LyrArc Article Gist
Khalid al-Falih, chairman of Saudi Aramco, says at the World Economic Forum in Davos, on Jan. 26, 2016- "If prices continue to be low, we will be able to withstand it for a long, long time." With $630 billion in foreign currency reserves the Saudis are following a long term policy of full production. Gasoline subsidies are being reduced, IPO of Saudi Aramco being discussed to raise additional capital, and other steps being taken to plan for long term oil prices. Flexibility for a change in policy is diminished with the addition of Iranian oil production to supplies following the lifting of sanctions. The events in 2015-2016 of Russian bombing campaign in Syria, and the cutoff of diplomatic relations with Iran, have worsened the standoff with Iran and Russia in the Middle East conflict. As a result it appears that the Saudis are settling down for a long term policy of full production which would keep oil prices low for the long term. India, Japan, China, the U.S. and the European Union, Turkey and other countries benefit from low oil prices when their economies need a boost in 2016-2017....

LyrArc Article Gist
The OPEC meeting in Qatar in April 2016 to stabilize oil prices with a freeze in production is not likely to affect supply and demand. Saudis and Russia are producing all out, and Iran plans to increase its production, making it difficult to reach an agreement. The International Energy Agency, IEA, predicts demand will rise by the end of 2016 from 94.8 million barrels a day to 95.9 million barrels a day. Production is at 96.4 million barrels a day, and this is expected to lead to narrowing the gap between supply and demand. Experts say cars are becoming more fuel effficient, and electric car technology is becoming commercially viable, leading to a lack of growth in demand in developed and middle income countries. This may have to be factored in for the intermediate and long run for demand growth.

LyrArc Article Gist
As OPEC members met again in June 2015 for the first time since the meeting in November 2014, there is a sense that OPEC no longer exerts the same influence on oil prices. There are 4000 oil companies in the U.S., says one U.S. State Department official, even if OPEC were to cut production the cuts could be matched by shale oil producers in the U.S. quickly increasing output. This is the new reality, say experts. OPEC expects to keep production at the same level of the current production ceiling of 30 million barrels a day in place for the 7th meeting in over 3 years. Algeria and Nigeria, both hurt badly by the drop in oil price, have called for cuts but failed to persuade the Saudis. With Russia unwilling to join a coordinated production cut, there is not much talk about doing this. The Saudis and Iraq have continued to pump more oil, with April 2015 production of 30.84 million barrels a day the highest monthly average since 2012. Other factors also remain in the minds of the Saudis and other producers such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar- policies on climate change, use of less energy and more from friendlier sources for the same amount of economic output demonstrated by countries such as Germany, advances in technology, energy saving transitions in emerging markets such as China and India....

LyrArc Article Gist
The OPEC meeting in Doha in April 2016 fails to lead to an agreement to freeze oil production at Jan. 2016 levels, with Iran staying away from the meeting.

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ's Spencer Jakab points out the role of politics- with Saudi Arabia in a standoff with Iran and Russia in Middle Eastern conflicts- and Saudi policy of full output with no cuts unlikely to change, ensuring lower prices for 2016-2017.

