Page added on October 3, 2016
In this post I present developments in world crude oil (including condensates) supplies since January 2007 and per June 2016. Further a closer look at petroleum demand (consumption and stock changes) developments in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for the same period and what this implies about demand developments in non OECD.
The data used for this analysis comes from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) Monthly Energy Review.
This may now have (mainly) 2 explanations;
Figure 1: The stacked areas in the chart above shows changes to crude oil supplies split with North America [North America = Canada + Mexico + US], OPEC and other non OPEC [Other non OPEC = World – (OPEC + North America)] with January 2007 as a baseline and per June 2016. Developments in the oil price (Brent spot, black line) are shown against the left axis.
It was the oil companies’ rapid growth in debt [ref US Light Tight Oil (LTO)] that brought about a situation where supplies ran ahead of consumption and brought the oil price down.
YTD 2016, only OPEC has shown growth in crude oil supplies relative to 2015.
Unit costs ($/b) to bring new oil supplies to the market is on a general upward trajectory while the consumers’ affordability threshold may be in general decline.
In this post I have introduced the concept of “consumers’ affordability threshold”, and with that I mean as crude oil prices start to grow, overleveraged consumers are likely to respond by reducing their consumption.
OPEC, primarily Libya and Nigeria, could add more than 1 Mb/d to global supplies in the near future.
[Added OPEC supplies may cancel out declines from other oil producers and provide some temporarily growth in global oil supplies. This will likely prolong the period with depressed prices.]
A big portion of oil companies’ portfolios of discoveries and infield drilling that met the sanction hurdle of $60/b were mostly expended while the oil price was expected to remain at $100/b or above and the results from recent years’ exploration has replaced a small portion of what was extracted.
World Crude Oil Supplies
Figure 2: The stacked areas in the chart above shows development in crude oil supplies split on some economic entities from January – 07 and per June -16. The oil price [Brent spot] is shown against the left axis.
Figure 3: The stacked areas in the chart above shows relative development in crude oil supplies split on some economic entities from January – 07 and per June -16. The oil price [Brent spot] is shown against the left axis.
EIA data now show that OPEC is gaining global shares of crude oil supplies.
OECD Petroleum Consumption
Figure 4: The chart above shows development in petroleum consumption for the US [red area], OECD Europe [yellow area], and other OECD (which includes Canada, Japan and South Korea) [blue area]. The chart is complemented with lines showing smoothed 12 month moving averages (12 MMA) for the presented OECD countries/regions. The oil price (Brent spot) is shown against the left axis.
For the US petroleum consumption started to grow while the price was above $100/b and for OECD Europe started with the collapse in the oil price.
Japan has reduced their petroleum consumption with about 10% since the oil price collapsed.
OECD Petroleum Stocks
Figure 5: The chart above show development in OECD petroleum stock developments. US believed to include SPR.
As supplies in 2014 started to run ahead of consumption the oil price collapsed that allowed for a strong stock build in OECD (ref also figure 5) and in China according to some reports.
More than 330 Mb has been added to OECD stocks since January 2015.
The high stock levels will for some time act to temper growth in the oil price.
A closer Look at Developments in US Petroleum Demand
Figure 6: The chart above shows development in annualized [52 weeks moving averages] US total petroleum consumption [blue line] and storage build [red line] both rh scale. The black line, lh scale, shows development in the oil price (WTI). Consumption and storage developments are relative to Janaury 2014 (baseline).
NOTE, changes in consumption and stocks are stacked, thus the red line also shows total annualized changes in demand.
Growth in US consumption has primarily been driven by a lasting lower oil price.
Figure 7: The chart above shows development in US commercial stocks of petroleum, by some products, since Jan-14 [stacked areas, rh scale] together with the development in the oil price (WTI) [black line, lh scale].
Growth in Private and Public Debt for China and the US
Figure 8: The chart shows Year over Year (YoY) growth in private and public debt for the world’s 2 biggest economies, the US [blue line] and China [red line] and their total [black line] from Q1-2000 and as of Q1-2016.
The chart illustrates that the global debt overhang continues to grow led by the world’s 2 biggest economies. Since 2012 China and the US has annually added a total of about $5 trillion to their debts.
So where is the Oil Price headed?
With the oil price at $100/b the oil companies leveraged up with debt expecting this to be the new normal. The collapse in the oil price in 2014 presented them with a new reality which many now struggle with to understand what means for the future price formation for oil.
