It’d be a shame if oil prices fell too much.
OPEC+ on Monday agreed to tighten supplies just weeks after Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman bemoaned what he described as a “disconnect” between paper and physical markets. It’ll be the first cut in over a year.
Much like a September increase agreed last month amid pressure from the White House, the planned October cut appeared mostly symbolic. 100,000 barrels per day won’t move any needles, but it could send a message.
Generally speaking, the narrative around lower crude prices goes something like this. The outlook for global growth is deteriorating, Chinese demand is imperiled by Xi Jinping’s commitment to a draconian COVID containment policy which continues to manifest in sweeping lockdowns and a relentlessly stronger dollar is weighing on commodity prices.
For Riyadh, though, a broken market is contributing to a disparity between prices and fundamentals, and the Kingdom is apparently keen to at least signal that producers are prepared to “fix” the situation. Never mind the somewhat counterintuitive notion that the best way to address market functioning issues is with supply cuts.
Somewhat ironically, OPEC+ is eyeing some of the same fundamental factors cited by those who suggest lower prices simply reflect the worsening outlook. If Chinese demand is indeed set to wane and if Iranian barrels do come back to market as a result of a revised nuclear deal with the US, it’s possible prices could drop materially. With the memory of 2020’s collapse still fresh, the cartel and its allies want to avoid another deep swoon, even if developed markets struggling with high pump prices and importers coping with terms of trade shocks could most assuredly use the respite.
“The OPEC and non-OPEC Ministerial Meeting noted the adverse impact of volatility and the decline in liquidity on the current oil market and the need to support the market’s stability and its efficient functioning,” the group said, in a press release Monday, noting that this month’s token increase “was only intended for the month of September.”
“This decision is an expression of will that we will use all of the tools in our kit,” Prince Abdulaziz told Bloomberg. “The simple tweak shows that we will be attentive, preemptive and pro-active in terms of supporting the stability and the efficient functioning of the market.”
Saudi Aramco enjoyed a bumper profit during the second quarter, although really, “bumper” is insufficient to convey the sheer scope of the windfall. Exxon and Chevron raked in a combined $29.5 billion in net income during the period. That was (easily) a record. Aramco made almost $50 billion by itself (figure below).
No listed company on Earth reported a larger quarterly profit. Free cash flow was $34.6 billion.
As late as Sunday, Russia still opposed an output cut, according to sources who spoke to the Wall Street Journal. Moscow was reportedly worried about the signaling effect at a time when the Kremlin needs to preserve as much bargaining power as it can with whatever buyers it can find. In all likelihood, the small decrease was meant to respect those concerns while satisfying Riyadh’s desire to send a message. “Higher volatility and increased uncertainties require the continuous assessment of market conditions and a readiness to make immediate adjustments,” the cartel said.
Obviously, the White House won’t be pleased. Joe Biden and Mohamed Bin Salman have a frosty relationship if they have a relationship at all. By contrast, the Crown Prince and Vladimir Putin are brothers in autocracy, notwithstanding any acrimony that accompanied the short-lived (and extremely ill-timed) price war that preceded the onset of the pandemic in early 2020. The murder of Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 was the last straw for some US lawmakers already vexed at the Kingdom’s never-ending efforts to restore a friendly government in neighboring Yemen, where the Iran-backed Houthis have held out against the Saudi-led coalition for seven years (and counting). Yemen hosts the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, followed by Syria, Ukraine and Kim Jong Un’s hermit kingdom.
Donald Trump, with help from Jared Kushner, was mostly successful at convincing the Saudis to play along with his administration’s efforts to keep pump prices low, but it came at a cost: Trump was compelled to shield MBS from the Khashoggi outcry and run interference on Capitol Hill, where Congress was inclined to curtail the prince’s capacity to wage an offensive war with US weapons. Since then, the world has largely (and unfortunately) forgotten Khashoggi, and the frequency of cross-border Houthi attacks effectively makes the Saudis’ security case for the Kingdom. Although most Americans abhor the idea that the price of filling up their gas tanks is dictated by a thirtysomething Mideast royal, many of the same Americans have grown increasingly fond of authoritarians over the last six years, which unfortunately manifests in the glorification of MBS’s Biden snubs.
