Where's Energy Headed in 2009?

Recs

45

Disney Buys Marvel!

David Gardner called it. He’s up 1,334%! See what David’s recommending that you buy NEXT.

Stock Advisor

If you're squeamish, at least the coming year shouldn't subject your energy stocks -- and you, their owner -- to as wild a ride as 2008 did. That's the good news. On the other hand, at this time next year we could still be wondering when the sector will finally begin to recover.

Both consumers and investors were affected by energy-related events over the past year. As 2007 ended, the per-barrel number for light sweet crude was near $90.

Why the 2008 bounce?
For lots of reasons that still aren't completely clear, the levy continued to run up to its now infamous high of $147 in July, only to begin a steep slide into the $30s that may not have ended yet. There are those who still maintain that the severe price fluctuations were tied solely to supply and demand, since demand growth seemed to be unstoppable in the developing nations -- especially China and India. There was also a growing concern that the world's production had peaked, a combination of factors that could have led to supply shortages and further price run-ups in the near term.

And then there were those who blamed the price speculators -- financial types who bought and sold quantities of oil without ever intending to take possession of them. As I sit here in December, attempting to sort out the crazy energy year, however, it seems to me that there was no single cause for the roller-coaster pricing. Now, as we prepare for a new year, the lingering price slide is being propelled by souring economic conditions and pessimism about GDP growth across the planet.

Topsy-turvy share prices
Just as 2008 has been a topsy-turvy year for crude prices -- and their natural gas brethren -- stability in the share prices of producers and service companies alike has been hard to find:

 

12-31-07

06-30-08

12-24-08

BP (NYSE: BP)

$69.23

$67.39

$44.17

Chesapeake (NYSE: CHK)

$39.02

$65.83

$15.18

Chevron (NYSE: CVX)

$90.57

$97.54

$69.62

ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM)

$91.87

$87.18

$75.78

Halliburton (NYSE: HAL)

$37.48

$52.69

$16.72

Schlumberger (NYSE: SLB)

$97.30

$106.75

$38.22

Transocean (NYSE: RIG)

$143.15

$152.39

$42.24

But where do we go from here? Longer term, most forecasters remain bullish on global demand, and ExxonMobil is convinced that by 2030 we'll have seen 35% growth in the world's energy demand over the prior 25 years. Fine, but what about the next year to 18 months?

Predicting the unpredictable: 2009
Just as you couldn't have found anyone who might have accurately predicted the strange energy events of 2008 a year ago, it's awfully hard now to locate a prognosticator with an eye for demand growth and higher prices in 2009. Indeed, the Energy Information Administration arm of the U.S. Department of Energy thinks that world demand will slide by about 50,000 barrels per day this year, followed by a decline of 450,000 daily barrels in 2009. As such, 2008 would mark the first time in 25 years that the world's thirst for energy has shrunk.

And while much of the shrinkage can be tied to the U.S., demand growth isn't even assured in China. That nation's crude imports actually dropped in November by 1.86% from the prior year, after surging in October at the highest pace since July 2007.

Other possible effects
At the same time, the sharp price declines are resulting in political difficulties in a host of countries, including Russia and Iran, both of which have benefited from higher prices until recently. In fact, with about 80% of Iran's budget tied to crude exports, we can only hope that energy-induced unrest doesn't lead to geopolitical turmoil.

Closer to home, a growing number of oil and gas projects have been shelved for cost-benefit reasons. This has been especially true in Canada, the largest supplier of crude to the U.S. Much of that country's crude comes from Alberta's oil sands, whose production costs are now far higher than the value produced. So don't be surprised if shelved programs across the planet lead to production shortages and a rebirth of price inflation sooner than most of us expect.

Don't clean out your energy closet
With all this going on, how should you treat your energy investments in 2009? As the table above makes clear, the sector's members have become cheap. And given the importance of the group, your portfolio should include some energy representation. My inclination is to select perhaps a couple of solid names and build positions that you won't touch for at least a year.

In my case, the names would be ExxonMobil, with its strong balance sheet, and Schlumberger, the king of the oilfield services beasts. Both, it seems to me, stand to be among the first to benefit when the group starts a recovery.

Schlumberger and ExxonMobil wear five and four stars, respectively, as awarded by Motley Fool CAPS players. Why not check in with your opinion on the pair?

For related Foolishness:

Closed for 15 months – opening 10 days only! Get notified ahead of time as our expert portfolio manager invests $1 MILLION in the best opportunities from across The Motley Fool’s premium investment services. This is the first open since August 2008, by invitation only. Enter email below.

Chesapeake Energy is a Motley Fool Inside Value recommendation. Try any of our Foolish newsletters today, free for 30 days.

