Showing posts with label OPEC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OPEC. Show all posts

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Could the Dollar Fall? What the Federal Reserve is doing!

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the Federal Reserve and the U.S. dollar. This follows this post about Jesus Christ and Christmas. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Several recent headlines in London's Financial Times illustrate a continuing thought among world financial leaders. The first headline said, “Brazil and China Eye Plan to Axe Dollar.” “China Attacks Dollar's Dominance” read another. A third spoke of “De-Dollarization and the Ending of America's Financial-Military Hegemony.” Another spotlighted the lack of confidence in American financial leadership: “Dollar Falls as Geithner [the U.S. Treasury Secretary] Hails Recovery Hopes.”
Warning shots are being fired across America's bow. Many want an end to the era of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. If that happens, your financial world will be forever altered.

Could this happen?

The United States is now the world's largest debtor nation ($10.6 trillion). And China owns more of that debt than any other nation—more than $800 billion. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has publicly expressed “worries” over China's significant holdings of U.S. government bonds, which ties China to America's good times and its bad times.
China is concerned that the U.S. Treasury bills (T-bills) and bonds it holds will lose much of their worth if the dollar is devalued or the financial crisis does not turn around.
By calling for the creation of another reserve currency, China, Russia and other nations seek insurance for their economies against the problems generated when one country's economy goes bad. They also seek to end American dominance over the world economy. America's decline and China's rise fit their geopolitical ambitions.
Ending the dollar's role in the world economy is not an easy matter. The Wall Street Journal stated: “The technical and political hurdles to implementing China's recommendation [to create a new standard world currency to replace the dollar] are enormous, so even if backed by other nations, the proposal is unlikely to change the dollar's role in the short term.
“Central banks around the world hold more U.S. dollars and dollar securities than they do assets denominated in any other individual foreign currency. Such reserves can be used to stabilize the value of the central banks' domestic currencies” (“China Takes Aim at Dollar,” March 24, 2009).

Will the dollar's reign soon end?

Before the dollar, the British pound sterling formed the underpinning of the global economy. It took two world wars and several decades for the world standard to shift from the pound to the dollar. Since the end of World War II, the dollar has been king.
Although the current financial problems ignited in America have led to a global meltdown, it will take more than what we've experienced so far to topple America from its current role. That is not to say this could not or will not happen.
Creating another world currency requires several factors to be in place. Research analysts at the private intelligence agency Stratfor outlined what those factors would be:
“As to a world beyond the dollar, the issue is that a reserve currency is not decided upon; it creates itself. Two things are needed to create a reserve currency. First, there must be sufficient liquidity to support a global system. That requires a central bank with an enormous amount of autonomy from a state government, and the U.S. Federal Reserve is unparalleled on this count. Not even the European Central Bank can compete.
“Second, the economy upon which the currency is based must be large enough to withstand fluctuations caused by other economies buying and selling its assets in massive amounts. Again, the United States is the only economy that potentially could qualify.
“Part and parcel of any replacement of the U.S. dollar would be a large-scale abandonment of U.S. T-bills as the core of Chinese currency reserves, which—as the conventional wisdom holds—would force intractable economic problems upon the United States. But a closer look reveals that this is not the case.
“First, selling U.S. T-bills en masse simply is not possible. Every seller requires a buyer, and the volumes at hand cannot be exchanged quickly. Second, starting down that road would cause the value of the securities in question to plummet, destroying the savings the Chinese have been building up for years. The so-called 'nuclear option' really is not an option at all” (“China's Calculated Currency Rhetoric,” March 25, 2009).
China has its own problems. The huge middle class created by their recent boom is beginning to experience layoffs and financial setbacks. The ruling Communist Party cannot afford discontent from this segment of its society. Once people have tasted materialism, they won't go back. For now it's in China's interest to blame a foreign power (America). It deflects attention from the home front.
Yet clearly, China is playing a very dangerous geopolitical game with calls for a new reserve currency.

What would it mean for Americans?