Rather than court the Court, as it were, Biden instead opted for SPR releases, coordinated with America’s friends around the globe, while simultaneously working to restore a nuclear deal with MBS’s sworn enemies in Tehran. He also kneecapped the prince’s ally in Moscow. That the latter effort entailed freezing Russia’s hard currency reserves was probably unnerving in Riyadh. After all, the Kingdom runs on a dollar peg and owes its wealth to a system that entails recycling dollar-denominated oil proceeds into the same kind of G7 claims the West froze in retaliation for Ukraine.
It’s exceptionally unlikely that relations between OPEC (let alone OPEC+, given that the “+” is basically just Russia) will improve over the near-term. If Biden wants concessions from the Saudis, he’ll need to force them, but just like every other problem this White House has correctly identified, the administration prefers a white-glove approach, a strategy that’s doomed to fail in a world where all of America’s adversaries and frenemies, both foreign and domestic, took the gloves off a long time ago.
Biden’s biggest problem may be what to do about a rogue former president who in a speech over the weekend loudly aligned himself with Team Autocracy.
“…both foreign and domestic”
Thank you. Much better.
Dick Cheney would probably sign off on just one more CIA ‘extraordinary rendition’ flight about now for a domestic frenemie.
I finally got around to watching “Vice” the other day.
H-Man, not sure about this but would Russia and China defend Saudi Arabia if it were attacked by Iran? Or do we become the hero because we want to control the oil?
Absolutely not. Iran is a Russian client state and a staunch military ally of the Kremlin. That alliance far outweighs cordial oil relations between Putin and MBS. Beijing and Tehran are likewise close. Saudi Arabia’s security is America’s purview.
“Saudi Arabia’s security is America’s purview.”
Why, though? Serious question.
I’ll attempt a serious answer. In the 1970s, the US had the world’s dominate military, a thirst for oil and a troubled currency that was no longer linked to gold. The Saudis had the world’s discount gas station. They could set the price of oil low and drive out competition or high and send the world into recession. We agreed to protect the House of Saud’s gas station and they agreed to only sell oil for US dollars that were then invested in the US. The US dollar became the world’s currency and the Saudis ruled their country without fear of enemies without or within. If Saudi Arabia started selling oil for Japanese yen, the dollar would be in trouble once again and without US protection, Iran would wipe out the House of Saud in a religious war. So, it’s a global protection racket jyl.
I agree that is what happened. I question why it should remain so.
The US is the #1 oil producer and should price rise to existential levels price controls are an option.
Even if there is a reason to remain in the protection racket business, what do racketeers do when “clients” start mouthing off and stop paying?
Good questions, my opinion…
“The US is the #1 oil producer and should price rise to existential levels price controls are an option.” The shale play that took us to #1 is no more than a Ponzi scheme. Drilling and fracking oil shale is very expensive and deliverers massive quantities of oil for a very short time. It’s not sustainable because the frackers have to keep borrowing and drilling due to the short production life of a fracked well. So, when the banks cut off the capital or OPEC cuts prices, the Ponzi scheme collapses and we #1 in bankrupt companies and abandoned wells. It does make for a convenient political talking point until gasoline prices go to $5+ and then we find out that the fracked oil has to be exported because we can’t refine it. Great! We gambled our aquafers, enriched the oil executives and financiers but we still have to import our oil at the global market price.
“…what do racketeers do when “clients” start mouthing off and stop paying?” They send in the jackals according to John Perkins’ ‘Confessions of an Economic Hit Man’ book.
We may not like the canoe we were born into but rocking the boat in rough water isn’t the solution. However, situational awareness is essential at all times. There, you have it, the opinion of an olde guy on the cusp of dementia.
Do a search on what weapon systems the Saudis are purchasing, which will tell you what companies are selling, and in what countries the selling companies are based.
“The World’s Energy Problem Is Far Worse Than We’re Being Told”
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Worlds-Energy-Problem-Is-Far-Worse-Than-Were-Being-Told.html