Andy Hall, a British-born oil trader based outside New York, personally pocketed more than US$100 million last year. That was his reward for astutely predicting in 2003 that oil prices would soar toward US$200 a barrel. Just before prices hit US$147 in July last year however, Hall bailed out.
The 58-year-old ex-BP trader feared the consequences once Manhattan’s banks began crashing. Record oil prices, he foresaw, were tipping the world into recession. Yet, as oil tumbled toward US$32, the global economic crisis sparked Hall’s appetite for more profits. Eagerly, he began speculating in New York and London that prices would eventually boomerang back toward US$200.
So far they are hovering around US$70, but Hall is convinced that once the recovery begins and the demand for oil increases, oil prices and his profits will rocket up again.
Named by rivals as the “God of oil traders,” Hall is an enigmatic, quietly spoken art collector who, while shunning the spotlight, abides by the adage: “Oil traders work in a whorehouse so don’t try to be an angel in this business.”
In gearing up for another coup, Hall acknowledges that over the years he has attracted both praise and loathing for perfecting the “squeeze” — causing oil prices to change.
“I’m basically interested in one thing — business,” he said. “I come in every day to make money.”
Producing sufficient oil would keep prices down and sustain the world’s economic recovery but that scenario offends both Hall and some oil producers. Their scenario for frenzied markets is based upon an unholy alliance, although they disagree about why prices will rise.
Hall is an “oil-peakist.” Supplies, he believes, have passed their peak and the world is running out of supplies. The major oil producers — like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela and the US — know the opposite. Unlike the oil-peakists’ estimate that the world’s total oil reserves were about 2 trillion barrels and we have consumed more than half, the producers estimate that up to 11 trillion barrels remain under the earth’s surface.
New technologies to extract oil from beneath the sea and to suck more oil from old wells repeatedly smash the oil-peakists’ doomladen message. Yet, despite this, some reputable international oil think tanks predict an imminent oil shortage and prices again heading towards US$200. That forecast is mood music for Hall and is welcomed by some oil producers.
Russia and Venezuela stand to pocket billions of dollars once oil prices return to last year’s dizzy heights. They want to earn more money from less oil. The risk of plunging the world back into recession barely figures in their calculations, and their conspiracy is aided by the folly of major Western oil companies.
Insensitive and condescending, BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and the other giants that dominate the sale of gasoline in the high street have been reduced to minnows. Thirty-five years ago, the so-called “seven sisters” controlled about 80 percent of the world’s oil supplies. Now the remaining five major oil companies control barely 5 percent. Since 1945, the oil companies successively failed to gain the trust of the leaders of most of the oil-producing states and secure access to their oil fields. Nationalism, self-interest and stupidity barred the oil companies. The conundrum is fatal. By denying themselves the oil companies’ efficient management and technology, Russia, Venezuela and Mexico are now producing less oil than 10 years ago — although all three need the extra revenue.
By strangling supplies, those governments will hope to earn bigger profits by producing less oil. Producing oil in those traditional countries costs between US$3 and US$9 a barrel and, the governments hope, will sell for more than US$100. Impatient with the lengthy timescale involved in producing new oil, those politicians contemplate permanent high prices. Hall and his rival oil traders gleefully wait.
“Greed” will not be discussed at next week’s Oil & Money conference in London. Not surprisingly, the agenda of the annual extravaganza, which attracts 1,000 of the world’s most influential oil aficionados, circumvents the embarrassment that corrupt and inefficient national oil companies are allowing exploration and production to diminish. Confusion will stifle rational argument.
Investment in new fields is low and the rapacious encroachment by China into the West’s traditional territories, especially in Africa, has created new instability. In Nigeria, Ghana and Angola, the Chinese are outbidding Western oil companies for access to oil fields. Once the recovery begins, Chinese demand will accelerate price rises, guaranteeing another financial killing for Hall.
Leadership and consensus could solve these problems, but competition between producers, oil companies, governments and traders is preventing anyone thinking beyond profits.
“We’re not here to help others,” Hall once said.
Either world leaders agree to squeeze more oil out of the rocks or traders will exploit shortages to squeeze the markets.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath