharply slow world economic growth next year, ending the five-year global price boom for crude oil and other commodities.
The weaker energy prices could mark a bright spot for consumers who have been hard hit by the financial turmoil.
The EIA said it cut its winter heating oil forecast to $US2.53 a gallon from $US2.75 a gallon, and its 2009 gasoline price forecast to $US2.03 a gallon from $US2.37.
Average US gasoline price are currently running about $US1.70 a gallon, down from a record $US4.11 this summer.
“We’ve lowered the bar for gasoline demand so much that it’s going to take years for it to recover to the type of demand numbers that we had in the past,” Phil Flynn, analyst at Alaron Trading in Chicago, said.

With oil prices tumbling below $70 US per barrel on Thursday — to their lowest levels since August 2007 — one might think the sky is falling. It’s equally tempting to start pointing fingers at all the elected officials who were crying for inquiries last July regarding the high price of oil; if they were so convinced the price had been driven upwards to the record close of $145.29 price by speculators, it’s surprising they are not suggesting the short-sellers have driven it down.
But no. The high price is about politics. The low price of crude means consumers are no longer phoning constituency offices to complain about be gouged at the gas pump. It’s safe to assume, therefore, taxpayers dollars will not be wasted looking into why oil prices have fallen so far, so fast.
All kidding aside, however, it would be foolhardy to suggest that there hasn’t been a collective gasp in Canada’s oilpatch as crude prices have plummeted; investors had gotten used to seeing a triple-digit price for crude, even though the market was not valuing energy stocks at that level, nor were companies planning capital expenditures with oil beyond the century mark.
While no one really believed an oil price beyond $100 was sustainable, companies and investors had gotten used to it. It’s now back to reality — where prices will be a more accurate reflection of supply and demand, at least for now.
Here are a few things to chew on.
First, the oilsands projects that are up and running are not at risk. As FirstEnergy’s William Lacey was quick to point out Thursday, oilsands operations did not shut down when oil hit $10 a barrel in 1998 and early 1999.
“They will keep running, no matter what. .. unless there is a massive shift somewhere. .. these are not easy projects to shut down or start up. But it’s the new projects like Fort Hills that we estimate need a $115 oil price to achieve a 10 per cent after-tax return, that are in the territory of now being uneconomic,” he said.
As to what the break-even oil price is for these operations, Lacey says the way to look at it is the cash cost per barrel to operate. The cash cost calculation typically includes operating costs, including expenses such as general and administrative costs, royalties and interest expense.
He says Suncor’s all-in cash cost is $46 a barrel, with $33 being associated with operating costs. Canadian Oil Sands Trust pays out $43 per barrel, of which $27 is related to operating expenses.
Meanwhile, Imperial Oil’s Cold Lake operations are the cheapest to run — $30 per barrel, with $17 being the operating component.
In the context of Suncor and its $20-billion Voyageur expansion that was announced in January, Lacey says the company has the luxury of slowing down the development of the four-phase, in-situ development.
“At $60 a barrel, Suncor doesn’t have enough credit to get through 2009 in terms of funding Voyageur from debt and cash flow, but at $80 a barrel it can easily meet the costs through 2009,” he says.
The good news, then, is that in each of these cases, a $60 oil price doesn’t shut anything down. Besides, the lower commodity price environment that is driving down the value of the Canadian dollar means cash flows go up for any company producing a commodity priced in U.S. dollars. The price for WTI might have closed at $69.85 US per barrel on Thursday, but Edmonton Light ended the day at $85.89 Canadian.
So that’s one argument against the ”sky is falling” sentiment. And that’s the short-term view.
The long-term view gets more interesting.
That’s because a low oil price — and therefore low gasoline price — is going to do nothing in the context of encouraging conservation or prompting reinvestment.
If the oil price — and therefore prices at the gasoline pump — remain low for the next 12 months, there is no reason to believe that the dramatic drop in gasoline consumption that has been recorded in the U.S. will continue; low gas prices means the mothballed Hummer will soon be back on the freeway. And this does nothing to solve the long-term issue of the U.S. addiction to oil.
The second point is that low prices, tight credit markets and no possibility of raising money through the sale of shares means companies will not be stretching themselves on the reinvestment front. When the global economy resumes its growth, the supply issues will not have been solved; they will have been made worse. Don’t forget that the Middle East accounted for a big share of the growth in oil consumption in 2007, while China was responsible for about a third. Then there’s the subsidy factor — with Venezuela selling gasoline at 16 cents a litre; these practices or consumption patterns are not about to change.
The only thing that might come out of all this is a round of acquisitions by companies — especially the super majors — that have big cash positions on their balance sheets and have struggled to add reserves. ExxonMobil has been one company whose name keeps surfacing; it could easily scoop up the 30 per cent of Imperial Oil it doesn’t already own for about $8 billion and still have money left over. There were also reports Thursday that BP — which has suffered in Russia with its BP-TNK joint venture — might just be looking at natural gas producer Chesapeake Energy because it too has been challenged in terms of reserve additions. Royal Dutch Shell is another company whose name keeps coming up, for similar reasons.
As they like to say in these parts, all these companies with sizeable cash positions are sporting big hunting licences.
In the short-term, however, hard as it may be, it’s important to remember that the oilpatch has been through much worse over the years. It is better capitalized than it has ever been and even at $60 oil will be generating more than enough cash flow to fund operations — even reinvestment — because costs are coming down.
The reality is that the high prices over the past year had stymied the asset sale world because of the huge gaps in terms of expectations between buyers and sellers; lower prices and the tight credit markets means the old-fashioned values of succeeding on the basis of competitive advantages, looking for growth opportunities at reasonable prices and using plain vanilla financial instruments to meet financing needs are back.
The world has changed. But in the context of long-term oil prices, the question of supply has not been solved and low oil prices only serve to push up demand. All this does is set the world up for higher prices in the years to come.