Since the end of World War II, the dollar has been the dominant world currency. For most living Americans, this is the world into which they were born. This is all they have known. Americans enjoy one of the world's highest living standards due to the stability and wealth created by America's dominant economic role.
So what would it mean for the American consumer if the dollar were no longer the world's reserve currency?
Everything Americans import would cost more— everything. Americans would have to buy the new currency in order to trade in world markets. Last year's $4-per-gallon gasoline would quickly look like a bargain.
The credit market would collapse. Investors would flee toxic assets, further locking up the economy.
The U.S. Federal Reserve would print more money to combat the credit squeeze, with the likely result being hyperinflation, meaning higher prices for available goods. Remember the stories of Weimar Germany after World War I when it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread? Not pretty.
American power and influence in the world would seriously decline. Little understood today is the role of the economy in shaping and controlling world events. The dollar's place in the world adds incalculable weight to American influence. With the dollar diminished, that influence would be reduced substantially. Russia and China are waiting for their turn to assume that power, but they would certainly meet with competition from the European Union.
Big losers from the fall of the dollar would include Japan and Latin America. Because they hold much of America's debt, China and the oil-rich Persian Gulf states would also see huge losses. Israel and Egypt would suffer as well because of massive amounts of American aid they would lose. What this would mean to the Middle East calculus is unknown, but Egypt could be destabilized as a result.
World politics would be altered. The vacuum of power created would be contested. The EU, which stands to gain from the fall of the dollar, would be among the chief contenders. China would no doubt make a play as well, but a number of factors would hinder its bid. Stability would arise from the potential period of chaos with another power becoming the global economy's main engine. America's time in the sun would be over.
American lifestyles would change radically. The end of cheap oil, low interest rates and deficit spending would mean a lower quality of life and higher taxes. What this would mean to the social fabric of the nation is unknown. But Americans' way of life would dramatically change.
This last point speaks to the character of the American people. Do they have the same qualities that helped a prior generation survive the upheaval of a Great Depression and World War II?

America losing the pride of her power?

Those pushing to create a different world are no doubt working hard to bring about the demise of the dollar and the end of America's dominant role in the world. In The Good News we have spoken before of America's prophesied loss of “the pride of [its] power” (Leviticus 26:19). While military might is what we think of first in this regard, economic factors are also important here. The dollar losing its reserve currency status would radically change America's leading role in the world.
For one, America's crippling foreign debt would get worse with decreased ability to finance the burden. In time the country would be at the mercy of those holding its obligations, with little room to maneuver. Economic enslavement to other nations would be on the horizon.
However, it's unlikely that this will happen immediately. China and several Arab states hold too many dollar-denominated instruments to see this change. As mentioned, they would lose too much. Right now the United States is too big, too rich and too powerful for them to allow it to fail. There is too much at stake on the global scene.
That does not mean things couldn't change—and change quickly—but the proper circumstances have to be in place.
It will not happen until the God of heaven allows it to happen. God has blessed America with its wealth, power and resulting prestige. He will move to change that when it fits His timing for His great plan for all the nations.
Until then we have days to live and many lives to touch. We have character to develop and mistakes to correct. We have days to love those close to us and, above all, time to discover God and His attention to the details of eternity, history and our lives. Make the most of the time while you can. GN

You might also be interested in...

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

The Future of OPEC

A very interesting post from www.stratfor.com about OPEC, which supplies most of the world's oil. This follows this post about Iran possibly walking away from its recent deal with the U.S. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more about what you can do to get more involved click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE.


The Future of OPEC

 
The Future of OPEC
Pump jacks in the Kurdish town of Derik, on the border with Turkey and Iraq, Nov. 25. (ACHILLEAS ZAVALLIS/AFP/Getty Images)

Summary

The prospect of revitalized oil production in Iraq and Iran may add to tensions between those two countries and Saudi Arabia over production quotas. On Dec. 4, representatives of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) will meet in Vienna to discuss a number of topics. OPEC is facing two challenges. First, OPEC's historically biggest consumer -- the United States -- is rapidly increasing its own domestic production. At the same time, OPEC must deal with plans to expand oil production envisioned both by Iraq and Iran, which could lead to lower prices than the cartel desires. Ultimately, however, emerging markets in Asia will set global demand, and their energy thirst will determine the scale of the problem OPEC faces.

