Oil Prices Are Not Going to Spike Again Just Yet

The party isn't over -- at least not yet.

For the last year, relatively low oil prices have helped us all cope with the economic collapse. We've paid less for gasoline than we have for years. And businesses have paid less for running their factories, planes and product transportation.

But last week we began hearing the music die down and waiters moving guests out the door. The trigger was crude oil surging through the $80-a-barrel barrier for the first time since September 2008. Goldman Sachs, among others, said the hike is a signal of even higher prices going forward. Goldman predicts an average of $110-a-barrel oil next year.

Here's one big reason why the bulls so predict: Global oil exploration and production have dropped, and when economies rebound there will be a shortage. Hence prices are bound to rise. In the U.S., for instance, exploration is down 27.8% from a year ago, with 309 rigs actively drilling, compared with 428 at this time in 2008, according to the Baker Hughes Rig Count. Abroad, there are 8% fewer rigs drilling than there were a year ago—764, down from 831.

Of course, at some point these fellows will be correct -- global economics will gradually improve, and oil and gasoline prices will rise. But as numerous other analysts tell me, there are numerous reasons to expect oil prices to stay where they are, or even drop, for the next year or two.

When oil prices rocketed past $140 last year, the cause lay mostly with speculative dollars capitalizing on the supply-demand balance: There was virtually no spare production capacity anywhere in the world, so that any supply disruption, such as hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and the routine militant attacks in Nigeria, pushed prices up. Taking advantage of the tight market, a wide swath of investors including university endowments, investment funds and small investors piled in to funds holding oil futures, driving the price up.

But the situation is different now. Saudi Arabia has added a huge volume of fresh production capacity since last year. Globally, oil producers can produce 6.7 million more barrels a day than they actually sell, according to the International Energy Agency; Saudi Arabia accounts for 3.8 million barrels, or 56%, of the total.

And why aren't the Saudis and others running their oil rigs at full-capacity? Because there's a huge volume of crude already sloshing around the world. New U.S. government data shows that the U.S. stockpile of oil rose by 800,000 barrels in the latest week, and stored gasoline by 1.6 million barrels. All in all, U.S. crude inventories stand at around 340 million barrels, up 27% from a year ago, reports the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In addition, since mid-September the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has exceeded 725 million barrels, a 27-year record. Together, that's about 118 days of U.S. oil imports.

In fact, there's such a global glut that there's almost no place on land to put all the oil. An estimated 125 million barrels' worth are floating around on tankers scattered over the globe, according to the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries. Normally, a negligible amount of oil is being stored offshore in ships.

Much of that oil would have to be drawn down before any big price spike takes place.

The main driver of last week's price runup was the weak dollar -- since March, the dollar has fallen 15% in inflation-adjusted value compared with a basket of currencies of its major trading partners. Traders have sought to cushion the fall in the value of the dollars they are holding by buying futures in traditional safe havens. While oil prices have surged by 71% since March, gold has also soared this year by more than 20%, to more than $1,000 an ounce.

But for the last few days, the dollar has hardened up. And oil prices are back down. Today, they fell to $77.46 a barrel.

Maestro, more music please.

Mulling Over Why Oil Prices Have More Than Doubled

We return to the matter of oil prices, the questions being: Why have they more than doubled over the last four months; and are they headed still higher in the short term?

Oil today closed above $70 a barrel for the first time in seven months. As a memory-jogger, they were at $33 just in February. But unlike the last explosion in prices -- to $147 a barrel 11 months ago -- no one seems to be ruling out a role on the part of speculation.

Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal’s Ben Casselman has noted, there appears to be a broad consensus that billions of dollars in speculative money has settled in oil, thus driving up the price. The reason is that traders and investors are buying crude, among other commodities like copper, as protection because they don’t want to hold dollars whose value has been weak and volatile.

There is much said about “fundamentals.” That is, more than 2.6 billion barrels of oil is in storage around the world – including some 130 million barrels just on ships that are trolling global waters until prices go up -- and demand shows no sign of recovering. This thinking goes that the speculators have canceled out these fundamental truths.

But, isn’t it possible that the collapse in oil prices to $32 was in itself an overshoot, and that oil is at a truer balance in the $60- to $70-a-barrel range?

That seems as rational a view as any I have heard. Yet, at Alaron Energy, Phil Flynn attributes much of the price runup to Ben Bernanke over at the Federal Reserve. Flynn, normally among the clearest communicators among observers of the market, has been resorting to economic gobbledy gook for weeks about an obscure economic practice called quantitative easing.

So that O&G readers are not forced as I was to troll the Internet and confer with colleagues about this term, we are talking simply about the Fed buying federal assets like treasury bonds. By taking the Fed’s money, the sellers of these assets now have oodles of cash burning a hole in their collective pockets, Flynn argues. And what are they doing with it? Among other things, according to Flynn, buying oil.

John Authers at the Financial Times argues – probably rightly -- that the Fed may keep its current policy in place for some time. But Flynn says that the futures market suggests that the Fed may move quicker than some expect.

