Cafe Hayek: Why prices rise

« Lentil stew for everyone! | Main | None of the State's Business» Don Boudreaux

May 22, 2008

Why prices rise

Russell Roberts

Steve Mufson at the Washington Post is bewitched, bothered, and bewildered about why oil prices keep rising. The headline:

Skyrocketing Oil Prices Stump Experts

The article begins:

Confused about oil prices? So are the experts.

Executives from the giant oil companies say it's partly the fault of "speculators" or financial players. Key financial players say it's really a question of limited supply and expanding global demand. Some members of Congress accuse the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries for bottling up some of its production capacity. And OPEC blames speculators, wasteful U.S. consumers and feckless U.S. policy.

Almost everyone points at China's growing appetite for fuel.

Whatever the causes, one of the most dizzying runs in the history of oil prices picked up pace yesterday -- again -- as crude oil prices jumped to settle at more than $133 a barrel, up $4.19 in one day, 18 percent so far this month and more than one-third so far this year. Prices climbed even higher in late electronic trading.

After a few paragraphs explaining the impacts of the higher prices, the Post quotes an expert who does have a theory:

But the bigger question is: What has been driving the doubling of prices over the past year even as U.S. demand has stagnated and global output has continued without any major new disruption?

"The basic story that has brought oil from $20 to $130 dollars is that world demand is growing robustly when world supply is not," argued Jeffrey Rubin, chief economist of CIBC World Markets. "As a result, we need ever-higher world oil prices to kill demand in the [industrialized countries], which is exactly what's happening."

While U.S. demand has leveled off, Rubin said, demand in China is growing at a 12 percent rate, more than the 8 percent rate he forecast. While the extra increase in China is probably because of short-term factors, such as the earthquake or hoarding by the government in preparation for the Olympics, Rubin said even the lower rate would keep world demand growing briskly.

Hmmm. Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? Rubin doesn't seem stumped. I'm not sure why this article was written. I think the author wants one reason. China. Speculation. Greed. (Or more accurately, an increase in greed.) But the simplest explanation is that world demand is growing briskly and world supply is not as responsive.

If we want low gas prices, we should lower the costs of exploration and refining. If lowering those costs has environmental costs you don't like, stop complaining and get on your bicycle.

Posted by Russell Roberts in Energy, Prices | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e55286fedc8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why prices rise:

Comments

How much of a $4 gallon of gas is the result of our government?

Well, the dollar is down more than 30%. There is $1.20.

Direct gas taxes, corporate taxes, income taxes on oil labor & sales tax probably come to about $1.20.

Invading one of the largest oil producers, overthrowing their government & leaving the area in a state of anarchy. Hmm, what's that done, I'll say 40 cents?

How about ANWAR, the Pacific & Atlantic coasts, oil shale in the Rocky's & every other energy source the government won't let them tap. It's tough to bring product to market when the government makes it inaccessible. How about 30 cents for that.

That's $3.10.

So, take away the government's role, & you've got gas about 90 cents a gallon.

Posted by: kebko | May 22, 2008 5:31:47 PM

Russ --

You're killing me, here. I think Mike Munger needs to come up and slap you around a bit. If I've learned anything from listening to EconTalk, it's that price is a signal. "We" don't really have to "do" anything to drive down oil prices. We just have to wait and people, working under the price incentive, will figure it out.

They're already starting: there are conversion kits that will let you run your car on restaurant grease. Sales of SUVs have dried up, and sales of tiny cars are way up. Those people who are buying new homes are seriously taking driving distances into account.

In 3 years, we'll all look back and laugh. The fools will credit either President McCain or President Obama. The rest of us will just revel in capitalism.

Posted by: Chris | May 22, 2008 5:47:17 PM

Kebko: do you have data that supports any of that? It seems to me, for example, that taxes would add no more than 50¢ to the gallon, depending on which state you live in. The fall of the dollar is not due solely to the Federal Reserve, and even if it were, you'd be only counting one side of the ledger to ignore the gains from rate cuts. The amount of oil underneath ANWR is miniscule compared to worldwide oil demand--using all of it would probably provide us with no more than 3 months of oil total, putting us back in the same position in a couple months time, but with a huge gash in our natural resources.

