by MrBill » Fri 28 Jul 2006, 02:47:51
The Investment Biker rides again...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ommodity prices will rise for
another 10 to 15 years and oil will reach $100 a barrel,
according to Jim Rogers, chairman of Beeland Interests Inc.
``We are in a bull market for commodities and in this bull
market for commodities it's very simple that oil will go to at
least $100 a barrel,'' Rogers said in an interview today. ``The
bull market has got another 10 to 15 years to go so it's a fairly
easy assumption to me.''
New York crude oil futures climbed 26 percent in the past
year on concern a nuclear standoff with Iran and reduced
production in Nigeria threaten supplies. Prices reached a record
$78.40 a barrel in New York on July 14 after violence flared
between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah.
While oil production will grow ``marginally,'' oil fields
such as those in Alaska, Mexico and the North Sea are in decline,
said Rogers, author of ``Hot Commodities: How Anyone Can Invest
Profitably in the World's Best Market.'' At the same time, demand
for petroleum and commodities worldwide is rising, he said.
``There have been no major oil discoveries anywhere in the
world for over 35 years and all the great oil fields in the world
are in decline,'' Rogers said. ``The world is running out of oil.
There may be some oil out there, we just don't know where it
is.''
Rogers said rising oil prices push up the cost of synthetic
fibers, making agricultural commodities such as cotton a good
investment.
``A good way to play the price of oil is to buy cotton or
buy sugar,'' he said.
It is quite easy to say commodities are in a 10-15 year bull cycle, but what does that mean? Year on year price increases for 10-15 years? In excess of inflation? Sounds inflationary! ; - )
Let us say that nominal growth is 3%, so a bull cycle for me means commodity prices up each year by at least 3%+ in real terms adjusted for inflation. So starting from $75 = $116.85 in 15-years. But if oil spikes to $100 this year then 3% per year takes us up to $155.79 in 15-years. Not an unrealistic assumption given current trends, but I doubt you can do the same math using double digit returns, and not my conservative 3% above inflation, or apply those type of gains to all commodities including oil and base metals, as technically speaking they are inputs for production and who is going to be able to afford to buy anything that rises 3% per year over and above inflation if other costs and wages do not keep pace?
If energy prices rise due to scarcity and lack of alternatives, then they will have to be paid for by demand destruction elsewhere and that means less production and therefore less inputs such as base metals. Whereas biomass may increase the demand for commodities as such, so that is an easier argument to accept. If we use 25% of our arable land to grow crops for biofuels, that is 25% less land available for food production.
Something is going to be stretched to the breaking point in any case. Either supply, which is most likely, as we switch from the exploitive stage of development to the investment stage where new supply can only come with new investment. Or demand. Growth in the face of scarcity is not likely. Economic growth where costs of production exceed growth in income or productivity is not sustainable.
Excess labor will not translate into getting oil out of the deep blue, and if excess labor cannot pay for the time, energy and technology to make getting oil out of the deep blue profitably, then it is not going to happen. Latent demand is not enough if there is scarcity of supply as well. That is the problem with economic forecasts that assume growth without factoring in scarcity, as higher real prices destroy demand. And supply cannot increase if there is scarcity in response to those higher real prices. Only the search for alternatives that make substitutes more economical compared to either the original or doing without.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')”Oil prices at $100 a barrel would be "extremely negative" for the credit profile of U.S.-based automotive companies such as Ford Motor Co. said Robert Schulz of Standard & Poor's.
A significant rise in oil prices would also hurt the American airline industry, which has already experienced a dramatic increase in fuel prices in recent years. While jet fuel cost about 80 cents per gallon on average in the period 2000-2003, prices climbed to $1.50 per gallon in 2005 and $1.95 per gallon during the first five months of this year.
In contrast to freight transportation companies, which can rely on fuel surcharges, airlines have to raise airfares to keep up with soaring fuel costs.
"Airlines would be one of the industries at greatest risk in a $100 oil scenario," said Philip Baggaley of Standard & Poor's. Delta Air Lines Inc. and Northwest Airlines Corp. would be most at risk, Baggaley said.
In the retail sector, discount stores and fast food restaurants would take the worst hit, while high-end stores like Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom Inc. will be least affected, said William Wetreich of Standard & Poor's. Oil price hikes will not have a significant impact on business for drugstores and supermarkets, Wetreich said.
The profitability of most commodity chemical companies is not expected to be hurt significantly by triple-digit oil prices, judging from the effective way those companies have dealt with high raw materials prices in the past three years. However, as high oil prices slow economic growth, the demand for chemical products around the world could drop, thereby contributing to a cyclical downturn by the end of the decade, according to Standard & Poor's.””
Given the lack of alternatives, $100 per barrel for oil looks not only likely, but inevitable. However, changes in our underlying behavior are more likely to be in response to scarcity rather than higher prices alone.