The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Panicking finance ministers. Squabbling OPEC. Slumping stock markets. Cancelled oil projects. Speculators rushing out of energy investments.
Here we sit, inundated with gloomy but indecipherable news on the economy and energy. Perched on the cliff of a slumping global economy, the price of oil slipping down from obscene $100+ levels, the media offers massively contradictory explanations.
Do we have too much oil or too little? Is cheaper oil good or bad for the economy? Will U.S. oil production leave us a major exporter or will North American drilling rigs shut down as oil prices fall? Is Saudi Arabia’s preference for expensive oil prevailing or is it Iran in the driver’s seat seeking exorbitantly costly crude?
The solution—and the only solution—is to break oil’s monopoly. Replacing it as a transportation fuel faster than the global economy grows, with efficient vehicles, electrification, biofuels and road to rail enables rapid growth accompanied by steadily lower oil (and fuel) costs.
We should remember we’ve been here, more scarily, before. The collapse of soaring oil prices signaled the beginning of the 2008 Great Recession. This milder repeat performance is not so confusing if we look at the basics—and remember that what counts about oil is not where it is produced, or exactly how much we need, but its price.
Ten things to remember about the price of oil
1. The price for all 93 mbd (million barrels of oil a day) the world consumes are set by the cost of producing the final, most expensive marginal barrels—currently from tar sands and deep ocean drilling. That price has fallen from $110 to $90 in the last year. It’s still sky-high--triple what it was a decade ago
2. Most global oil costs much, much less than $90 to pump. Half, mostly in Russia and OPEC, cost $40 or less. Another third, conventional oil around the world and shale oil in the U.S., costs $65 or less. Only the final 10 percent requires $75 and up.
3. This gap—high consumer prices for mostly low cost oil—transfers enormous wealth from the U.S., China and Europe to the governments of Russia and OPEC. These “petroleum rents” equal 3 percent of global GDP—$2.2 trillion. They drag down the world economy as much as shutting down Great Britain. (China spends most of its huge trade surplus with the US importing oil. That’s a big reason its growth has slowed.)
4. Oil is a little cheaper because
- U.S. shale oil at $65/bbl (barrel) is reducing the need for $110 tar sands and deep ocean crude. (3.6 mbd)
- U.S. fuel efficiency improvements (less than $40 bbl) replaced another 3.4 mbd of oil.
- Weak economies in Europe reduce demand for oil by a final 0.2 mbd.
5. Oil is still very expensive ($90) because
- Politics and violence keep about 3 mbd of low cost OPEC oil off the market.
- Emerging markets are still using more oil every year. (1.3 mbd)
- Most of the new oil found by Exxon, etc.—in Canada, the Caspian, the Arctic and off-shore—costs more than $90/barrel. High cost crude, even lots of it, doesn’t come to market as cheap gasoline.
6. In 2013 U.S. consumers spent more on gasoline and other petroleum products than ever before—even as U.S. oil production grew substantially. High price trumps lower volume.
7. A global slow down—or worse recession—will temporarily drive oil prices down. That stalls investment in high priced projects in tar sands, Arctic and ultra-deep oceans.
8. But when growth resumes—without equivalent investment in clean transport—crude oil will spike again. Industry will resume investing in expensive new exploration. But once again the growing oil tax on consumers will crush prosperity. Oil prices increase whenever the global economy grows faster than alternatives replace petroleum.
9. Worse, oil companies are not financing the search for new but unaffordable oil fields from their profits—they use those use to pump up their stock. (83 percent in the case of Exxon). Instead, they are borrowing from banks and other investors, putting the entire world economy at risk from an overleveraged oil and gas sector.
10. The core dilemma is that there is a surplus of $100 oil, but consumers cannot afford it. Prosperity requires $60-70 fuel. There is a lot of oil in that price range—but not quite enough to sustain global growth. The world economy is caught in a “volatility trap” between insufficient if affordable conventional oil and abundant but unaffordable extreme crude
The solution—and the only solution—is to break oil’s monopoly. Replacing it as a transportation fuel faster than the global economy grows, with efficient vehicles, electrification, biofuels and road to rail enables rapid growth accompanied by steadily lower oil (and fuel) costs. Our need for expensive crude will fade away. (Remember how much long distance telephone calls cost when Ma Bell had a monopoly. Oil’s transportation monopoly works the same way. We can have cheap transportation—only if oil faces competition).
The terrific news is that substitutes for oil cost less, less than last year’s $110, but also less than the new $90 benchmark. Goldman Sachs estimates that methanol, CNG either fossil or bio-sourced and electric cars are all cheaper than gasoline or diesel powered cars to buy and operate:
So the bottom line is that global energy consumers and their governments face a major choice: they can allow oil to retain its monopoly as a transportation energy source, even though cleaner options like electricity or rail are cheaper. We’ve tried that since oil prices began to rise in 2003, and we know where it leads. Global economic growth drives up oil prices, but provides no alternatives. Importing economies are drained of hundreds of billions of dollars. Eventually oil prices stall economic growth. The cycle begins again.
Or we can do for transportation what we did for telecommunications. Break the monopoly, invest in innovation—and as it happens, start moving beyond the fossil fuel that now looms as the biggest threat to climate security—oil. Cheap fuel will be good for the climate.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Daisy Brickhill
Each morning, men living in fishing communities along Ghana's coastline push off in search of the day's catch. But when the boats come back to shore, it's the women who take over.
By Sam Nickerson
Links between excess sugar in your diet and disease have been well-documented, but new research by Harvard's School of Public Health might make you even more wary of that next soda: it could increase your risk of an early death.
The study, published this week in the American Heart Association's journal Circulation, found that drinking one or two sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) each day — like sodas or sports drinks — increases risk of an early death by 14 percent.
Tyson Foods Recalls Nearly 70,000 Pounds of Chicken Strips After Customers Find ‘Fragments of Metal’
Tyson Foods is recalling approximately 69,093 pounds of frozen chicken strips because they may have been contaminated with pieces of metal, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced Thursday.
The affected products were fully-cooked "Buffalo Style" and "Crispy" chicken strips with a "use by" date of Nov. 30, 2019 and an establishment number of "P-7221" on the back of the package.
"FSIS is concerned that some product may be in consumers' freezers," the recall notice said. "Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase."
Environmental exposure to pesticides, both before birth and during the first year of life, has been linked to an increased risk of developing autism spectrum disorder, according to the largest epidemiological study to date on the connection.
The study, published Wednesday in BMJ, found that pregnant women who lived within 2,000 meters (approximately 1.2 miles) of a highly-sprayed agricultural area in California had children who were 10 to 16 percent more likely to develop autism and 30 percent more likely to develop severe autism that impacted their intellectual ability. If the children were exposed to pesticides during their first year of life, the risk they would develop autism went up to 50 percent.
ExxonMobil could be the second company after Monsanto to lose lobbying access to members of European Parliament after it failed to turn up to a hearing Thursday into whether or not the oil giant knowingly spread false information about climate change.
The call to ban the company was submitted by Green Member of European Parliament (MEP) Molly Scott Cato and should be decided in a vote in late April, The Guardian reported.
Bernie Sanders has become the first contender in the crowded 2020 Democratic presidential primary field to pledge to offset all of the greenhouse gas emissions released by campaign travel, The Huffington Post reported Thursday.