Senators--and others--speculate about speculators' role in rising oil prices


Congressional hearings often earn their reputation as forums for political posturing. Lawmakers read mini-speeches veiled as questions and then give witnesses little or no time to respond.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee largely resisted that temptation this week during a refreshingly wonky discussion with four top energy experts who discussed national and global factors influencing crude oil and gasoline prices.

The question of speculation kept coming up. And while a handful of senators made it clear that they think speculation deserves most of the blame for high prices, they at least let the witnesses explain their own views.

Some snippets from that conversation on futures markets:

Daniel Yergin, chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates: "If we didn't have these kind of markets in a situation we'd be looking at today, airlines would be taking their planes out of the skies and be putting them...parking them in the deserts because they were not able to hedge their financial risks. And that's what those markets do. Obviously, the markets have to be regulated, they have to be understood very closely, but that's...when you have a big traded commodity, people need to manage their risk in order to stay in business."

Paul Horsnell, head of commodities research for Barclays Capital: "I cover more the physical oil markets, but the trend we've noticed, particularly over the last couple of years, has been a very large movement of oil trading out of London and into Switzerland. It's much harder to get full visibility on an oil market where the balance has shifted away from more regulated centers and into other areas."

Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat-Washington: "I certainly believe in market fundamentals myself, and certainly believe in making sure that market fundamentals are policed. But I can remember a time on this committee that we talked and talked and talked and talked about what was wrong with electricity when Enron was manipulating the market. And there were a lot of people that thought it was 3,000 things other than manipulation, until we proved that it was manipulation, and then everybody was, like, oh, it's a manipulation. ... At what point does it really become a problem? Because it's quite clear the Commodities Exchange Act made it very clear that the commodities future market were created for two basic purposes. One, to provide a revenue for producers and consumers of physical commodities to hedge their risk, and two, to establish a fair price on supply-and-demand fundamentals."

Yergin: "I'd rather see these markets in the United States regulated with the kind of scrutiny they have than occurring somewhere elsewhere where they're not under scrutiny. And so part of the issue is it is a global marketplace."

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat-Oregon: "It looks to me like four years ago, the non-commercial trader, the person who's, in effect, called a speculator, these traders held less than half of the futures contracts for crude oil. So a number of years ago we were talking about, you know, people who held these futures. They were trucking companies, they were airlines, these kind of people who weren't, you know, traders. Now, today, according to the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, these traders now account for 85 percent of the crude oil futures market."

Yergin: "Well, I think, yes, it's been a significant change. I don't think, based upon our understanding today, that it is the driving force that can accentuate things. I was thinking that when there was a crisis with Iran in 1979 and '80, there were no futures markets and the price also went up very sharply. So it's part of the mix and a very visible part."

Frank Verrastro, director of energy and national security for the Center for Strategic and International Studies: "There's been a change in the market. I don't want to characterize it as necessarily good or bad. There are new players. It's part of what we're calling the kind of--the new fundamentals, which used to be just supply, demand, and inventory. There's a lot more--it's a lot more complex market."

Horsnell: "We're reasonably happy with the supply-demand explanations as to where prices are and why they behave. There's not a big residual left over to be explained by something else."

Yergin: "Oil prices, gasoline prices are both up 20 percent since the U.N. issued its report about Iran's nuclear program. So I would not call it a speculative premium, I'd call it a risk premium or a security premium. But there is a premium that reflects this increased tension and anxiety in the market."

Verrastro: "I think that there is a premium in the market over and above finding development costs. I wouldn't attribute it all to speculation."

Horsnell: "If there was a large speculative premium, then prices would then be higher than a market price, which should mean that we'd be seeing large surpluses building up. People in the physical market will be asking for discounts because they want to play the proper physical price, not the inflated speculative price. What we actually see is in the international physical market today, in Brent, people paying large premiums to get their deliveries accelerated. It's quite the reverse. There is no global surplus building up. Instead, we have limited spare capacity. We've had eight straight quarters of global draws. We finally have a balanced market at this price. So I just think that it's incorrect to think in terms of speculative premium."

 

Creative Commons License

To subscribe or visit go to:  http://www.platts.com