The oil price Recoil油价反弹.doc

The oil price Recoil油价反弹May 29th 2008From The Economist print editionPainful though it is, this oil shock will eventually spur huge change. Beware the hunt for scapegoatsIN THE early 1970s a fourfold rise in the price of oil almost brought the world to a standstill. The shock of the Arab embargo left a deep mark in many countries: America subjected its cars to fuel-efficiency standards, France embraced nuclear powerthough sadly “energy-conscious fashion”, the inspiration for Japans fetching short-sleeved business suit, was ahead of its time.Thirty-five years on, oil prices have quadrupled again, briefly soaring to a peak of just over $135 a barrel. But, so far, this has been a slow-motion oil shock. If the Arab oil-weapon felt like a hammer-blow, this time stagnant oil output and growing emerging-market demand have squeezed the oil market like a vice. For almost five years a growing world shrugged it off. Only now is it recoiling in pain.This week French fishermen clogged up the port of Dunkirk and British lorry-drivers choked roads into London and Cardiff. Nicolas Sarkozy, Frances president, suggested subsidising the worst affected and curbing taxes on petrol; Britains beleaguered government is being pressed to forgo its tax increases on motorists. In America falling house prices have left consumers resentfuland short of money. Congress and presidential candidates have been drafting schemes and gas-tax holidays like so many campaign leaflets. Gordon Brown, Britains prime minister, thinks the big oil producers can be persuaded to come to the rescue. But only Saudi Arabia shows any enthusiasm for that. Elsewhere, output is growing agonisingly slowly. That is causing hardship and recrimination. But it could also come to represent an opportunity. The slow-motion shock seems irresistible today, but in time it will give rise to an equally unstoppable and more positive slow-motion reaction (see article).Action replay It is clear that high oil prices are hurting many economiesespecially in the rich world. Goldman Sachs reckons consumers are handing over $1.8 trillion a year to oil producers. The wage-price spiral of the 1970s has been avoided, but the income shock is painful. Beset by scarce credit, falling asset prices and costly food, developed-country households are hardly well-equipped to foot the oil bill. Americas emergency tax rebate, voted this year to help people cope with the credit crunch, has in effect been taken right away again. Stuck for answers, politicians have been looking for scapegoats. Top of the list are the speculators profiting from other peoples hardship. Some $260 billion is invested in commodity funds, 20 times the level of 2003. Surely all that hot money has supercharged the demand for oil? But that is plain wrong. Such speculators do not own real oil. Every barrel they buy in the futures markets they sell back again before the contract ends. That may raise the price of “paper barrels”, but not of the black stuff refiners turn into petrol. It is true that high futures prices could lead someone to hoard oil today in the hope of a higher price tomorrow. But inventories are not especially full just now and there are few signs of hoarding.If the speculators are not to blame, what about the oil companies, which have failed to increase output in spite of record profits? Profiteering, say some. However, that accusation doesnt stand up to much scrutiny either. The oil price is set in a market. For Shell, Exxon et al to hoard oil underground would be to leave billions of dollars of investment languishing unused. Others fear that oil is pricey because it is running out. But there is little evidence to support the doctrine of “peak oil” in its extreme form. The Middle East still seems to contain a sea of the stuff. Even if new finds elsewhere have been rarer and less