The real cause of high oil prices: an interview with James Hamilton

James Stafford: Whenever oil prices spike politicians are quick to blame speculators and oil companies for manipulating the markets. Are you in agreement with this - are speculators and oil companies to blame? Or are there other factors that are overlooked deliberately or otherwise by the mainstream media?

James Hamilton: The story is pretty simple, and even though politicians may try to distort it, you'd hope that the media would do a better job of reporting the truth than they have. World oil production was basically stagnant between 2005 and 2008, even though world GDP was up 17%. With economic growth like that you'd normally expect increased demand, particularly from the rapidly growing emerging economies, and in fact China did increase its consumption by a million barrels a day over these 3 years. But with no more oil being produced, that meant that the rest of us-- the U.S., Europe, Japan-- had to reduce our consumption. It took a pretty big price run-up before that happened. To those claiming the price is too high, I would ask, how high do you think the price had to go to persuade Americans to reduce oil consumption by a million barrels a day?

James Stafford: Could you let us know your thoughts on the shale revolution. How do you see it playing out and do you think we have been oversold on shale's potential?

James Hamilton: This is a real success story, and a primary reason that U.S. production is now rising rather than falling. But there are several key points to keep in mind. First, it is not cheap to produce oil with these methods-- tight oil is never going to be the reason we get back to $50/barrel. Second, we're likely to face much steeper production decline rates from individual wells than was the case for conventional oil production. The same also applies to deepwater production. So those who think these new technologies will put us back in the world we once knew are in my opinion missing the big picture.

James Stafford: Drilling technology advances, new oil finds and now all the hoopla over shale oil - one would assume we are swimming in the black stuff, yet we have seen no material increase in global annual crude oil production for six straight years. Have we reached a period of peak oil? Or is Daniel Yergin correct in saying that we have decades of further growth in production before flattening out into a plateau?

James Hamilton: I do not think the expression "peak oil" is the most helpful way to frame the question. Too many people have a knee-jerk reaction as soon as they hear the phrase. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people assume that it means that we're "running out of oil", which straw man they then try to debunk. I would instead call attention to the basic fact that the annual production flow from any given field shows an initial period of increase followed by subsequent decline. Anyone who tries to deny that has a serious lack of grip on reality. Production from the original Oil Creek District in Pennsylvania peaked in 1873, and from the state of Pennsylvania as a whole in 1891. There's a long, long list of areas that have exhibited declining production rates for a long, long time. Global production nonetheless continued to increase for a century and a half, not so much because we got more out of the old fields, old states, old countries, but because we turned to new ones. But that game is obviously not one we can continue to play forever.

Yes, Yergin today is optimistic about the future. But I remember that Yergin was also very optimistic in 2005, and the last 7 years have not looked at all like he was predicting they would. We've increased production only a little bit since 2005, despite tremendous incentives to do more. I think many people are making a mistake if they assume that world oil production is always going to increase, year after year.

James Stafford: What are your thoughts on the Keystone XL Pipeline - is it something that needs to be pushed through after the presidential elections? Or something the country can live without?

James Hamilton: It is ridiculous to see oil selling in Cushing at a $20 discount to the world price and oil in North Dakota selling at a $20 discount to WTI. Since the 1860s we understood that pipelines were the logical way to transport oil. Somehow the Keystone pipeline became a symbol of some bigger controversies that in my opinion should be completely separate from the question of the most economically efficient (and for that matter, the most environmentally friendly) way to transport oil.

There are several work-arounds in progress, such as reversal of the Seaway Pipeline and plans to build just the Gulf Coast portion of Keystone. But I think that given the magnitude of the drop in U.S. demand and success of North American production, we'll need additional measures.

James Stafford: How would you see energy production changing in the U.S. under a Romney Administration?

James Hamilton: Romney wants to be more aggressive in approving oil exploration and development, and that should make a difference. But it's easy for the politicians to overstate how much they can change. The U.S. is moving ahead with tight oil production, and is going to do so no matter who is the president, because the economic incentives are just too powerful for anybody to stop it. On the other hand, it's a big world out there, and anyone who thinks that U.S. production alone is going to make up for declines from mature fields and burgeoning consumption of emerging economies is in my opinion way too optimistic. The world faces a huge challenge, and I think we need to take that challenge very seriously.