Consider the recent ad in several national newspapers, that explained how ~72% of the money from a gallon of gas goes to the production of crude oil.

Further, by subsidizing substitutes to oil like ethanol, the government is mitigating demand and actually reducing the price of gas to some extent as well. While ethanol subsidies are of course a bad idea, don't forget to count that effect on gas prices as well.

Finally, considering all the externalities associated with the consumption of oil (pollution, funding of terrorism, etc.), it seems to me that higher fuel prices are a good thing, and most economists agree.

Posted by: brian | May 22, 2008 6:53:36 PM

Quote from brian: "The amount of oil underneath ANWR is miniscule compared to worldwide oil demand--using all of it would probably provide us with no more than 3 months of oil total, putting us back in the same position in a couple months time, but with a huge gash in our natural resources."

This is like some kind of environmentalist mantra. If they keep saying it enough times, then it will be true.

And ethanol subsidies are bad, but we should keep putting food into out vehicles no matter how much it costs, simply because it's not oil.

Environmentalism is so devoid of logic and reason that it's truly amazing.

Posted by: Keith | May 22, 2008 8:59:40 PM

On the other hand, when talking of ethanol and the knock-on rise in food prices - think how much worse it could be if ethanol was efficient.

Posted by: Gil | May 22, 2008 9:23:08 PM

Oil at $120/barrel is the best thing that could happen. Read why here.

The summary is :

1) Technological innovation accelerates
2) OPEC countries consume more and more, reducing their ability to export (and thus fund nefarious activities).
3) $120 is a price tolerable to the US and global economies.

Go much higher than $120, however, and while 1) and 2) happen even faster, 3) no longer holds.

Posted by: GK | May 22, 2008 9:23:50 PM

ANWR, when first proposed, was expected to produce about a million barrels per day. That's alittle over 1% of worldwide consumption and 5% of US consumption. That's a significant amount to keep out of production.

Posted by: Corky Boyd | May 22, 2008 9:29:32 PM

Why is any US official asking Saudi Arabia to supply more oil ....... instead of asking the United States of America to supply more oil?

This is progress?? - - taking the dependency mindset, which has developed at the level of our citizenry, and extending that mindset to the level our nation.

Posted by: LarryH | May 22, 2008 9:57:18 PM

addendum to my earlier post:

ANWR estimated reserves are 10.5 billion barrels. At 120/bbl, that's $1.26 trillion. It's also $1.26 trillion we don't have to spend with Hugo Chavez.

Posted by: Corky Boyd | May 22, 2008 10:07:06 PM

Brian: Further, by subsidizing substitutes to oil like ethanol, the government is mitigating demand and actually reducing the price of gas to some extent as well. While ethanol subsidies are of course a bad idea, don't forget to count that effect on gas prices as well.

Was that supposed to be a joke, Brian? Since it takes as much energy to create ethanol as the energy output of ethanol, the net effect on gas price is exactly zero. So, factoring in a zero net impact is pretty easy. It's zero.

The effect on food prices is another story altogether. Thanks to ethanol, you pay no less to fill up your tank but you pay a lot more to feed your kids.

I've been out of the oil industry too long to comment on how much recoverable oil there is in ANWR. However, I do know that Kebko also mentioned shale oil and there's more shale oil in the Rockies than there is in Saudi Arabia. It just didn't become economic until the oil price exceeded $40/bbl. Which brings us to another very relevant point: the amount of recoverable reserves is a function of technology (which both reduces the cost of production and enables us to recover from previously unrecoverable fields) and oil price. At $20/bbl there may be a million recoverable barrels of oil in a field. At $130/bbl, there may be tens of millions of barrels. So, when you say that the amount of oil in ANWR is "minuscule", what price are you using to calculate that three month supply? Are you factoring in secondary and tertiary recovery? And are you considering that ANWR is not the only field in which we are not allowed to drill?

Posted by: Methinks | May 22, 2008 10:58:30 PM

Nearly everything you read in the “popular” (dead print journalism) press is wrong about this subject.

Oil prices have risen because of multivariate market factors, the two largest being supply and demand. Others include government subsidies to substitutes, tariffs, geopolitical events, and fickle market sentiment.

China, alone, has doubled their oil consumption approximately every 10 years (exponential growth).

