Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: Roubini Predicts Oil Will Hit $150 Per Barrel, Traders Betting On $200
Source:
Forbes
URL Source: http://blogs.forbes.com/chrisbarth/ ... barrel-traders-betting-on-200/
Published: Mar 7, 2011
Author: Chris Barth
Post Date: 2011-03-08 09:08:54 by Happy Quanzaa
Keywords: Obamanomics in Action
Views: 36360
Comments: 41
“Oil price shocks have led to US recessions in 1974-75, 1980, 1990, 2001 and 2008-2009. 3 of these were caused by Mid East political shocks,” notoriously bearish economist Nouriel Roubini wrote on his Twitter account at the end of February. Last Wednesday, he made another bold prediction: “If troubles spread to other countries such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, this could push oil prices up to $140 to $150 per barrel, which could trigger a double-dip recession in the periphery of Europe and the U.K.” While the predicted oil price may seem shock-worthy, the correlation of oil prices and recession should not. As James Hamilton, an Economics Professor at the University of California, San Diego, wrote last year, rising oil prices are a potential retardant to economic recovery, both in the automotive sector as well as across consumer spending in general. “I could certainly imagine that an abrupt move up in gasoline prices from here could hurt the struggling recovery of the domestic auto sector and dampen overall consumer spending,” Hamilton wrote in a fascinating post on EconBrowser.com. “I do not think it would be enough to give us a second economic downturn, but it could easily be a factor reducing the growth rate.” Hamilton wrote that statement when oil prices had just pushed past $90/barrel. Now, price per barrel is at its highest level in over two years, and Roubini, known for his gloom and doom predictions, says the tough ride is just beginning. According to Forbes’ Robert Lenzner, Roubini’s predicted price of $150/barrel could take 2% out of the U.S. GDP. It seems that plenty of traders agree with Roubini’s bearish outlook. A chart published today by Bloomberg shows a sharp increase in traders buying call options on $200/barrel oil futures, which expire on May 17th. When Roubini sat down with Steve Forbes in January, he made predictions about the future of the U.S. economy. Thus far, he has been proven wrong about his take on unemployment, which he stated would remain above 9%. He also, however, predicted a U.S. GDP growth of 2.7% this year, below the consensus of 3.2%. If oil prices continue to rise and the U.S. economy responds negatively, Dr. Doom could find himself in the rare position of having been overly bullish.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 36.
#1. To: Happy Quanzaa (#0)
Nope. Cause $4+ gasoline, you might as well make it ten, for all the Bottom 98% can afford it. $3.50 plus is causing major problems now.
Isn't capitalism wonderful (for the top .005%)?
It would be wonderful if Big Government hadn't killed free market capitalism with it's statist draconian regulations, mandates, and the world's highest corporate tax rate and let Evil Capitalist Pig Big Oil drill here and now. As for your top .005%, look for them at Obama's Crony Capitalist Country Club, their names are Government Electric, Government Motors, Warren Buffet, Jeffrey Immelt, the 1000 ObamaCare waivered corporations, and a few hundred more of Dear Leader's closest fiends.
Why would oil companies want lower prices? Have you missed their efforts to reduce refining capacity over the last 20 years or so?
Speculators set the price using by predicting supply and demand, of which they have no control. And no, I haven't missed their efforts to reduce refining capacity, it was included in my comment regarding regulations, you either missed that or it was to abstract for your comprehension level. Anyhow, drills turning and new refineries under construction would bring the speculator price down even before the first drop was produced. The speculators are betting, big loss or big gain. If Roubini is right and it goes to $150, and some buy at $200, then some will get burned when this surge tops out. But the instability of the supply is what makes the potential of huge gains possible and as long as the supply comes from the Middle East then it's always as gamble as to when the next interruption in supply will happen.
you continue to ignore the fact that energy firms have cut refining capacity to drive up prices.
That's stupid, we haven't built a new refinery in 30 years because Big Government makes it cost prohibitive with it's draconian regulations and restrictions. Dear Leader and the Obamacrats want even more with their Cap & Tax plan.