I have several times written that the oil price has also very much been a function of monetary and fiscal policies and thus provides an important part of the foundations for how its D E M A N D develops. Oil is now not priced for the utilities it provides for societies, but just as another commodity. O I L D E M A N D developments still appear to be the variable that remains poorly understood.
If as present EIA data suggest that crude oil demand in non OECD is in decline with an oil price below $50/b this may signal something about a shift in structural affordability which (with some time lag) also will affect the OECD.
Affordability is more related to price than costs. The median household has experienced little or no growth in purchasing power relative to developments in other expenses like debt service/rent and health care. This is important as this suggests that their affordability threshold for higher priced oil likely is in decline. This may be hard to verify with an oil price below $50/b, but (and if I am right) will materialize itself in a decline in consumption as the oil price starts to move up.
This is where I expect that for some time the oil price will enter the affordability dynamics, as prices starts to move up consumption/demand in response will decline thus curbing any price growth.
This will create some interesting dynamics as oil companies bet their future on sustained higher oil prices and a “lower for longer” prolongs the time it takes to heal their balance sheets and defers necessary CAPEX in exploration and developments to meet projected future demand.
The continued stock builds (in petroleum) suggests that there is still some way to go before supplies reaches a level where the oil price regains fundamental support for growth. One of the parameters I keep an eye on is how petroleum stocks develops and I am not thinking about movements from one week to another, but more like when commercial stock draw downs over some time (and seasonally adjusted) declines and permanently remains 5% (or more) below present levels.
On the supply side there is potential for growth of several OPEC members like Iran, Libya and Nigeria.
Bringing on additional supplies (wherever from) will prolong the time with suppressed price growth.
For anyone out there trying to predict the future oil price trajectory to what extent is the effects (or lack of) from future central bank’s policies, governments’ fiscal policies, bank leverage and risks to financial stability, the state of Chinese banks and monetary policies, Chinese oil demand, including the filling of their SPR [Strategic Petroleum Reserve], developments in world trade, just to name a few, factored in?
FRACTIONAL FLOW by Rune Likvern
13 Comments on "Will growing Costs of new Oil Supplies knock against declining Consumers’ Affordability?"
makati1 on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 8:16 pm
Pretty charts any 3 year old would enjoy looking at. Not the bullshit they supposedly represent. Just the bright colors.
The price of oil is on a permanent downward slope, but the inability to purchase seems to be racing downward even faster. Glut? Not for long. Bankruptcy is in the race also and the numbers are growing. Buckle Up!
Northwest Resident on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 8:17 pm
“This will create some interesting dynamics…”
Rune could have written “devastating dynamics” and also been correct.
In answer to the question posed in the title, I believe the answer is yes, definitely.
Consumer purchasing power is shrinking, not growing. Wealth transfer of epic and historic proportions is ongoing. There is a hard limit to how high the price of oil can go, and that limit is how much the general populace can afford to pay for it. That limit is shrinking, no growing, with no end in sight.
Well, I take that back, there is an “end” in sight, but the end that I see coming is one where very few if any people will be able to afford oil at any price. Once we reach that end, where we go from there is anybody’s guess, but I suspect that that “end” will coincide with the end of the Age of Oil.
penury on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 9:28 pm
If the economy of the world would only grow about 3% a year the problem could be solved. However with basically 0% growth the predicament will continue. Transport falls when manufacturing falls, yada,yada,yada. In an inter connected economy there is no solution.
rockman on Mon, 3rd Oct 2016 10:02 pm
When was this written? Obviously the cost to bring on new oil production (a significant reduction compared to a couple of years ago) has DECREASED dramatically due to the decrease in oil prices. The wells now being drilled have to meet economics based on the current oil price. No company is intentionally going to spend $80/bbl on oil they’ll sell for less the $50/bbl. And “affordability” is questionable at a time when the world is consuming records amounts of oil?
There was a time when some of this report might have made sense. But it ain’t today IMHO.
Ralph on Tue, 4th Oct 2016 4:20 am
rock, I am no accountant, but if a shale drilling company has bought leases that will expire if they don’t drill them, wouldn’t it sometimes hurt their overall profitability less to drill at a loss than to lose the investment in those leases? Obviously the drilling costs must be less than the expected income at the current or near term forecast oil price, but an expiring lease could force drilling where otherwise it is not economic.
