WTI Crude

Loading...

Brent Crude

Loading...

Natural Gas

Loading...

Gasoline

Loading...

Heating Oil

Loading...

Rotate device for more commodity prices

Alt Text

Could Rosneft Take Control Of Citgo?

Rosneft could take control of…

Alt Text

How OPEC Shot Itself In The Foot

As OPEC closes in on…

The Craziest Oil Price Predictions For 2017

Stock Market

Predicting where oil prices would go next month or next year has always been a game of hit and miss, all the more so in the past two years since the oil price crash began.

Analysts have forecast prices in the range US$10 to US$70 at various points this year, and actual prices have also had a bumpy ride, with WTI Crude ranging from below US$30 in January 2016 to a 17-month high briefly touching over US$55 on December 12, 2016.

Heading into 2017, the oil price predictions by major organizations and investment banks are generally not widely diverging and hovering in the US$50-$60 range, but there have been some wilder viewpoints that are phenomenally bullish or direly bearish.

In February of this year, when WTI was just over US$31, Brandon Blossman at Tudor Pickering Holt & Co said he expected oil at US$70 by the end of the year, and at US$90 by the end of next year, commenting on the Colliers International Trends 2016 Commercial Real Estate Market Update, as quoted by Houston Agent Magazine.

This prediction came less than a month after Standard Chartered had said it expected oil to hit a low of US$10 this year, a level not seen since 1998.

Both forecasts missed by miles. By June this year, prices had touched US$50, but not much more.

Related: Oil Rises On Weaker Dollar, Stronger U.S. Economic Growth

It was in June that Raymond James’ Senior VP Pavel Molchanov said that global inventories would reverse their growth and start declining in the second half of the year and accelerate the decline in 2017. Raymond James forecast WTI at US$75 in the first quarter next year and at US$80 in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Six months later, with oil trading 20-ish-dollars below the Raymond James forecast, Molchanov continues to be bullish on oil after the OPEC deal to curtail output. On 30 November, he said that with global demand “quite strong” and “in very good shape”, oil prices in 2017 have to be “meaningfully higher, even after the recent rally, to support a more sustainable level of investment”.

In a Reuters poll of 29 analysts and economists carried out after the OPEC deal, Raymond James had the highest 2017 forecast for Brent price, at US$83 per barrel, while the poll saw Brent averaging US$57.01 next year.

On the opposing side is Shawn Driscoll, portfolio manager at the T. Rowe Price New Era fund, who told Barrons.com earlier this month that “we’re in a secular bear market for oil”, expected to go on for 10 to 15 years. Other analyst projections are “massively” underestimating how quickly and how big the U.S. shale comeback will be, Driscoll said, adding that he sees oil at below US$50 at the end of 2017, and a “dip below $40 a barrel” at some point in 2018.

Most of the other projections in the past month or two—prompted by the pending OPEC deal and then the cartel’s agreement to cut output--have not only talked oil prices up, but made more analysts optimistic that an agreement would speed up the drawdown of the global oil glut. The market is likely to move into deficit in the first half next year by an estimated 600,000 bpd, said the International Energy Agency (IEA), as long as OPEC and non-OPEC producers manage to (and are willing to) stick to promised cuts.

More than a month before the deal was announced, the World Bank raised its oil price forecast for 2017 to average US$55 next year, or US$2 more than its earlier forecast.

At oil above US$55 next year, energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie sees the oil and gas industry turning cash flow positive for the first time since the downturn, and expects 2017 will be a year of “stability and opportunity” for the sector.

Related: How Much Biofuel Do Santa’s Reindeer Need?

In its latest Short-Term Energy Outlook from December 6, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects Brent Crude prices to average US$51.66 in 2017, with WTI Crude prices averaging US$50.66 next year.

However, EIA warned: “The values of futures and options contracts indicate significant uncertainty in the price outlook.”

BofA Merrill Lynch - one of the optimistic viewpoints among the investment banks – said in its 2017 Market Outlook that its forecast for WTI Crude is US$59 and Brent – at US$61. BofA Merrill Lynch also factors in a rebound of the U.S. shale patch in its price projections.

“Pricing forecasts embed a sequential 500,000 barrel-per-day increase in U.S. crude production, raising domestic output to 9.2 million barrels a day by the end of 2017,” the bank said.

