Note to Presidential Candidates II: Plateau Oil
Dick Cheney famously called conservation a lifestyle issue, but the pragmatist’s case for sharply reduced demand for gasoline keeps getting stronger. Quite apart from security and environmental issues, the folks who have the oil have made it plain that they’re not able or willing to produce more simply because
That is, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kazakhstan and so on – the nations whose state-owned companies control more than 80% of the world’s known reserves – are placing a deliberate restraint on supply, as Ed Crooks blogged yesterday at the FT.
It's partly why some oil company chairman are predicting an "oil plateau" -- a production level of 100 million barrels of oil or so a day that simply won't be regularly exceeded. That's just 20% above the 87 million barrels a day produced now.
I raise this in part because of an article posted yesterday by The Economist, titled “Peak Nationalism.” The piece identifies the above-noted countries as part of the supply problem. For some reason, they don’t want to suck their fields dry. But, the magazine says, “politicians might console themselves with the thought that even the most recalcitrant petro-regime is more malleable than the brute realities of geology.”
The ordinarily sensible Economist has somehow missed the last 35 years of history, in which what it calls “politics” have played an integral role in the world’s oil supply. The policies of nations – in the West and the
That’s not recalcitrant. That’s rational.
At some point, someone will inform
Here's a brief rundown from CNN on the main candidates' positions on energy.
Photo: Nick Stenning
Rights: Creative Commons
Labels: $100 oil, Caspian, hillary, huckabee, iowa, obama, oil, peak oil, primaries, Putin, Russia


7 Comments:
And petro-states see it in their own best interests to stretch out the income stream into the next generations.
Steve - You think? Unless there is a distinction between petro-states' interests and those of their ruling elites -- and there may well be -- I'd have thought grabbing and pocketing rents as soon as possible would be in the latter's interest.
FH: you raise a good point. But think about Kazakhstan's offshore. Nazarbayev has claimed for years that he was holding off on leasing or selling rights to areas outside Kashagan for future generations, and so far he hasn't done anything with this highly prospective area. Naturally there is lining of pockets; there is personal interest. But I also don't think we see Kazakhstan sucking its fields dry. Thoughts?
Agreed, on Nazarbayev. Less sure about Russia, Azerbaijan and some others.
You'll be aware that there has been much debate across the FSU oil patch about how intensively one should pump existng wells. That's an interesting discussion, albeit mostly for geologists and engineers. But some of my contacts feel the region could be producing much more than it does now, without touching new fields. The question is whether that's being governed by geology or economics -- ie, supply management.
The more interesting angle for most folks -- and one which you and I have discussed previously -- is whether some of the petro-states (ok, one -- Russia) has enough strategic clout in the world to be able to stir things up sufficiently in places like the Mid-East to keep oil prices higher than they really ought to be.
"The more interesting angle for most folks -- and one which you and I have discussed previously -- is whether some of the petro-states (ok, one -- Russia) has enough strategic clout in the world to be able to stir things up sufficiently in places like the Mid-East to keep oil prices higher than they really ought to be."
Hm. Who is it again who invades and wrecks Middle Eastern countries on a whim, and, until quite recently, looked like they hadn't broken the habit?
And what was the price of oil in January 2003?
Yep, I agree with that, Anonymous. And I guess Steve's point is that national politics have played a role in the oil game for many years, on both the supply and demand sides.
I also think that the guys in the Kremlin paid close attention too, and think the US-UK Iraq venture justifies whatever they can do in their interests. I'm just trying to figure out what their interests -- their objectives -- might be.
By the way, the Russia-watching corner of the blogosphere is currently discussing a good piece in the FT today (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ac1749e6-bb13-11dc-9fbc-0000779fd2ac.html) by Matthew Green and Catherine Belton, about a very ambitious-sounding Gazprom foray in Nigeria. Useful analyses here (http://seansrussiablog.org/2008/01/05/gazproms-imperial-foray/) and here (http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2008/01/gazprom_looks_to_capture_niger.htm)
Thanks for that link FH. The Nigeria development -- picked up by The Wall Street Journal as well -- is extremely interesting. And, as Gazprom's Alexei Miller says, this is only part of the company's overseas investment strategy. Expect many more such deals.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home