Analysis

OPEC was organized in the early 1960s by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Venezuela with the primary goal of unifying the five countries' oil export policies -- and hopefully dictating a high price for their oil. The five countries certainly possessed that power when the cartel was initially formed, and while the cartel still produces about 40 percent of the world's oil, OPEC's dominance has declined over the years. Today, only Saudi Arabia and to a certain extent the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait retain the ability to voluntarily adjust production levels. OPEC's other members -- Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Ecuador and Angola -- must maintain production to finance their national budgets. Effectively, this means that OPEC wields nowhere near the power it once did. Even a producer of Saudi Arabia's size is barely able to change the price of oil through boosting or cutting production.
A new wave of oil production outside the cartel has already hit. Production in the United States has increased to an estimated 8 million barrels per day -- the highest level since the 1980s. Elsewhere, production is set to take off in Canada and potentially Brazil. At the same time, increased production outside OPEC is dwarfed by the ambitious expansion plans put forward by OPEC members Iraq and Iran. While production outside the cartel is manageable, together with Iraq and Iran's plans it could represent a significant threat to oil prices in the latter half of the decade.

Iraq and Iran's Ambitions

Iraq's energy sector has been revitalized after the past five years and is now producing nearly 3.5 million barrels per day. Its oil ministry has set several ambitious goals, including production hitting 9 million to 10 million barrels per day by 2020. Iran, too, sees prospects for boosted production on the horizon. Complementing the negotiations with the United States on a possible long-term rapprochement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has started a significant reform campaign hoping to bring oil production back to the pre-sanction level of 4.2 million barrels per day within six months and increase it to the pre-revolution level of 6 million barrels per day within 18 months. To be clear, both goals are not attainable within their respective time frames, but significant increases are possible.
The amount of production that comes online in Iraq will largely depend on two factors. First, the political system and violence will shape the pace of investment and regulatory procedures, such as issuing contracts and permits. Second and more important, there are logistical limitations to bringing online that level of production in such a short period of time. Some of these limitations can be overcome with proper coordination between international oil companies, oil services providers, the Shia surrounding the Basra region and the various political interest groups in Baghdad. Adroit cooperation between all of these parties is unlikely, meaning Iraq will fall short of Baghdad's lofty goals, but Iraq can reach about 5 million to 6 million barrels per day by 2020, and closer to 6 million to 6.5 million barrels per day within a decade.
For Iran, the challenge is somewhat simpler, since its limitations are largely caused by external sanctions. As seen in other countries, typically when oil production has been interrupted following regime change, sanctions and other causes, production levels rarely reach the level achieved prior to the disruption. However, should sanctions be removed, Iran could quickly revive about half of its offline production within 12 to 18 months -- about 500,000 to 750,000 barrels per day. In the longer term, there are some reasons to believe that Iran could buck the trend and increase its production back to previously achieved levels, and perhaps even increase it, but the time frame would be measured in years, not months. All of this, of course, is subject to geopolitical events that could slow the process down or stop it entirely -- such as internal backlash in Iran and a slow timetable for negotiating with Washington. After bringing shut-in production back online, Iran (like Iraq) is more likely to slowly increase its daily oil production by about 250,000 to 300,000 barrels per year, pushing Rouhani's goals to after 2020.