Great, you can repeat Fox News talking points. Congratulations. The reality is that energy companies cut refining capacity to drive up prices. And it's happening globally, Conoco just announced plans to cut refining capacity in 2012 from 2.7 mbpd to between 2 and 2.2. Shell cut 15% of its global refining capacity last year. Meanwhile U.S. refining capacity rose from 2003 to 2010 before falling as refiners cut capacity due to falling demand. Are you aware that between 1975 and 2000 only one application was filed with the EPA for approval to build a new refinery, and it was approved?
Moonbats ignoring the obvious: ------ But getting an oil refinery built is next to impossible, hence the 30-year construction drought. There will always be environmental activists who fight any new proposed refinery, regardless of where it might be located and how environmentally safe it is. And our environmental rules give them the upper hand. The environmental impact-report process mobilizes the "not in my back yard" elements to oppose any proposed refinery, but it does not mobilize people or groups who are looking at national energy needs. You wind up with a very lopsided discussion where potential problems are thoroughly and perhaps overly represented, but the only group pointing out the benefits of the refinery is the "evil" oil company asking to build it — even though every automobile driver would benefit. Consider the example of Arizona Clean Fuels, which has been trying to build a small refinery outside Yuma for almost 10 years. It took five years just to get air-quality permits. Now they hope to be operational in 2010, 15 years after they started the project. President Bush recently signed a new energy bill that tries to make it easier to build new oil refineries, especially in areas with high unemployment — where the new jobs would likely be welcome. And yet, special-interest groups decried the provision as an environmental and public health injustice, arguing that these communities won't want refineries but won't have the political power to fight them off. The opposition to building new refineries ignores the dramatic technological improvements that have been made since an oil refinery was last constructed here in 1976. New, clean refineries emit far less pollution than older refineries, with new scrubbers and design changes that dramatically reduce sulfur and other emissions. And at the same time our ability to model and map emission characteristics and distribution lets us choose the best locations for new facilities — where they will have the least possible impact on people and the environment. Even as gas prices have soared beyond $2.50 per gallon in many parts of the country, Americans have not stopped driving. We might tighten our budgets elsewhere to make up for the added expenses, but we show no signs of giving up our cars. At some point, we need to admit our dependence on gasoline and add the capacity and refineries that will help lower gas prices. Our environmental review process needs to embrace local concerns and impacts, but it can't facilitate the "not in my back yard" resistance that completely derails plans for any new refineries. http://reason.org/news/show/122716.html
you post partisan opinion pieces, I post facts: Reality: Domestic refining capacity:
If demand is falling, it only makes sense to temporarily curtail production, goofball. Meanwhile the reason new refineries aren't being built is not because energy companies don't want to.
So the energy companies are a bunch of liars then?
#39. To: go65 (#36)
No, you have just cherry-picked your "facts" to support your point. They can just as easily be demolished. For example: ......... By Mark Clayton, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / September 21, 2005 It took one of the nation's worst natural disasters to do it. But momentum is growing to build new refineries in the United States after a 29-year hiatus. By shutting down 20 percent of the country's oil- refining capacity in a single day - and boosting prices nationwide by more than 45 cents a gallon on average in a week - hurricane Katrina has exposed just how stretched the nation's refineries are. Now industry and Congress are looking at how to boost capacity. "The call to establish more refineries is likely to be sounded again," writes Jason Schenker, an economist with Wachovia Securities in a recent analysis of Katrina's impact. "We need to specifically address our nation's lack of refining capacity and finally do something about it," said Rep. John Sullivan (R) of Oklahoma in a statement last week. "Hurricane Katrina has further underscored the fact that our refining capacity is inadequate." But building more refineries will involve trade-offs, critics warn. "There's an unprecedented push to build new refineries," says Denny Larson of the Refinery Reform Campaign, an environmental group that has documented refinery emissions violations in San Francisco. "We expect there well could be a wholesale change in clean-air laws that regulate refineries thanks to Katrina." The current refinery squeeze has been building for years. For the past two decades, deregulation and low profits have combined to push the industry into consolidation. Partly because of environmental regulations, it was cheaper to expand existing refineries than to build new ones. In 1981, the US had 324 refineries with a total capacity of 18.6 million barrels per day, the Department