Fool contributor David Lee Smith doesn't own shares in any of the companies mentioned. He does, however, welcome your questions, queries, or comments. The Fool has a disclosure policy.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On December 27, 2008, at 12:04 PM, rockymtnman wrote:

    Why hasn't anyone commented on the clear evidence that the oil prices were manipulated by foreign interests to influence the American elections. Obama was the clear choice of the large oil producing nations, and anyone who understands world economics knows that oil prices affect the economy - directly. With oil prices now lower, the economy will recover, and Obama will get the credit.

  • Report this Comment On December 29, 2008, at 10:05 AM, davidjon13 wrote:

    Re rockymtnman:

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

    The manipulation may be a fact, or it may be a fairy tale, but I still haven't seen the "clear evidence". Maybe it's because noone's seen it that noone's commented on it.

  • Report this Comment On December 29, 2008, at 10:34 AM, wuff3t wrote:

    That's a new one on me, too. I find it difficult to believe. As mentioned in the article many of the world's leading oil producers rely very heavily (sometimes almost exclusively) on oil income to fund their own economies. OPEC recently stated that it thinks price per barrel needs to be $70 at least in order for its members' economies not to suffer. That being the case why would they allow prices to fall as low as $40 now that they have what they want (Obama as President elect)? They might have wanted Obama to win but at the expense of their own economies?

    If there is any clear evidence I'd love to hear it.

  • Report this Comment On December 29, 2008, at 12:02 PM, BlueLakeVentures wrote:

    One thing for sure is that alternative energy is now on everyone's agenda, and $147 barrel of oil won't be forgotten soon. For anyone interested in learning more on the subject, there is a good site at www.newgenerationgas.com.

  • Report this Comment On December 29, 2008, at 7:01 PM, kayakmastr wrote:

    rockymtman - please cite the clear evidence to support your claim!

  • Report this Comment On December 29, 2008, at 9:45 PM, GoNuke wrote:

    If large oil producing nations could influence the price that much why are they not "manipulating" the price back up. The big oil producing nations are hurting badly right now. Oil is a commodity with an asymmetrical price elasticity.

    When demand exceeds supply people do not reduce their consumption much so the price skyrockets.

    Supply generally exceeds demand during recessions because oil consumption tracks world economic activity. OPEC is reluctant to reduce supply because most of its members are corrupt, inefficient, technology backwaters that haven't learned how to generate income any other way.

    During a massive global recession oil prices fall dramatically. The upside for investors is that oil producers stop looking for new sources during recessions in order to conserve capital. Then when economic growth returns demand exceeds supply and the price goes up. Low oil prices keep oil company share prices low and contribute to economic recovery.

    The other great bonus for us in the west is that less money is flowing to Iran which may have to choose to divert capital away from nuclear weapons development.

    Buying oil stocks now or in a few months is probably the safest way to ensure a doubling or quadrupling of your investment once the global economy starts to grow again.

  • Report this Comment On December 30, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Alwaysgolong wrote:

    Lord, how I hope we can have a open minded discussion about this.

    I'll hit this once, but when the mud starts to fly -- I'm outta here. I refuse to participate in fascist type name calling and nonsense. Lets TRY to keep this civilized.

    IMO: The "Clear Evidence" is there, just like it was with the Katrina mud and BS slinging contest. You have to put idiology aside to see it.

    In a nut shell: Crude prices can be manipulated, but only for short periods of time. The longer the time frame,, the bigger the bubble gets,,, The bigger the bubble gets,,, well you saw what happened to the financial sector...

    The media hates Bush, Cheney, Haliburtin, Big Oil, Republicans, Drillers, and everything else Fossil Fuel related.

    What drives a market one way or the other? Supply, Demand, Confidence,,,, FEAR!!???

    The media learned long ago how to manipulate and influence politics. They do it all the time. Whats so different about the oil market? Oil IS politics. So why not influence it the same way?

    Remember when oil prices were climbing? Bush was already on the ropes beaten and battered from the war and Kartina. The media hyped every story and even made a few up about the instability of the middle east. (Like its ever BEEN stable in the first place) They played on every fear imaginable. At the same time -- they played UP E-Gas and Bio-Diesel like an absolute must. Ethanol and Veggie oil would soon save us from the evils of Big Oil.

    They constantly foster the idea that the world will soon run out of oil, while we protect drilling bans like Holy Lands. Regardless of where you stand on these issues, how can one possibly believe wee are running out of oil, when we've banned drilling where most of it hiding?

    The media played Hugo Chavez like a war hero when he offered to give heating oil to "Poor Americans" who lived under the regime of that "Devel" GW Bush. What a laugh, but a lot of people fell for it.

    With the help of greedy speculators, AND the Oil companies, AND the instant credibility of Kings and Dictators, the media hyped the price of oil to historical levels, all the while making it look like BUSH was in bed with Big Oil, so he could stack dump truck loads of $$ in the basement of the Western White House.