accessible than in the past, vast quantities of oil could now be profitably stripped from tar sands and shale. The truth is more prosaic. Finding and developing new oil fields is an expensive and time-consuming business. The giant new fields in the deep water off Brazil are unlikely to produce oil for a decade or more. Furthermore, oil is perverse. When prices are low, oil-rich countries welcome the low-cost, high-tech and well-capitalised oil firms. When prices are high, countries like Russia and Venezuela kick them out again. Likewise the engineers, survey ships and seismic rigs that oil firms need to find and produce new deposits are expensive right now. The costs of finding oil have, temporarily, doubled precisely because everybody wants to give them work. Hope at the bottom of the barrelSo the oil shock will take time to abate. Some greens may welcome that, seeing three-figure oil as a way of limiting greenhouse emissions. Conservation will indeed increase. But everything high prices achieve could be done better by sensible carbon taxes. As well as curbing oil use, high prices have put tar sands in business which create far more carbon dioxide than conventional oil. Profits are going to ugly oil-fed regimes, not Western exchequers. And the wild unpredictability of prices will blunt the effect of dear oil on peoples behaviour.From this perspective, governments should speed up the adjustmentor at least stop delaying it. Half the worlds people are sheltered from fuel prices by subsidieswhich, perversely, have boosted demand and mostly benefited the better off. Now countries like Indonesia, Taiwan and Sri Lanka have begun to realise that they can ill afford this. Cutting fuel taxes in the rich world makes no sense either (see article). There are better ways to return cash to struggling voters. The 1970s showed how demand and supply, inelastic in the short run, eventually give rise to conservation and new production. When all those new fields are on-stream, when the SUVs have been sold and the boilers replaced, the downcycle will take hold. By then the slow-motion oil shock could have catalysed momentous change. Right now motorists have no substitute for oil. But it is no coincidence that car companies are suddenly accelerating their plans to sell electric hybrids that are far cheaper to run than petrol or diesel cars at these prices. The first two oil shocks banished oil from power generation. How fitting if the third finished the job and began to free transport from oils century-long monopoly.早在20世纪70年代，石油价格四倍的上涨几乎让整个世界经济停滞。对阿拉伯世界禁运的冲击给很多国家打上了深深的烙印：美国开始出台节能型汽车标准，法国则求助于核能尽管是郁闷的“能源意识改革”，日本则用迷人的短袖商业灵感（我的理解是：节能型商业运作模式）来适应，这些都算是走在了时代的前列。35年来，石油价格又翻了四番，最近竟然达到几近135美元一桶的高峰。但是，即便如此，这已经是一个慢动作的石油冲击了。如果阿拉伯世界的石油武器是一 个重锤，那这个时期石油产出的停滞和新兴市场逐渐增加的需求已像一个老虎钳挤压着石油市场。在5年多的时间里不断发展的世界经济已经将石油这个问题甩开。 但现在他却又一次给世界经济带来伤痛。这个星期法国渔民在敦刻尔克港口集会，英国卡车司机将通往伦敦和加的夫道路堵塞。法国总统萨科奇建议要平息（油价上涨带来的）最坏的影响并停止对石油征 税；英国饱受围攻的政府正承受着是否要放弃对摩托车驾驶者征税的压力。在美国，下跌的房屋价格让消费者满腹怨恨而且处于缺钱的状态。议会和总统的候选人已 经起草相关议案和汽油税收假期就好像许多战时的传单一般。英国总统戈登布朗认为应该要求最大的石油生产国出面营救。但是仅仅只有沙特阿拉伯对此有所回应。在其他地方，产量还是增长的让人郁闷的慢。这就造成了困境 和相互诘难。同时这也提供了一个时机。慢动作的冲击在今天看来是不可避免的，但是他却及时地产生了同等的不能停止的和更加积极的慢动作反应的行为。毋庸置疑高油价将损坏很多经济体-特别是发达国家。高盛计算消费者一年要消耗1.8万亿美元的石油产品。现在能避免20世纪70年代出现的工资物价螺旋上 涨现象，但收入冲击仍然非常痛苦。由于受到信贷不足、下降的资产价格和高昂的食品价格的困扰，发达国家居民已经很难去坦然地支付他们的油价账单。美国今年 提出的用以帮助人民解决信贷危机为目的的紧急税收折扣方案又一次做对了路。胶着于找出解决方案，政治家正在寻找替罪羊。居于名单首列的就是那些发灾难财的投机分子。2600亿美元投资在了商品基金上，这是2003年水平的20 倍。很自然地可以认为正是这些热钱推动了对石油的需求。但这却是个错误的看法。这些投机者不拥有真正的石油。他们在期货市场上购买的每一桶石油他们又会在 合约结束之前再卖回来。这可能会提高“纸石油”的价格，但并不能提高变成石油的那些黑色原料精炼器的价格。当然，高的石油期货价格可能导致今天有些人将石 油囤积起来以期望未来卖个更高的价钱。但目前存货并没有特别的充足且鲜少有囤积的迹象。如果投机者没有什么好谴责的，那么那些不顾创记录的高利润就是不提高石油产量的石油公司呢？有些人会说他们是为了暴利，但实际上这种谴责是经不起考察的。 石油价格是由市场决定的。对于壳牌，埃克森等石油公司囤积石油在地下无异于将数亿计的美元投资放置不用。另一些人会担心石油价格昂高是因为它快耗尽了。但 是却很少有证据支持在其极端形态中“顶峰石油”的理论。中东仍是石油的海洋。即使在其他地方发现石油的可能性变得很稀少，也比过去更难以达到。大量的石油 还是能够通过焦油和页岩大量开采出来。事实总是很平淡不奇。找到并开发一处新油田是一个既昂贵又耗时的工作。在巴西沿岸深海下巨大的新油