of Energy reports. Today, there are just 132 oil refineries with a capacity of 16.8 million b.p.d., according to Oil and Gas Journal, a trade publication. This bottleneck is expected to keep pressure on gas prices - and politicians. Both parties are weighing measures to loosen environmental and permitting constraints for refineries. Rep. John Shadegg (R) of Arizona is set to offer a bill to streamline federal regulations governing refineries, Congressional Daily reports. Echoing that call, Representative Sullivan announced he will introduce legislation to help pave the way for a big new refinery near Cushing, Okla. His proposal, which had been stripped from the energy bill passed by Congress this summer, would speed up permitting by lessening "arcane and outdated environmental standards," he said in his statement. But the furthest along is Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma, which aims to locate a high- tech oil refinery in the Arizona desert. The hurdles are high. The company is still lining up investors to pay the $2.5 billion price tag. It has to hire biologists to ensure the new plant will not hurt an endangered lizard. A local clean-air group is questioning the project. But if the plan is realized, it would be the first US refinery built since 1976. "Maybe Katrina has taught us not to concentrate all refineries in one area, let alone a hurricane-prone region," says Glenn McGinnis, the company's CEO. "We need to diversify." Congress got an earful from industry officials who argued for tax breaks to bolster capacity and complained that environmental regulations and "not in my backyard" citizen movements had blocked efforts to build new refineries. Refineries have long been seen as undesirable. From 1999 to 2004, Chalmette Refining LLC, a partnership between ExxonMobil and Venezuela's state oil company, violated clean-air laws 34 times due to "upset" emissions that occur when normal plant operations falter, according to a judge's finding in February. Still, many in Congress are pushing refinery construction. One possibility would be to revive proposals cut from the recent energy bill - such as President Bush's plan to convert old military bases into refineries, says John Lichtblau, chairman of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, a public- policy think tank. Earlier this month, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee discussed the touchy subject of handing most siting authority over to the federal government. Environmentalists remain wary. "With today's technology, a new refinery could be really clean - far cleaner than today's refineries - in theory," says Eric Schaeffer, director of the Environmental Integrity Project, a New York-based watchdog. He fears, however, that industry lobbyists would win looser regulations rather than applying all that good but costly technology. Back in Yuma, Mr. McGinnis says his plant's best-of-class pollution technology would make it a good neighbor and keep environmental costs down. "When this refinery is finally built, it will be the cleanest in North America," he says.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: mcgowanjm, Happy Quanzaa (#1)
#3. To: Godwinson (#2)
Isn't capitalism wonderful (for the top .005%)?
#6. To: Happy Quanzaa (#3)
It would be wonderful if Big Government hadn't killed free market capitalism with it's statist draconian regulations, mandates, and the world's highest corporate tax rate and let Evil Capitalist Pig Big Oil drill here and now.
#7. To: go65 (#6)
(Edited)
Why would oil companies want lower prices? Have you missed their efforts to reduce refining capacity over the last 20 years or so?
#24. To: Happy Quanzaa (#7)
Speculators set the price using by predicting supply and demand, of which they have no control. And no, I haven't missed their efforts to reduce refining capacity, it was included in my comment regarding regulations, you either missed that or it was to abstract for your comprehension level.
#25. To: go65 (#24)
energy firms have cut refining capacity to drive up prices
#27. To: Happy Quanzaa (#25)
(Edited)
That's stupid, we haven't built a new refinery in 30 years because Big Government makes it cost prohibitive with it's draconian regulations and restrictions. Dear Leader and the Obamacrats want even more with their Cap & Tax plan.
#28. To: go65 (#27)
#29. To: no gnu taxes (#28)
(Edited)
Conoco just announced plans to cut refining capacity in 2012 from 2.7 mbpd to between 2 and 2.2. Shell cut 15% of its global refining capacity last year. Meanwhile U.S. refining capacity rose from 2003 to 2010 before falling as refiners cut capacity due to falling demand.
#30. To: go65 (#29)
Meanwhile U.S. refining capacity rose from 2003 to 2010 before falling as refiners cut capacity due to falling demand.
#36. To: no gnu taxes (#30)
Meanwhile the reason new refineries aren't being built is not because energy companies don't want to.
That surge is part of a broader shift toward fuel efficiency that Exxon thinks will cause fuel consumption by North American cars and light trucks to peak around 2020—and then start to fall. “For that reason, we wouldn’t build a grassroots refinery” in the U.S., Rex Tillerson, Exxon’s chairman and chief executive, said in a recent interview.
Replies to Comment # 36. So the energy companies are a bunch of liars then?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 36.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]