OPEC Going Forward

OPEC is facing short-term and long-term challenges. In the near term, rising production in the United States and Canada has been unexpectedly quick -- increasing by 1 million barrels per day in each of the past two years. Although most of the U.S. increase has been offset by production taken offline due to instability in Libya, added U.S. exports have already forced Saudi Arabia to reduce production levels at times to maintain prices. U.S. production is set to grow by another 1 million barrels in 2014, potentially straining OPEC's preferential price points.
In the longer term, Iran and Iraq's production is the key issue. Should Iran and Iraq together boost production to a reasonably achievable level of 11 million barrels per day by 2020, that would represent an increase of 5 million to 6 million barrels per day above present levels. OPEC's production quotas have already been a source of tension among its members, but producers have always found ways to skirt around them. That may no longer be possible. While Iran's domestic consumption will increase significantly, the potential export increases are still too high for Saudi Arabia to offset. This will cause stress within the organization among regional rivals Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia may ask Iran and Iraq to voluntarily limit export growth, but without other incentives there is no reason to believe they would do so when it is in their short-term economic interest to boost exports as much as possible.
Increased exports by Iran and Iraq also play into the broader rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran over issues such as the Syrian civil war and Iranian influence in Saudi Arabia's border regions as well as its oil-producing Shiite-dominated Eastern Province. Historically, Saudi Arabia has argued for increased production from the cartel to preserve OPEC's market share, since high prices have helped encourage alternative energy development elsewhere, whereas Iran and Iraq have argued for moderate production levels and strong prices. Additionally, while Saudi Arabia can afford to sell oil at $85 per barrel, many of the governments surrounding it need prices at or above $100 per barrel, and Riyadh does not want to see its neighbors engulfed in even more turmoil than they already are due to lower oil revenue. Iran and Iraq are pursuing this boost for their long-term production and believe they can do so without reducing prices by relying on increased demand from developing Asian markets.
Asia is now the world's biggest net importing region -- bigger than Europe and North America combined. Naturally, this has led to increased codependence between OPEC and developing Asian countries, principally India and China. Indeed, China has massive projects with Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. China's footprint has expanded dramatically in Venezuela and it imports about 15 percent of its oil from OPEC member Angola. India has also deepened its connections to OPEC countries and has emerged as Nigeria's biggest customer.
As OPEC's biggest customer, Asia will continue its strong demand in the near future, and so stress on OPEC will not necessarily mean lower oil prices. The impact on long-term prices is less certain, however; the price will be determined not only by the size of Asian growth in the future, but by global oil supplies in non-OPEC countries as well. While OPEC historically has been used as a political tool to increase oil prices or place an embargo on exports, as can be seen from the 2008 price spike, OPEC's modern challenge is more concerned with keeping oil prices reasonably low, not artificially raising them or embargoing oil. In order to preserve its long-term health, OPEC will need to preserve relatively low oil prices, both to ensure that developing markets in Asia can afford to keep buying the oil and to prevent alternatives such as shale oil, electric cars or natural gas-to-liquids technology from becoming more economically feasible. Furthermore, tempered oil prices for consumers in Asia will only reinforce the region's economic growth, contributing to increased demand for OPEC's oil.
Editor's note: An earlier version of this analysis misstated OPEC's member countries and mischaracterized production quotas.


Read more: The Future of OPEC | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook


Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Support developing America’s offshore areas

A very interesting post from http://consumerenergyalliance.org/ about offshore drilling. This follows this post about Hezbollah's missiles and this article about the recent news about offshore drilling to encourage American energy independence that follows this previous post about it. This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more posts like this click here.

Support developing America’s offshore areas
With 14.9 million Americans out of work and state budgets about to break the bank, development of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) would help the economy and U.S. energy security.
Right now, the government is accepting public comments on which offshore areas will be available for energy development from 2012-2017 and to support current projects in offshore Alaska.
Developing America’s offshore areas will:
Open up federal waters to energy development
Create jobs
Get the economy moving again
Americans want more energy!
72% of Americans support increased offshore development
Oil & gas are projected up to 65% of U.S. energy consumption for the next 20 years
Lower 48 states offshore oil & gas would gas up 132 million cars & heat 54 million homes for 15 years
Alaska’s offshore areas are the world’s 9th largest oil resource – ahead of Nigeria, Libya & Norway
Act today – the first comment period closes May 3!
Take Action and submit the following letter
Here

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Gasoline Prices Cheap?

We know gasoline prices have risen a lot in recent years and that is our reality. However, I wanted to send this article for a slight perspective. If you know any "green" people, they might be rejoicing that high gas prices might be saving the environment. Anyway, I thought you might find this interesting. Let me know if you have any comments.