Speculation is not a factor, especially in oil futures: futures contracts are created at time of trade – there is no set “float” on the number of futures contracts at any single time, unlike traditional equities where the number of shares outstanding is fixed by the company at time of issue.

Any time you read a press story about how many trading desks have entered the futures markets, or how volume has increased dramatically in oil futures, you should immediately dismiss that story as disinformation. It is factually incorrect.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | May 22, 2008 11:03:39 PM

Corky,

sorry. I answered Brian before I read your posts. Do you happen to know what price was used to calculate the 10.5 billion barrels reserve estimate?

You just have to love how the same jack-offs who are preventing more supply from reaching the market, are demanding oil execs explain why prices are high. One of these days those oil boys are going to lose lose their patience and come in to testify with a supply/demand graph tattooed on their foreheads.

Posted by: Methinks | May 22, 2008 11:05:15 PM

Regarding the cost of gas and government, I used to live in Chicago where about 20% of the cost was in taxes. It was even worse with the telephone bills.

Posted by: David P. Graf | May 22, 2008 11:07:57 PM

[high 5 to Methinks, again]

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | May 22, 2008 11:12:32 PM

Russ, is it possible to quantify how much oil price is driven by supply and demand, vs speculation, greed, and the debasing of the dollar? If not, then how could anyone claim anything about the price of oil?

Posted by: thinktwice | May 22, 2008 11:26:01 PM

I’ll field that one.

Define speculation and greed.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | May 22, 2008 11:39:00 PM

"Oil prices have risen because of multivariate market factors, the two largest being supply and demand. Others include government subsidies to substitutes, tariffs, geopolitical events, and fickle market sentiment."

Where is the data? Show us the model.

Posted by: thinktwice | May 22, 2008 11:48:12 PM

Easier question: what is intrinsic value of oil currently?

That is what you are really asking, and the answer is $135/bbl oil.

Tough shit you don’t like it, but that’s the correct answer right now, given current market conditions, current delivery and refinery problems, and the big picture.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | May 22, 2008 11:50:37 PM

Where is [sic] the data?

Right here.

I have no model, and I don’t play one on TV.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | May 22, 2008 11:55:58 PM

government oil consumption data? Is that enough to set prices?

Posted by: thinktwice | May 23, 2008 12:23:48 AM

International Petroleum (Oil) Consumption

Learn how to read.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | May 23, 2008 12:27:02 AM

Methinks

Here is the source for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANWR_Drilling

It is from a 1998 USCG study and covers not only the 1002 area but native lands and state waters within 3 miles of the coast (drillable from land). The cost factor used was in 1996 constant dollars of $40/bbl.

There is a minor discrepency. One portion of the article showed 10.4 billion barrels mean estimate, the other 10.5. I used the 10.5 since the total value calculations were done with that figure.

Posted by: Corky Boyd | May 23, 2008 12:41:36 AM

But will they have the Rockefeller promoted "self compositing" toilets?

Posted by: William Leitold | May 23, 2008 1:39:36 AM

Worse, by taking money from us to provide those subsidies, our ability to purchase fuel is impacted negatively.

Posted by: Sam Grove | May 23, 2008 2:03:24 AM

I'm surprised so few people mention the falling dollar as a major contributor to rising oil prices. Certainly not the only factor, but a major one. In my opinion, the devalued dollar and increased demand in China and India fully explain the price of oil.

Posted by: Matt Hicks | May 23, 2008 7:52:27 AM

There is a simple reason the Saudis have their production levels set where they are: They make the most money at this level.

If they were to raise output, the unit price would drop and they would, in effect, be giving away the excess. They'd lose in the short run.

If they were to decrease output, the world's incentive to find alternative oil, and alternative energy, would accelerate and they'd lose in the long run.

Posted by: True_Liberal | May 23, 2008 9:04:27 AM

You know what? I would start by firing all those in the International Energy Agency not capable of coming up with some advanced notice on the evident crunch.

I say “evident” because even though I am no oil man as a former Executive Director of the World Bank I am on the record back in 2003 and 2004 saying that I found it absolutely crazy to see Country Assistance Strategies being presented to the board without a single word on the energy strategy... in a world where so many were going over from bicycles to motorcycles to cars and that could foreseeable place oil at $100.

