Crude-Oil Futures End Little Changed as Equities Drop

Crude-oil futures settled 2 cents lower on Monday, shedding sizable gains amid broad macro-economic concerns.

Early gains were blunted by economic worries that span the globe.

China, the world's second-biggest oil consumer after the U.S., and the engine for oil-demand growth, is sending mixed signals. China's crude oil imports rose in January by a healthy 7.4% from a year earlier, but early indications show manufacturing activity dropped in February to a level that barely indicates a growing economy.

In Europe, uncertainty over the outcome of Italy's election created doubts about prospects for economic reforms. Those worries hit the euro and pumped up the dollar, driving some investors out of dollar-based commodities, like oil, analysts said.

In the U.S., meantime, the latest "economic data is not great" said Kyle Cooper, managing partner at IAF Advisors in Houston, and helped turn equities weaker, removing another prop for oil prices.

"As go equities, so goes crude," as market sentiment switched to a risk-off mode, he said.

Recent news from regional Federal Reserve banks discouraged buyers. The Chicago Fed said Monday that lower industrial production sent its National Activity Index down to a reading of negative 0.32 in January from plus 0.25 in December. Texas-area manufacturing activity barely grew in February, the Dallas Fed reported, with the Business Activity Index at 2.2 in February, down from 5.5 in January.

The economic doubts crushed crude's attempts to shake-off a significant sell-off last week. Traders again are refocused on lofty crude oil inventories at a time of weak demand from refineries and economical signals that don't bode well for oil-demand growth.

"It's got to be concerning for the bulls that the early gains couldn't hold," said Mr. Cooper.

Light, sweet crude-oil futures for April delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange settled 2 cents lower, at $93.11 a barrel after trading in a broad range of $92.69 to $94.46 a barrel. Last week, the contract fell 3.4%, the worst weekly performance for front-month Nymex crude since Oct. 26, 2012.

April ICE Brent crude oil settled 34 cents lower, at $114.44 a barrel, after trading in a range of $113.73 to $115.87 a barrel. The contract lost 3% last week, the biggest drop since the week ended Dec. 7, 2012.

Last week, the federal Energy Information Administration reported U.S. crude oil stocks rose more than expected to put stocks at a level sufficient to meet nearly 27 days of current low demand from refiners. That was the highest level of inventory cover since March 1994, and put crude oil stocks outright at their highest level for this time of year on EIA data beginning in 1982.

Early forecasts from analysts show EIA data due out Wednesday are expected to show a further 2.3 million barrels in crude stocks, with little change in refinery activity.

March-delivery reformulated gasoline blendstock futures settled down 1.85 cents, at $3.0611 a gallon ahead of the contract's expiration Thursday.

Front-month prices have gained more than 40 cents a gallon since mid-January amid tight inventories in the Northeast U.S. Price volatility is common at this time of year as refiners walk a fine line between producing enough fuel to meet the winter-grade specification for the March contract before switching to the costlier, cleaner-burning summer-grade fuel that meets the April contract specifications.

March-delivery heating oil futures settled 0.53 cent lower, at $3.0989 a gallon. The contract also expires Thursday.

Copyright (c) 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here

Washington Post: Keystone XL Rejection Has ‘Little Rational Basis’

More on the Keystone XL pipeline. The Washington Post editorializes:

“President Obama’s refusal so far to authorize Keystone XL has little rational basis. … Attracting foreign investment in projects that will create U.S. jobs requires predictable regulatory procedures. The way to encourage the efficient extraction and delivery of the oil that the United States will require for decades is to make clear that government won’t use the issue as a political football.”

The editorial makes a couple of other points:

Opponents of Canadian oil sands (and the Keystone XL) are mistaken to believe that stopping the pipeline will keep 170 billion barrels of oil in the ground – because Canada has other means to get the oil to market, as well as other markets willing to buy it.Political skirmishing in Washington has been detrimental to overall progress on the project.

Meanwhile, POLITICO has this guest opinion piece by Karl Rove, pointing to the administration’s Keystone XL rejection as a prime example of a self-inflicted inability to create jobs:

“Exhibit A is the Keystone XL pipeline. It would have brought oil from Canada’s tar sands and North Dakota’s prolific Bakken field to Gulf Coast refineries, factories and chemical plants. This would have created tens of thousands of private-sector jobs and reduced U.S. dependence on [imports]. … No matter. Extreme environmentalists opposed this vital infrastructure project. Rather than offend them, President Barack Obama blocked the pipeline’s construction.”

The two pieces help underscore the point that there are no good reasons to hold up the Keystone XL project, and that the administration is squandering a great opportunity to create jobs and help strengthen U.S. energy security. As the Post says, the president’s refusal to approve this shovel-ready project makes little rational sense.

An all-of-the-above energy approach must include oil and natural gas because it is our primary energy source now and into the future. The Keystone XL pipeline would be an integral part of such a strategy, which could see all of our liquid fuel needs met domestically and from Canada by 2024.

View the original article here