Gasoline Is CheapFour dollars a gallon is outrageous! We should be paying much more.
By Robert BrycePosted Thursday, May 15, 2008, at 3:24 PM ET
The next time you have to take out a loan just to fill up your tank, remember this: Four-dollar-per-gallon gasoline is cheap. There's no doubt that high fuel prices are hurting low-income consumers, and high energy costs are placing a tax on the economy that is slowing investment while sending billions of dollars overseas. It's unsurprising that presidential candidates and members of Congress issue new proposals practically every day to lower gas prices: Stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve! Suspend the federal gas tax! Open ANWR to oil drilling! These proposals are delusions, and Americans are living in a fantasy land when it comes to energy and energy prices. Over the past few years, consumers have been inundated with news stories about the soaring price of gasoline. Invariably, these stories include comments from a motorist who is outraged at the evils of a) Saudi Arabia, b) OPEC, c) Big Oil, d) all of the above.
But by almost any measure, gasoline is still cheap. In fact, it has probably been far too cheap for far too long. The recent price increases are only beginning to reflect its real value. When measured on an inflation-adjusted basis, the current price of gasoline is only slightly higher than it was in 1922. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 1922, gasoline cost the current-day equivalent of $3.11. Today, according to the EIA, gasoline is selling for about $3.77 per gallon, only about 20 percent more than 86 years ago. Given the ever-increasing global demand for oil products—during the first quarter of this year, China's oil consumption jumped by 16.5 percent—and the increasing costs associated with finding, producing, and refining crude oil, it makes sense that today's motorists are paying more for their motor fuel than their grandparents and great-grandparents did. Gasoline is also a fairly minor expense when you consider the overall cost of car ownership. In 1975, gasoline made up 33.4 percent of the total cost of owning and operating a car. By 2006, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, gasoline costs had declined to just 17.1 percent of the total cost of car ownership. Of course, fuel costs have risen by about $1 per gallon since 2006, but even with those increases, fuel continues to be a relatively small part of the cost of car ownership. By contrast, the fixed costs of ownership—insurance, licensing, taxes, and financing—have increased nearly fivefold since 1975. Maintenance costs have also quintupled over the same time period. Given those increases and the relatively low price of fuel, it's not surprising that Americans are opting for big vehicles with powerful engines. Considering the overall cost of owning a vehicle, fuel expenses just aren't a very big deal. History shows that significant declines in U.S. oil consumption occur only after prolonged periods of high prices. Over the last two decades, U.S. consumers have been spoiled by low fuel prices. And those lower prices led to a buying binge that put millions of giant SUVs, pickups, and other gas guzzlers on our roads. Today's higher prices are forcing consumers to adapt. The EIA now expects U.S. gasoline consumption to decline this year—the first drop in demand in 17 years. In April, sales of small cars in the United States were up by 17 percent over the same period a year earlier while sales of SUVs, trucks, and large cars all fell by about 30 percent. On the environmental front, people concerned about greenhouse-gas emissions should be cheering today's oil prices. Expensive motor fuel is the only thing that will lead consumers to use less oil and make the switch to hybrid vehicles, smaller cars, and public transit. Higher oil prices are convincing automakers to change their fleets. Earlier this week, Nissan Motor Company announced that it will begin selling an electric car in the United States and Japan by 2010. Carlos Ghosn, the chief executive of Nissan, made it clear that fuel prices were a factor in the company's decision to build electric cars, telling the New York Times that "the shifts coming from the markets are more powerful than what regulators are doing." American gasoline is also dirt-cheap compared with gas in other countries. British motorists are currently paying about $8.38 per gallon for gasoline. In Norway, a major oil exporter, drivers are paying $8.73. In 2007, out of the 32 industrialized countries surveyed by the International Energy Agency, only one (Mexico) had cheaper gasoline than the United States. Last year, drivers in Turkey were paying three times as much for their gasoline as Americans were. The IEA data also show that in India—where the per capita gross domestic product is about $2,700 (about 6 percent of the per capita GDP in the United States)—drivers have been paying more for their diesel fuel and gasoline than their American counterparts.(Gasoline is also cheap compared with other essential fuels. A Starbucks venti latte costs the equivalent of $23 per gallon, while Budweiser beer runs $11 per gallon.)The simple truth is that Americans are going to have to get used to more expensive gasoline. And while they may continue grumbling at the pump, they need to accept the fact that even at $3.50 or $4 per gallon, the fuel they are buying is still a bargain.