LyrArc Article Gist
Hubbard and Erdbrink report on U.S. president Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia to begin a new chapter in relations with the Gulf nations and the Saudis. Under president Obama the U.S. distanced itself from the Saudis and the Gulf nations, preferring to pursue a policy of closer relations with Iran and signing the Iran nuclear deal. This included a policy of staying out of Syria to the point of turning down a decision to deploy U.S. airpower to maintain no-fly zones to protect refugees. Syrian government forces fighting rebels were supported by Iran. The new policy is dictated by the new conditions in the Middle East. The U.S. has sought since the presidency of Reagan to balance the power relations in the region. With the nuclear deal signed and Iran respecting the deal according to independent reports, the U.S. allied with Iran in the battle against Islamic State in Iraq,  a shift was needed to balance the support provided to Iran by Russia which worsened the refugee crisis in Syria. The Republican party and Mr. Trump were critical of the Obama Iran policy during the nuclear deal negotiations. The safety of Israel is also a factor as non-state actors were supported by Iran threatening Israeli security. For these reasons the shift is an effort to rebalance the relations in the region. The arms deal in its size and president Trump's statement that Iran had "fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror," can be seen as this rebalancing. A business aspect of the large arms deal is that it will promote job growth in the defense industry in the U.S.. Other countries including Germany have seen growth in their defense industry. This is not the best way forward for the Middle East, yet it is a way the U.S. and nations in the region are adjusting to realities- the collapse of the Arab Spring from within and without the help from outside, the sectarian conflict arising from the Shiite pushback from Iran following the Baathist and Sunni control of Iraq which collapsed with the U.S.invasion, where the majority of people are Shiite yet with a strong Sunni presence. Elections brought Shiites in power, leading to a Sunni response in the form of Islami State caliphate move into Mosul, Iraq's second largest city after Baghdad. A decade of conflict and the efforts by the Bush administration ended in failure and sectarian conflict, resulting in the U.S. policy of rebalancing in favor of Iran to negotiate the nuclear deal. In this sense the arms deal does not solve anything. A similar rebalancing under Reagan by arming one side, followed by arming the other, led to involvement with ground forces under president Bush. It only leaves the region poor after years of sanctions against Iran to the point where a NYT reporter was not sure whether it was safe to fly from Tehran to Mashad with Iran Air because of the lack of spare parts for the airline. War torn, with millions of refugees in Syria and Iraq, the region remains broken in many ways, waiting for a sensible non sectarian view to prevail in the interest of the people in the region. The election of Rouhani in Iran by 57% of the vote is only a sign that young people in the region given a chance would opt for a different course in future. The rest of Asia has moved forward and shows a path that can be followed. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
After delaying taking a loan from the IMF, a multilateral lender known for setting austerity conditions for its loans, Pakistan finally accepts a IMF loan of $6 billion over 3 years. In August 2018 Pakistan turned to Saudi Arabia for $3 billion loan and deferring oil payments of a similar amount, UAE for $3 billion, and China adding another $2.2 billion. A sharp drop in the country's currency reserves left Pakistan little choice. Other problems were a overvalued exchange rate that hurt exporters under the previous government and fiscal spending on needed infrastructure that could not be matched with changes in tax collection. Pakistan has some of the poorest tax collection in Asia, depriving the government of the funds needed to finance infrastructure.  The IMF loan is a smaller loan so that Pakistan would feel less compelled to comply with the difficult conditions often imposed by the IMF that has made it unpopular in developing countries, particularly in Latin America. This is the 21st IMF loan to Pakistan. Only Argentina has had to turn to the IMF for 21 loans. For example the IMF conditions to Pakistan require increasing the electricity and gas prices. Under the IMF plan Pakistan must cut its budget deficit before debt service to 0.6% of GDP next fiscal year starting in July 2019 from the deficit of 1.7% expected this year.  To do this tax breaks of 350 billion rupees or $2.5 billion next year have to be removed. The central bank autonomy was also promised and with this 2 former Pakistani IMF officials now head the central bank. Because widening the tax collection base and better tax collection are promises made in the past to IMF which have not happened, this report in the Economist magazine says implementation in this IMF plan will also be lax, more so as the IMF loan is small and supplemented with funds from other countries. A cartoon in one magazine critical of the IMF shows the IMF officials from Pakistan negotiating for the Pakistan central bank with the IMF head Christine Lagarde. Increasing the Pakistan tax base is essential for Pakistan's development to invest in infrastructure similar to what is happening in India. Releasing funds for infrastructure, roads and railways, hospitals and education, requires a larger tax base in all South Asian countries. Without this internal capital and showing results of spending -with successful infrastructure implementation with least or no corruption or overspending- countries risk falling behind.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Sharp drop in oil prices in Dec. 2015.

LyrArc Article Gist
The decision reached at the OPEC meeting on June 5, 2015, was to maintain production at current levels of an official level of 30 million barrels a day. This official level now acts as an indicator, as actual production is estimated at 31 million barrels a day.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Venezuelan government provides gasoline to people in the country at a few cents a gallon- almost free. Even Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Kuwait which have way better financial balances and dollar reserves do not provide gasoline at such prices. The result is chronic shortages of basic parts and other imports because the government does not have enough dollar reserves for imports. Venezuela devalued its currency by 32% recently, making imports more expensive and pushing inflation up even higher to 28%. The problems it creates are excessive and wasteful use of gasoline, and free gasoline that then provides consumers money to pay for surging cost of everyday imported products. Nullifying any real benefits when shortages, inflation, dilapidated infrastructure and lack of development and jobs, are taken into account. The lack of capital to invest in the oil industry has led to declining production making the situation unsustainable. Yet neither party of Maduro or Capriles in the upcoming April 14, 2013 election, following the death of Chavez, supports ending this subsidy. Efforts to end the subsidy by president Carlos Andres Perez in 1986 led to riots and about hundred deaths in police response, and a coup by Chavez, then a military officer, a few years later. Under Chavez the subsidy was extended to the level at which gasoline is about 4 cents a gallon. Compare this with the price in neighboring Colombia at $4.72 a gallon, and Brazil at $5.40 per gallon. Consumption per capita in Venezuela is excessively high, about seven times per capita than neighboring Columbia. The investment in infrastucture is hobbled by lack of capital, the capital Caracas dilapidated, and no major infrastructure projects taken up by the government. It costs Venezuela 8.6% of GDP or $27 billion to pay for the excessively high subsidy, compared to 3.2% of GDP going to healthcare spending and 5.1% for education. In comparison Indonesia, another developing country, uses 2.5% of GDP or 21 billion for its subsidy for a population of over 200 million. It is not that a fuel subsidy is provided, but the entitlement to free gasoline that makes Venezuela the lone exception. There is a reason why prices in Brazil and China, large developing countries, price gasoline to motorists at over $4 a gallon- to discourage excessive and wasteful use, and release scarce capital for infrastructure development, building dollar reserves for imports of machinery and equipment, and other uses in industrializing economies. Compare Venezuela with Bolivia under the socialist government of Evo Morales. In 2010 Bolivia increased its price of gasoline by 80%. The price in 2013 is about $2.00 per gallon. Morales cushioned the increase by increasing salaries in the health and education sectors, armed forces and police by 20%, and increasing prices of locally produced wheat, corn and rice by 10%. Morales said he did this to reduce state subsidies of $380 million for $660 million in gasoline imports, of which $150 million was siphoned off by smuggling gasoline to neigboring countries. Incentives were provided to oil companies to produce gasoline in Bolivia to reduce imports. ...