This oil at $130 is first and foremost a Katrina type mismanagement of a foreseeable disaster. When as decade ago the price of oil was $10 dollars per barrel and pundits writing 5$ dollars in its future you should have been able to smell a disaster.

Posted by: Per Kurowski | May 23, 2008 9:40:48 AM

Per, nice resume, but nearly entirely irrelevant.

What do the World Bank, IMF, Kmart, Steven Spielberg, Barack Obama, a Philips head screwdriver, and 10 pounds of ground beef have in common?

Answer: none of them can “manage” supply and demand/market forces. Stating that this is somehow “foreseeable” is 1) laughable and 2) obnoxious.

It was certainly predictable (I bought energy complex instruments back in 2006), but preventable? Sorry, no soup for you…..

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | May 23, 2008 10:03:02 AM

And why do you view oil as some sort of entitlement Per? I’m very puzzled by this attitude….

I'm sincerely curious about your reasoning here.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | May 23, 2008 10:11:09 AM

Matt Hicks --

True. $130 oil today is $107 oil in 2006 or $74 in 2001. (Just comparing with the Euro) The rest of the world is not feeling the pinch as much as we are. Well, except China, which is still pegged to the Dollar.

Of course, US demand for oil at $74 is presumably higher, so those aren't real prices.

Posted by: Chris | May 23, 2008 12:14:20 PM

Re. energy cost of ethanol. Has something changed recently? Last I heard, it cost more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than you got out of it.

Posted by: JC | May 23, 2008 12:56:15 PM

Mesa Econoguy - I think we see things very similarly but would argue a technicality on your above quote. Oil prices have risen because of two factors - supply and demand. The other factors you mention (and the speculation and greed that Thinktwice mentions) are determinants of supply and demand. It is really very simple - and predictable and not preventable. And thanks for pointing out that there is both a buyer and a seller for every "speculative" contract.

Posted by: ps | May 23, 2008 2:26:56 PM

Corky's oil shale takes not only technology, but water and natural gas to extract from the rocks. Water isn't exactly an abundant resource in Colorado, and natural gas production is declining in the United States.

Technology needs energy to function. Without energy, there is no technology.

Posted by: Fritz | May 23, 2008 3:12:45 PM

Hey, Mesa!

Thanks for the numbers, Corky. So, this means that ANWR reserves are calculated on a price which is less than 1/3 the current price. There could very well be much more oil there now (assuming that not all the oil was recoverable at the 1998 price).

Posted by: Methinks | May 23, 2008 4:29:02 PM

Fritz,

If you don't mind my butting in....

It's true that shale is neither permiable nor porous and that makes the hydrocarbons much more expensive to lift. It requires fracturing the rock and flushing it out with water and maybe other techniques (on which I'm no expert).

When I was an oil analyst in the mid-90's, shale oil required $40/bbl market price to be economic. Albatross, a frequent poster here and much closer to the business of late than I am, informs me that that price has dropped due to advances in technology.

While it's true that water, etc. is required to lift that oil, that's all factored into to the price of recovery. Given this, why wouldn't you lift for $37/bbl and sell for $135/bbl?

Posted by: Methinks | May 23, 2008 4:35:09 PM

True Liberal,

There is a simple reason the Saudis have their production levels set where they are: They make the most money at this level.

Right on. The Saudis are masters of that! Petroleum accounts for something like 98% of the country's GDP. The oil ministry hires only the very best, brightest and most educated to maximize revenue by controlling supply (we can debate how effective they are, but that's not the point). This is in their best interest. What makes people think they would suddenly break with the natural human behaviour of acting in one's own self interest? Crazy.

Posted by: Methinks | May 23, 2008 4:43:00 PM

Fritz

I don't recall posting on shale here, but maybe I did. Congress took shale off the table recently, no development at all. I haven't followed shale that closely, but when I did in the 70s in situ retorting was the technology that held the most promise, which didn't use much water. The point to be made is congress has taken it off the table totally no matter what technology is used. The feds grant water permits on federal lands, they allow water to be used in Wyoming coal extraction. They withheld them when a coal slurry pipeline was being proposed. They can and do use judgement. But elimating all research and low level development no matter what is short sighted.