Go Speed Racer on Tue, 4th Oct 2016 6:43 am
When the oil starts running out, the rich will always have it. They don’t care if gasoline is $25 a gallon they can still fill up the Bentley cause they are rich. But the ex middle class will go back to walking.
makati1 on Tue, 4th Oct 2016 7:11 am
LOL GSR, good one! You still don’t understand. There will be NO oil for anyone. It is not about money. It is about net energy. NET energy.
Kenz300 on Tue, 4th Oct 2016 11:18 am
Electric cars, trucks, bicycles and mass transit are the future. Fossil fuel ICE cars are the past.
Think teen agers vs your grand father. cell phones vs land lines.
NO EMISSIONS. Climate change is real..
Save money. .no stopping at gas stations. no oil changes. less overall maintenance.
Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Tue, 4th Oct 2016 12:22 pm
I notice a trend in that any article that includes charts is not liked by Mak. What a fucking retard. Mak likes doom porn to jerk off to but any interesting and meaningful data analysis is scorned upon. Mak, you are a fucking moron. Did you even finish grade 12 you stupid fuck?
Sissyfuss on Tue, 4th Oct 2016 2:14 pm
Truth is supposed to set you free, not repulse you.
shortonoil on Tue, 4th Oct 2016 6:06 pm
“It was the oil companies’ rapid growth in debt [ref US Light Tight Oil (LTO)] that brought about a situation where supplies ran ahead of consumption and brought the oil price down.”
Between 1960 and 2005 world production grew at an annual rate of 5.47%. Between 2005 and 2014 it grew by 0.43%, or at 7.9% of the historic rate. During the high growth rate period there was no over supply issue that drove the price down. At a very anemic 0.43% rate inventories have exploded. The interpretation that it was shale the brought down prices is obviously wrong. The numbers just do not support it. Demand for additional production fell to almost zero. The author totally missed that part?
What does support it is that between 1960 and 2005 the consumer received on average 4.5 million BTU from a barrel of oil; between 2005 and 2014 they received 3.1 million BTU/barrel. The consumer was merely responding by buying less of a lower quality, and less cost effective product. Inventories grew, even though there was very little additional supply, and the price fell.
Ignoring the obvious, that petroleum is used because it is an energy supplier, is likely to give the wrong answer almost every time. This is another good/ bad example of that phenomena. Missing the pertinent data also helps in coming up with the wrong result.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Apneaman on Tue, 4th Oct 2016 7:48 pm
Truth, I only finished grade nine, left grade 10 a couple of months in. An American or even Canadian government basic education is nothing to brag about. What did you actually feel all proud about yourself for passing all that boring propaganda? Still believe you’re special because they government said so and gave you the paper? Fuck man, you have some low standards. Yeah, you need their permission to get married too. The purpose of government education is to train up compliant sheeple to be gears on cogs in the machine and looking at where the humans are heading it looks like one more major misallocation of resources.
Apparently higher education is a big meaningless waste of time too.
Stupefied
How organisations enshrine collective stupidity and employees are rewarded for checking their brains at the office door
Each summer, thousands of the best and brightest graduates join the workforce. Their well-above-average raw intelligence will have been carefully crafted through years at the world’s best universities. After emerging from their selective undergraduate programmes and competitive graduate schools, these new recruits hope that their jobs will give them ample opportunity to put their intellectual gifts to work. But they are in for an unpleasant surprise.”
“For more than a decade, we’ve been studying dozens of organisations such as this management consultancy, employing people with high IQs and impressive educations. We have spoken with hundreds of people working for engineering firms, government departments, universities, banks, the media and pharmaceutical companies. We started out thinking it is likely to be the smartest who got ahead. But we discovered this wasn’t the case.
Organisations hire smart people, but then positively encourage them not to use their intelligence”
https://aeon.co/essays/you-don-t-have-to-be-stupid-to-work-here-but-it-helps
Thing is, how intelligent is it to trade most of your adult life in a boring and meaningless cubical ass kissing career for a bigger pay cheque? If that’s the best from the best and brightest graduates of the system then what does that say about the rest? About the system?
makati1 on Tue, 4th Oct 2016 8:38 pm
Ask the million plus college debtors what is important when they cannot even get out of their parent’s basement. LMAO