Dying Oil Prices – Who are the winners and losers?

Global oil prices have fallen sharply over the past eight months, leading to significant revenue shortfalls in many oil exporting nations, while consumers in many importing countries are likely to have to pay less to heat their homes, drive their cars or run their energy houses.

From 2010 until mid-2014, global oil prices had been fairly stable, at around $110 a barrel. But since June prices have more than halved. Brent crude oil has now dipped below $50 a barrel for the first time since May 2009 and US crude is down to below $48 a barrel.

The reasons for the decline – China slowing down coupled with US surging production & shale gas revolution, OPEC’s determination to not to cut production and Iran edging towards entering global trade, black market sales from Iraq & Syria which means additional supplies.

So who are the WINNERS?

Mainly those countries that need to import oil. Within Asia, China, India, South Korea, Japan and Thailand have been the gainers. The benefits, cutting them short, lower inflation, lower business costs, improved purchasing power, correction of balance of payment and cut in interest rates!

Cheaper oil translates into lower inflation. Oil is used as a raw material in various industries such as petrochemicals, fertilizers and etc. As oil prices decline, the logistics become more economical and hence consumers will have to pay less. This will also make these products more internationally competitive. However, most of the agro economies in Asia continue to rely on imports of both petrochemicals and fertilizers due to increasing demands, unusual weather patterns and logistic issues due to poor infrastructure.

Both India and Indonesia have taken the opportunity to cut energy subsidies and raise taxes on energy. India imports 75% of its oil, and analysts say falling oil prices will ease its current account deficit. At the same time, the cost of India's fuel subsidies could fall by $2.5bn this year - assuming oil prices stay low.

Consumer inflation has hit a 5-year low in China. However, lower oil prices won't fully offset the far wider effects of a slowing economy.

Who has lost and why?

Most of the big oil producers like Malaysia and western Asian countries. For Malaysia energy exports account for 20% of the national economy, so cheaper oil is a problem.

Saudi Arabia, the world largest and the most influential oil exporter, needs oil prices around $85 in the long run, but seems less interested to cut down supplies in order to pressurize the US shale gas industry and it can afford to continue this way for long as the country sits on a reserve fund close to $700 billion. Gulf producers such as the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait have also amassed a considerable foreign currency reserve, which means that they could run deficits for several years if necessary.

Europe is an interesting case here. A lot of analysts believe that Europe in general will benefit from the collapse in oil prices but its exposure to Russia jeopardizes the benefit realization. A recession in Russia and depreciation of the Russian Ruble will reduce investments in Moldova, Armenia, Belarus and all those European states which are vulnerable to dislocations in the Russian labor market because of the reliance on remittances from Russia.  Plus most of these countries import oil to process into other products such as petrochemicals and fertilizers, for which oil accounts for major portion of the cost. A decline in oil prices means fall in prices of these commodities too.

Ukraine Crisis: Time for Europe to give (clean) coal a bigger share

Did anyone of us ever think that switching from coal to imported gas could pose a major risk to the security of energy supplies in Europe?

At least six European countries rely exclusively on one country for natural gas supply – Russia. During a recent press conference Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister called for changes in the EU energy policy and added that “Germany’s dependence on Russian gas may effectively decrease Europe’s sovereignty”.

EU relies on Russia for 30% of its natural gas imports, with 80% of that delivered through Ukrainian pipelines. Ukraine is a major gas transit nation for supplies from Russia to EU. Earlier this month Russia warned it could stop distributing gas to Ukraine over unpaid bills and any such move can have dramatic consequences for the EU.  With Europe’s main natural gas supply route at risk this provides the policy makers in the EU re-think and direct more attention to Europe’s indigenous coal resources as well as secured and reliable coal imports.

Source: BBC News

Coal accounts for 90% of the EU’s fossil fuel energy and natural gas accounts for only 7%. Hence, it is not surprising at all that Europe imports almost 70% of its natural gas and as per a report from European Commission it will have to import close to 80% by 2030.

Coal continues to remain integral to EU, as it creates jobs, keeps the domestic producers in business and more importantly reinforces the continent’s energy security. Imported coal has been a reliable source of energy for Europe. Unlike natural gas coal imports are not dependent upon transport infrastructure such as LNG terminals or pipelines so any drop in supply from one country can be easily filled by another supplier. Currently, 60% of EU’s coal imports come from the USA, South Africa, Australia & Colombia & 25% is sourced from Russia.

There is a strong security argument against over-reliance on natural gas imports from Russia and this should be given more attention in the EU’s 2030 framework for climate and energy policies. None of the targets, measures & policies proposed as part of this package should force Europe into a position where it is slowly abandoning the most abundant, affordable and secure energy fuel it is endowed with to the benefit of imported natural gas.

An evening with Paul Donovan, Global Economist

I recently had the privilege to meet Mr. Paul Donovan, Global Economist, Managing Director UBS Investment Bank on September 23, 2013 in Dubai. Paul co-authors the Global Economic Perspectives publication with other members of the Global Economic team. Paul regularly appears on CNN, Bloomberg TV, and CNBC.
Paul, very comprehensively, covered various developments in the global economy ranging from the selection of US FED chair to the Japanese issuing bonds, devaluation of currencies and region-wise economic outlook.
There was a Q/A session which allowed me to put forward questions/opinions to Paul and I am glad he answered those questions to my satisfaction. The following were the communications exchanged

1 - Creation of Fake Capital

“I own apples and Paul owns oranges and we both agree to exchange each fruit worth millions. Paul sells me the oranges and I sell Paul apples. Next morning, we are no more fruit vendors but banks with assets worth millions. How this creation of fake capital is preventing organizations and economies to bounce back?" I related this to what happened in Iceland (shift from fish to investment banking) and other European economies.

Paul’s response: As this was the very first question to Paul that evening, he smiled to me and said that this is quite unfortunate and many bankers in the hall will not like us for discussing this. He added that banks have realized this and regulations are being brainstormed and developed to overcome these issues. Banks are becoming more systematic than before. He added that a bad situation in Euro will result in good outcomes. Many banks have recently either ceased or limited their operations in the Middle East and other regions. Banks like BNP Paribas have ceased operations in most of the gulf countries and Barclays has limited its operations too. These banks have been influenced by their respective countries’ governments to return and invest in their local economies. The increase in lending within the Euro bloc will improve the economic conditions over the medium term.

2 - Volatile Commodity Prices

“Theoretically prices decline when demand falls. Prices of coal, gold and several other commodities have either declined or remained volatile amid increasing demand trends year over year. What is to be blamed for low commodity prices? Am I right in saying that high capex is to be blamed for low commodity prices ?”

Paul’s response: “Yes, it is true that excessive capex in certain regions has resulted in volatile commodity prices. Expanding upon your statement mis-allocation of capex and resources is to be blamed for volatile commodity prices.”

3 - Asset Nationalization

“Asset rationalization, by Jan 2014, in countries like Indonesia can create serious issues in the global economy as China imports more than 80% of its bauxite requirements from Indonesia. What implications will this carry for the Global economy ?”

Paul’s response: “As a global economist I am more concerned whether the world’s global resource requirements will be fulfilled. China has invested in countries in Africa and has acquired mines, which it cannot fully rely upon because in the past sudden shifts in the governments in Africa has also caused disruptions in the mining activities and complicated ownership structure. As a global economist Indonesia must continue to supply raw material to China as China processes resources primarily for its local economy. Indonesia’s move is politically correct but not on economic terms because it has energy crisis and processing industries need adequate and cheap energy supplies. This move will worry the Chinese and will have a global impact.” 

And, the intellectual evening came to an end.