It's not just shale, it's that everything is off limits now, whether it's Cape Wind, a lease that was sold in the 70's that the government renegged on, all outer continental shelf areas except Texas and Lousiana and grandfathered areas of california. It was proposed that 80 miles offshore of Florida's gulf coast be opened. It would be serviced out of Lousiana.

35 years ago the oil companies were accused of capping wells to raise the price, now it's congrss doing the same thing.

We get what we deserve, very high oil prices. There are consequences. Air travel will be unaffordable shortly. Most of the legacy carriers will be out of business. No business model for them tolerates sustained $135 oil. They can't use ethanol. They can't use hydrogen. Only spec Jet A or B.

I am surprised the airline unions aren't pushing those in Congress who are killing their jobs. Perhaps they are. They should.

Time to be reasonable.

Posted by: Corky Boyd | May 23, 2008 10:47:39 PM

Corky,

Great points. Let's remember that this train left the tracks when the party that opposes nuclear, natural gas, coal, oil, and hydro took power in 2006.

Democrats have opposed every single source of abundant energy available to the United States for at least thirty years. When solar power becomes economically viable as a primary source of energy, bet the farm that environmentalists/Democrats will 'discover' a reason why it's a danger to the planet.

Posted by: brotio | May 24, 2008 1:08:36 AM

"It was certainly predictable (I bought energy complex instruments back in 2006), but preventable? Sorry, no soup for you…"
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | May 23, 2008

Absolutely preventable! Where were the consumers willing to commit to a floor in the oil prices in order to have their prices capped and so help to support the oil investments that were needed?

But why should consumers worry about a cap when what was discussed was the lack of a floor?

Posted by: Per Kurowski | May 24, 2008 1:02:28 PM

Absolutely preventable! Where were the consumers willing to commit to a floor in the oil prices in order to have their prices capped and so help to support the oil investments that were needed?
Posted by: Per Kurowski

Um, what?

Why (and how) do you “cap” (or put a floor under) oil prices?

You seem not to understand market economics, Per. You could put floors and ceilings on prices all day long, and somewhere, that price intervention will be absorbed/reflected.

Price controls do not work. They never have.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | May 24, 2008 1:56:38 PM

“Price controls do not work. They never have.”
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | May 24, 2008 1:56:38 PM

This is not about price controls...indeed they never work. This is about consumers and oil extractors entering into some voluntary long term contracts at prices that make sense for both sides and that permit easier investments taking out part of the volatility in the market.

Posted by: Per Kurowski | May 24, 2008 2:05:09 PM

I cannot follow your logic here. I believe your reasoning to be flawed.

If you are arguing that not enough exploration/R&D was done by oil companies, I think that fails the smell test. What could have been done to expand supply is lift Congressional restrictions on drilling.

The costs of these projects are built into the price of oil; artificially inflating this price in hopes of expanding future supply would not prevent what we are currently seeing here. As the price of oil goes up, other substitutes (oil sands, solar, wind, etc.) become more economically attractive.

Unfortunately, I have to step away, but this post could easily be 6 – 7 pages long.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | May 24, 2008 2:29:40 PM

pk: "This is about consumers and oil extractors entering into some voluntary long term contracts at prices that make sense for both sides and that permit easier investments taking out part of the volatility in the market."

I believe a mechanism like this has existed for some time. It's called the stock market. You want to make it easier for big oil to invest, buy their stock. Capital ratio strengthens, easier to fund new investment.

Posted by: Name | May 24, 2008 6:04:39 PM

name: "I believe a mechanism like this has existed for some time. It's called the stock market."

And more appropriately the futures market. These markets existed and oil consumers and producers used them. Yet the futures market did not predict the run up we have seen. Of course if it had the spot price would have risen sooner and development of alternative energy sources would be further along. Let's be happy the "speculators" (who take blame from many quarters for the price increase) are making development of alternative energy sources economic. I much prefer that speculators (and the consumers and producers) be "setting" prices than the government. Did the consumers and producers miss the "predictable" trend 5 years ago? Yes, was it preventable if the government had done something? Well maybe but if the government had gotten it right then (and if Per or Mesa were making the call they would have) it would have been random luck. The government will usually not do better than the market - they just don't have the same skin in the game. Sure, you can point to examples where the government outguessed the market but can you point to a government-centered economy that has consistently out performed a market-centered economy?