As always, the game of predicting oil prices will have its winners and losers next year, too. But 2017 has some major wildcards for oil prices in store, including, but not limited to: Would OPEC stick to promised cuts? Would those cuts rebalance the market at some point next year? Even if they start the year with sticking to cuts, would some OPEC and non-OPEC producers start cheating and renege on pledges once they see more revenues at higher oil prices and be tempted to get more revenue? How fast U.S. shale would rebound? How would this affect global supply and oil prices? How would OPEC react to the U.S. shale resurgence?

Let the game begin, and beware of projections, which range from $10 to $90.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Craig Ferrell on December 22 2016 said:
    Dear Ms. Paraskova,

    US E&P had just over 1600 rigs operating in late 2014 and reduced that to just over 300 in late May of '16. That drop of ~1300 rigs resulted in a ~1MM barrel drop in shale production. How many would be needed to be added back to increase production commensurate with OPEC cuts?

    How much capex would it take reactivate over 1000 rigs? Why does WoodMac estimate that US spending on exploration will decline in 2017 to $37 BN? Can the shale producers really increase production to an extent to obviate the OPEC cut when LESS capex is being spent? How long will it take to gets those new rigs up and running and producing? In 1H '17: OPEC > US shale.
  • Phil Currie on December 23 2016 said:
    Craig Ferrell is correct. One more thing to add to his comments. Where will all the people come from to run these rigs to bring back this oil production? Many have left the industry, some will flock back, but not all. I do not see the rig count in the US going over 1000 for a very long time, if ever again.
  • doogie on December 23 2016 said:
    How about reviewing all the 2016 predictions?
    The pundit class never seems to be interested in talking about how accurate they have been, and that's not aimed at you personally Ms. Paraskova.
    I have 4 or 5 predictions from a range of people like Pickens and Hamm that I wrote down but we do have another week to go and there could be price swings- maybe from developments in the grand OPEC/ Non-OPEC deal.
  • Craig Ferrell on December 23 2016 said:
    Thanks Phil...

    Couldn't fit in previous comment field the aspect of financing... Banks review borrowing base twice a year, and cut back last fall based on lower prices. By the time they re-evaluate in spring with higher bases and presumably more ability to spend on capex, the 1st round of OPEC cuts will already be in the books. Even if the E&P's WANTED to ramp up capex to fully offset OPEC, they don't have the financing available in the near term (especially at $50-$55 oil).

    I'm not suggesting their won't be a shale response, I'm questioning the response function that the current narrative is suggesting. It will take a bit longer than assumed, and thus higher oil prices.
  • James kaiser on December 23 2016 said:
    I agree with Craig and Phil. Having worked for one of the major players in the Eagleford, I have a fairly good perspective on the oil shale niche/patch. The big thing Oil Shale requires is CAPEX. You have to spend big money to make big money. They either have to make the money or borrow it. Many of these companies are still losing money at 50$ oil and are barely hanging on. They can't produce enough to drill, and banks aren't going to lend them money OR they're already extended their credit to the limit. Also, companies are inherently conservative. They could be big risk takers at 100$ oil, but even up to 70$ oil won't see 1000 more rigs back out on the street. The industry might be short sited at times, but it's still runs to make a profit, and until there's enough revenue and cash flow coming back OUT of oil shales, banks and company executives will hesitate to or won't be able to spend like it's 2014.
  • fern on December 24 2016 said:
    The world middle class is between two abusers:
    in one ,the countries like russia & arabia
    and Within their own nation , their state publics-servants (Their state apparatuses) who need collosal sums to finance their lifestyle,some military projects and their generous pensions plan.
    who will win?Producers and taxers!
    As in the past the abusers will go all the way.
    be Ready to change our way of life ( Small salary but a joyful life with internet and the new virtual way of life)
    As the president of the shell said There is oil underground for a very long time
    the problem happens when the oil comes out of earth.
  • Alex on December 29 2016 said:
    I would not rely too much on rig count considering new technology of horizontal drilling. Plus, there are a lot of wells that have been drilled, and now require frac jobs with lower than drilling costs.
  • Jonathan Pulliam on February 23 2017 said:
    Crude will remain range-bound between US$ 47 - US$ 57 per 42-Gal bbl. for the foreseeable future, ie. 24 months' time

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News