Cheaper Petrol And Gas In 2009!

Perhaps oil prices will bounce back up, but it'll be impossible for exporters to maintain higher oil prices when we want to buy less. That could mean lower energy prices for all of us next year.
Everything is connected to everything else, Einstein once said. (I believe Karl Marx also said this, which is unfortunate. Colleague David Kuo* and several readers have called me a communist once or twice two often in recent years. Bah!)
That's why there's always some good news to find amongst the bad. Not only are our bank balances (and our banks) affected by the financial crisis, but so also are oil prices. As you'll have no doubt read, oil prices have tumbled dramatically over the past few months from a high around $150 a barrel to $70 per barrel. Extraordinary.
A bounce for oil prices?
Prices might bounce back up, particularly with the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) looking to reduce the number of barrels of oil it produces. As there will be less oil to buy, the price should receive a boost.
Furthermore, our Government and perhaps some others seem to want to borrow yet more money to spend on boosting our economies. This might cause the oil price to rise too, temporarily, because with more money in the economy we'll have more to spend on oil. We've seen this happen in very recent history. Just last September, when the US announced a huge financial bailout, oil prices rose by a record $16 in one day to around $125.
Would an oil-price bounce last?
However, since that one-day in September, oil prices have again fallen, as I said, to around $70. The effect of the US government's announcement was short-lived.
As for OPEC controlling prices, the thing is that some of these oil-producing countries need to sell lots of oil at high prices to balance their budgets. If they cut production too far they'll be selling at a higher price, but they won't be selling enough. I'd imagine that could cause divisions at next week's OPEC meeting.
With prices having fallen, some funds (called hedge funds) that have been buying oil in the belief that prices will rise and they can sell at a profit, have probably already sold. This will have impacted the oil price already. However, it's likely that yet more hedge funds will call it quits, too. As they sell more and more, this could further reduce the price of oil. The size of the effect depends on how much oil they have bought and how much they sell in the next months.
It's all because we're spending less
I'm no oil expert, so I can't predict what OPEC will do, nor can I guess how much oil hedge funds have bought, or how much they'll sell. However, this is not so important. The most important factor right now is that, for the next year or three, the world is going to buy less stuff.
I'm sure you're all aware that none of us have much spare money right now, so we consumers are already buying less petrol. What's more, we'll be buying less in the shops. This means shops will sell less stuff. If they sell less, then they'll buy fewer materials too, including petrol for transport. If both companies and people are buying less petrol, the price of oil will naturally come down.
So the oil price could stay closer to $70 rather than $150 over the next couple of years.
What could that mean for us?
In the next few weeks we should see petrol come down further in price, led by the supermarkets.
Gas prices are linked to the price of oil. This link is increasingly less relevant, so it's likely that gas exporters will want to disconnect it further if oil prices keep falling as we expect. In the meantime though, we should see falls filter through to our utility bills in around six months. Not in time for winter, but a reduction nevertheless. Hooray!
Sadly, electricity always lags several months even further behind. What's more, we still haven't had an increase as a result of the high oil prices earlier this year. Therefore we could well see electricity prices rise before we see them fall again.
What do I think of capped energy tariffs now?
I've voiced my scepticism about capped tariffs several times this year. The initial, higher price that you pay might easily offset any gains you make in the future if oil prices rise. I'd certainly say that right now you should think even harder before getting a capped tariff.
These are just for people who not only can afford the higher initial cost, but also need the certainty that the price won't rise higher. Most people would be better off getting the cheapest variable tariff they can find.
*Compared to David, everyone is a communist.
> Develop the revolution, improve production and labour, get ready for war, and do every aspect of work well. If that doesn't suit you comrade, compare gas and electricity prices, and switch.
Most Recent
Comments
-
Like most people, I'm happy to see the reduction in crude oil prices and the corresponding decrease in fuel prices at the pump.[br/][br/]However, I was always cynical when the crude oil price doubled within 12 months, coincidentally this happended at the time that the US (and the UK) property bubble burst, and a great amount of money was chasing the next 'get rich quick' bubble. I'm sure a lot of traders / investers in oil companies made a few quid out of this 'mini bubble'.[br/][br/]I don't profess to be being any kind of economic expert, however, I've heard and read so much rubbish about the state and direction of various markets since the inception of the credit crunch, that a little common sense and logic can dispel most media stories as headline grabbing sensationalism. [br/][br/]With regard to oil prices, the only question I still have is - Are we being ripped off for diesel in the UK. 2 years ago when unleaded was a similar price, diesel typically cost 2p/litre more, now it's 12p. Whilst I appreciate that a greater proportion of cars sales have been diesel rather than petrol in recent times, thus adjusting supply/demand requirements for both types of fuels, is an extra 10p differential truly representative of the actual pump cost, especially as there is no difference in taxation ???
REPORT This comment has been reported. -
REgarding petrol prices at our local sainsburys tonbridge it is 96 a litre, but for how long one must wonder!
REPORT This comment has been reported. -
On the IPCC Climate Models: if the models are getting so close to reality, why did they fail to predict the current static GAT over the past decade (ref Prof Carter, JC University, Quennsland and even the Met Office disciples)? Why did the hot spots at tropical latitudes, a signature of all IPCC climate models, fail to materialise (ref Douglass et al published in the Journal of Climatology, RMS, 2007).[br/][br/]If you believe that fewer science and technology based professionals oppose man-made climate change theory, then why did only 4,000 sign the original Oregon Petition but 31,000 (including 9,000 with doctorates)sign the latest Oregon petition?[br/][br/]Food for thought along with Drs Broeker and Singer who show that the proportionally tiny effect that anthropogenic emissions have on greenhouse could not possibly drive the global climatic system. There are far more viable theories relating to natural causes. A number of NRSP members are IPCC Expert Reviewers. It is well worth looking at the work of the Non-governmental Panel on Climate Change (SEPP and NRS based)along with the book published earlier this year 'An Appeal to Reason' by Lord Lawson. [br/][br/]One has to remember that the TOR of the IPCC were never to 'investigate probable cause' of Climate Change, merely to sustain the MMCC theory, demonstrate consequences and thus discard any natural theory evidence presented.[br/][br/]On the comparison of projected lifetime costs of sustainable coal and gas vs so called renewables, the money we part with today is what really will cost us dearly before any longer term benefits can ease the pain. However, I agree that up to 10% windpower is not a problem as long as we do not see that as the panacea. The NGC shows around this sort of figure coming on-stream in the medium to long term. We do not have the topography or climate to sustain much more hydro power so wind is not going to meet the energy gap. Nuclear is of course a prudent answer as you suggested. I don't see wave power on the table at all in the current build commitments for NGC.[br/][br/]With the UK only contributing 2% to world greenhosue emissions, it is futile to think we could alter climate anyway with the vast increases in fossil fuelled plant in China and India. If you add up the amount of renewable energy that we in the OECD countries will provide through Kyoto/Carbon Trading (UN IPCC CDMs), it will provide no more than a reduction equivalent to about 10 to 15% of the UK's emissions but we are paying dearly for yet another futile exercise in this 'King Canute' mythology of averting climate change.
REPORT This comment has been reported.
Do you want to comment on this article? You need to be signed in for this feature
26 October 2008