The Independent Market Observer

What If the U.S. Set Oil Prices?

Posted by Brad McMillan, CFA®, CFP®

Find me on:

This entry was posted on Jun 25, 2014 12:37:00 PM

and tagged Commentary

Leave a comment

oil pricesFor decades now, the U.S. has essentially had to accept the oil prices set by world markets. Starting in 1973 with the OPEC-driven oil shock, the major producers have been foreign countries. If the U.S. wanted the oil, we had to pay the price.

But are things starting to change?

U.S. moves toward allowing exports

Federal policy currently prohibits the export of oil, but today we saw the first crack in that wall: two companies have reportedly received permission to export a specific type of unrefined oil. Although the rulings haven’t been officially announced, and the Commerce Department says there’s been “no change in policy on crude oil exports,” the implications are clear.

As I wrote the other day, because the U.S. energy environment has changed so dramatically, we’re not as exposed to the troubles in Iraq as we might have been in the past. Looking a couple of years into the future, with U.S. production continuing to expand, not only do we stand to become more self-sufficient, we might actually become an exporter—even taking over the “swing producer” role from Saudi Arabia.

Oil production, prices, and power

Of the many oil-producing countries, the main price-setter has been Saudi Arabia. By deliberately running its production below capacity, it could keep prices higher than they really had to be. And, when other countries started to eat into its market share, Saudi Arabia could open the taps, drive production higher, and lower prices until its competitors were forced to back off.

Classic monopoly-style predatory pricing—and it worked. A piece from Confluence Investment Management highlights some examples of this strategy:

  • In 1985, when Saudi market share had eroded significantly, the country upped production, managing to drop the oil price by 60 percent, from $30 to $12 per barrel, while reducing the USSR’s market share from 10 percent to 4 percent.
  • Again, in the late 1990s, when Venezuela had taken market share from Saudi Arabia, prices dropped by about 60 percent, and Venezuela had to change its oil policy.

In both cases, Saudi Arabia used its power over oil production and prices to influence other countries’ policies. Higher (or lower) oil prices can be more effective than any sanctions policy in enforcing economic-driven changes.

To export or not to export?

Opponents of lifting the ban on U.S. oil exports argue that it would mean higher prices for American consumers. But that probably wouldn’t happen. We’re already close to the point where we can't refine all of the U.S. production domestically, so the oil simply wouldn’t be produced, and therefore prices wouldn’t change.

Overall, allowing oil exports would be a very positive development for the U.S. economy, driving investment and job creation in the energy sector, as well as providing many economic and geopolitical benefits. For example:

  • By becoming an exporter, the U.S. could assume a moderating role in the price of oil. Sudden price changes are the most damaging factor here, and eliminating—or at least smoothing—them would directly benefit the U.S. economy.
  • From a geopolitical standpoint, the ability to influence prices would provide additional leverage against countries like Russia and China.
  • From a macroeconomic standpoint, oil exports would significantly help the balance of trade and the value of the dollar.

Exporting oil simply makes too much sense, in too many ways, for the ban to continue.

Subscribe via Email

New call-to-action
Crash-Test Investing

Hot Topics

New Call-to-action



see all



The information on this website is intended for informational/educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, a solicitation, or a recommendation to buy or sell any security or investment product. Please contact your financial professional for more information specific to your situation.

Certain sections of this commentary contain forward-looking statements that are based on our reasonable expectations, estimates, projections, and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks and uncertainties, which are difficult to predict. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Diversification does not assure a profit or protect against loss in declining markets.

The S&P 500 Index is a broad-based measurement of changes in stock market conditions based on the average performance of 500 widely held common stocks. All indices are unmanaged and investors cannot invest directly in an index.

The MSCI EAFE (Europe, Australia, Far East) Index is a free float‐adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure the equity market performance of developed markets, excluding the U.S. and Canada. The MSCI EAFE Index consists of 21 developed market country indices.

One basis point (bp) is equal to 1/100th of 1 percent, or 0.01 percent.

The VIX (CBOE Volatility Index) measures the market’s expectation of 30-day volatility across a wide range of S&P 500 options.

The forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio divides the current share price of the index by its estimated future earnings.

Third-party links are provided to you as a courtesy. We make no representation as to the completeness or accuracy of information provided on these websites. Information on such sites, including third-party links contained within, should not be construed as an endorsement or adoption by Commonwealth of any kind. You should consult with a financial advisor regarding your specific situation.


Please review our Terms of Use

Commonwealth Financial Network®