Posted by: ps | May 25, 2008 9:28:15 PM

A question I have not been able to find an answer to is "if you take into account the volume of crude oil that is actually produced and sold (not futures contracts) along with the prices that it is transacted at (including all the contracted prices which may be well below current spot prices), what is the current weighted average price of crude and what would a time series of that weighted average price look like?"

Posted by: ps | May 25, 2008 10:04:03 PM

No one knows why prices go up. Just as in a supermarket it is impossible to tell why the public will pay 30% more for carrots in a week, the same is true for oil. The economic forces driving price of oil or carrots up are interrelated, complex, and CANNOT be determined. Price though is an objective indicator of where buyers and sellers are both happy to transact-and speculators are included in this group.

Price going up is a good thing for energy investors (for you investors out there-the ETF is XLE). Price is the best way to read from the world that more resources (capital and labor) need to be put towards discovering oil or substitutes.

-Sanjay
www.sanjayjohn.com

Posted by: Sanjay Gandhi | May 26, 2008 12:26:51 AM

Who are you people? Pay attention:

1) Prices incorporate information,

2) This information includes futures, plus spot prices.

Sorry, Name is correct here; the stock mkt predicts (rather innacurately) roughly 6 months out, futures are as published (esp front-month contracts).

Our expectations of oil prices have increased somewhat dramatically. Historical VWAP of spot crude would probably be smooth, and meaningless.

EIA published demand numbers (see above) are far more relevant here....

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | May 26, 2008 3:21:49 AM

As I promised to Per, on his previous post:

Absolutely preventable! Where were the consumers willing to commit to a floor in the oil prices in order to have their prices capped and so help to support the oil investments that were needed?

Per, here’s why you should hire me:

1) Wrong. There was zero way to prevent this runup in oil. China has doubled it’s oil consumption every decade since 1990 (exponential). It will surpass us next decade, because China contains 1/6th of the planetary population. China has zero domestic oil supply.

2) Floor: impossible: there is no way to induce private investment unless return is amenable. Oil sucked for 30 years (see below).

3) The oil investments “that were needed” were made: return on investment for the oil industry was the highest of the past 20 years: Oil sucked for 30 years; now its back (and half-government-induced).

Per, there is no way whatsoever that you (or anybody else) could have "prevented" the current situation.

The questions therefore become who 1) understands the current situation (you do not), and 2) which presidential candidate will cause the least harm?

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | May 26, 2008 3:47:56 AM

I still use a simple rule of thumb to predict gasoline prices here in the midwest. Take the price of gold in dollars and divide by 200.

In other words, with gas over $4.00 per gallon, the dollar has lost 60 or 70% of its value.

Maybe I can pay for a loaf of bread soon with a quart of oil!

How should one interpret price "information" when one cannot rely on the value of the accounting unit, the dollar? Is oil going up or is the dollar going down? Are both going up, or both down, but at different rates? I'd look at other commodities., e.g. copper, for the answer.

Posted by: johng | May 26, 2008 10:16:32 AM

Per Kurowski: "This is about consumers and oil extractors entering into some voluntary long term contracts at prices that make sense for both sides and that permit easier investments taking out part of the volatility in the market."

Perhaps I don't understand you, but isn't this simple hedging? Southwest Airlines, a huge consumer of petroleum products, used gasoline futures markets in order to take the volatility out of its costs. Anyone who is smart enough, and who desires to remove such volatility, can hedge their exposure to rising gasolinie prices. I think that's why the petroleum futures markets developed in the first place, isn't it?

You suggested that the futures contracts should be made between oil extractors and the ultimate consumers of refined petroleum products. Why should that be? Do you believe that an intermediary such as the New York Mercantile Exchange makes such hedging much more efficient? Such an exchange makes it possible for thousands of oil producers, hundreds of oil refiners, and millions of refined petroleum products consumers to all efficiently reduce their risk.

Is it possible, Per, that for many consumers gasoline costs have not been large enough to justify the transaction costs - especially the analysis time - of engaging in fuel hedges? I suspect that will change for some consumers, but most will simply opt for more efficient consumption of energy.

Posted by: John Dewey | May 27, 2008 10:29:18 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.