    I don't know so much as it was an effort to make Obama look good, but an effort to make Bush look BAD.

    Just like Katrina, the media trained us to believe that everything was GWB's Fault. They Problem is, The bubble popped too soon. It popped before the election...

    Whats really poetic justice is this; Bush was unfairly beaten like a red headed step child with buck teeth and freckles --- for lots of things. He didn't deserve it then, but he certainly does now.

    Now that he and others have stolen $700,000,000,000.00 dollars and are tossing it to the wind --- They all deserve to be stripped naked and beaten with horse whips laced with broken glass.

  • Report this Comment On January 02, 2009, at 10:02 PM, leftshoe wrote:

    Does anyone else see a bit of a contradiction in the previous post's start (let's TRY to keep this civilized) and finish (stripping people naked and beating them with horse whips laced with broken glass)? I have to say that I get more utility (measured in terms of enjoyment) reading these crazy posts than the actual articles they are based on.

  • Report this Comment On January 03, 2009, at 2:52 AM, sparky147 wrote:

    I'm with you these guys are a real hoot.

  • Report this Comment On January 03, 2009, at 9:42 AM, ElectricDeacon wrote:

    Bottom line is no matter who's in the oval office, people will want to heat their homes, light their offices and place of business, have a cold beer, or a hot meal and that all takes energy. Top that with all the different ways that electricity is generated (nuke, fossil, solar, gas, etc.) and the fact that it has to be transmitted somehow, all make energy both a short AND long term investment ace. Overly simplistic....maybe, but none the less true.

  • Report this Comment On January 03, 2009, at 11:41 AM, snakeflake wrote:

    Alternative fuels are standing still but are cheap. WIll Obamas reign bring these to the forefront. I am hoping so.

  • Report this Comment On January 03, 2009, at 2:48 PM, CJBinABQ wrote:

    Alternative fuel development is not just about the economic and political effects of dependence of foreign oil. It's mostly an environmental issue - using fossil fuels as an energy source (in the quantity the world wants/needs to) damages the environment - and without a healthy environment everything else will be moot. The same is true on a personal level - what good is wealth without health?

  • Report this Comment On January 03, 2009, at 3:08 PM, BlueLakeVentures wrote:

    Time to put everything we have behind alternative energy. Good suggestions and education on the subject at www.newgenerationgas.com.

  • Report this Comment On January 06, 2009, at 5:25 AM, Shar54 wrote:

    Back to the main point of the article and the question asked, ExxonMobil; is it a good or bad investment? Of course it is a good investment. It has performed and is running strong through one of the worst downturns in our nation's history. It's dividends are golden and it is poised to handle just about anything including alternative energies. I just like Valero better. They treat their employees like family and remind me of Mobil Oil before the merger. For those of us who invested in Mobil Oil, it was veddy veddy good to us!! As for undervaluation and room to create wealth, I prefer Valero. For absolute safety, (if there is such a thing in today's market), ExxonMobil is a safe bet.

  • Report this Comment On January 07, 2009, at 11:56 PM, trenton1ryan wrote:

    I'm surprised no one talks about opening a Roth and spreading it out over OKS, KMP, MMP, and PAA.

    They're not XOM, but their divvies are better, and their share prices are lower. MLP's have their advantages :)

  • Report this Comment On January 08, 2009, at 12:00 AM, Jimmy2008 wrote:

    I thinking to cash out my Roth IRA. I don't need the money right now. I would like to save them. However, I am worried that the government might confiscate it (like Argentina), or change the rules (like adding taxes).

    Any thought on this?

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

TD AMERITRADE
more info
ShareBuilder
more info
Power E*Trade

more info
Scottrade
more info
Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 800931, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/9/2009 3:44:55 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

The Must-Read Story on Fool.com
Warren Buffett's Biggest Weakness

Related Tickers

11/9/2009 3:21 PM
BP $59.85 Up +1.42 +2.43%
BP plc (ADR) CAPS Rating: *****
RIG $88.18 Up +2.78 +3.26%
Transocean, Inc. CAPS Rating: *****
CVX $77.69 Up +0.16 +0.20%
Chevron Corp CAPS Rating: ****
XOM $72.91 Up +0.75 +1.04%
ExxonMobil Corp CAPS Rating: ****
SLB $64.85 Up +0.45 +0.70%
Schlumberger, Limi… CAPS Rating: *****
CHK $25.21 Up +0.99 +4.09%
Chesapeake Energy… CAPS Rating: *****
HAL $31.68 Up +0.65 +2.10%
Halliburton Compan… CAPS Rating: ****

Community: Investing Wiki

Term Of The Hour

Bull market: A bull market is a period in which the prices in a market rise overall. Any asset class, including stocks, bonds, or commodities, can experience a bull market. Historically, bull markets tend to last longer than bear markets.

Want to learn more or edit this definition?
Click here to read more!