Of course, the longer-term trend is clear. Oil prices seem likely to spike again sooner or later because oil companies have halted so many exploration and drilling projects that, when the global economy recovers, there is probably going to be an oil shortage. And we all know what happens in oil shortages.

Why Are Oil Prices Rising?

Many are asking the question about oil prices: Is this deja vu all over again? Didn't we just go through a several-year run-up in prices based largely not on fundamentals, but on traders bidding them up, ultimately to $147 a barrel? Only then to see them plunge to $32 a barrel?

If one puts stock in the plunge, then there appears to be air in the run-up today to a six-month-high of $60 a barrel. How much is anyone’s guess. The other day, one exceedingly smart oil analyst privately put it in the range of $5 to $10 a barrel.

Here is the case for a price bubble: Oil inventories are at a 19-year high; the U.S. alone has some 1 billion barrels sitting in storage tanks, according to Mark Williams at the Associated Press. Demand for oil is set to fall to its lowest level in five years, says the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The opposite case goes as follow: The market is factoring in expected inflation because of global deficit spending; Chinese investment spending is reviving. Over at Alaron, Phil Flynn says these are also genuine “fundamentals.”

Regardless, there always seems to be reason offered up to trust in a price run-up. After all, markets are all about emotions, as Robert Shiller notes. Yet, there are still sober voices. In my view, the Financial Times’ Chris Flood delivers it straight: Prices are rising because of various types of trading gambles. Flood quotes Mike Wittner, a senior oil analyst at Société Générale saying the following: “Recent price strength is not based on fundamentals, but on financial flows.”

Over at the Oil Drum, Rune Likvern says up to 3 million barrels a day of oil is being bought purely for storage, including on the sea. But he predicts that such purchases – which help to prop up prices – will decline because storage is becoming harder and harder to find; when they do, Likvern says, prices will fall substantially.

It’s a fool’s game to predict oil prices. That doesn’t stop a lot of people, of course, especially the traders.

China Changes Calculus for Petro-Rulers

Much has been written on how low oil prices will help to reverse the fortunes of resource-strapped Big Oil – if not precisely jolly over their new penury, closed-armed petro-powers, it's said, will now allow western oil companies at least to make a case why they should be permitted to conduct exploration and production. Atop the list of this ostensible new state of affairs have been Venezuela, Libya, and Russia.

But so far, the opposite appears to be happening -- resource-rich countries are not opening up to new deals with western oil companies. One reason is that the analyses appear to have played down two factors – the depth of discomfort among the petro-powers with Big Oil; and the deep-pocketed willingness of China to step in.

The implications of China's entry as cash savior include not only trouble for non- state oil companies; it also could exaggerate an expected resumption of relatively high oil prices once the global economy recovers.

In the last week, we have seen China lending Russia's Transneft and Rosneft $25 billion in exchange for a guaranteed oil supply of 300,000 barrels a day for 20 years. The price of the oil wasn't disclosed. Look next for Gazprom to borrow from the Chinese to finance its ongoing operations.

Even more conspicuous was last Thursday's announcement that China is lending Brazil up to $10 billion to help develop its oil company Petrobras's deepwater oilfields. The deal is in exchange for up to 160,000 barrels a day of oil. Again, the price of the oil wasn’t disclosed.

The Brazilian case is perhaps more important because it appears on the cusp of the country becoming a huge petro-power on the backs of an estimated 12 billion barrels of offshore oil; Brazil itself says it may possess an additional 100 billion barrels of oil.

Because the oil has been found in extremely deep water, analysts have forecast that Petrobras will need Big Oil’s cash and capabilities in order to develop it. Indeed already Exxon Mobil, Amerada Hess and BG are among companies working offshore in Brazil. But if China remains open-walleted, there will probably be less need for more cooperation with multi-nationals.

Interestingly, both Russia and Brazil were willing to be on the hook to China for guaranteed reserves while at least for now remaining closed to new cooperation with Big Oil.

The ramifications for future oil prices stems from the nature of the deals. The price of oil is set to a large degree on the availability of supply during moments of man-made or natural crises, such as war or hurricanes. To the degree that the available supply is already tied up in long-term contracts, there’s less wiggle room during these crises, and thus more of a chance of a price spike.

Already, oil companies are significantly reducing new exploration projects, and shutting in uneconomic oilfields in the U.S. and elsewhere. This means that, once the economy and oil demand recover, there will be less supplies of oil and natural gas. China's new oil deals will exacerbate the supply tightness. And any geopolitical or weather-caused crisis will more likely drive oil and ultimately gasoline prices higher.

For Big Oil, a Day of Reckoning

Most of us are elated with gasoline prices, especially those driving to see relatives. We are down on the Chesapeake shore, and filled up the mini-van for $1.49 a gallon. But if you are an oil company, these aren't happy times.

Chiefly, if you are a petro-state or an oilman, you've probably got whiplash. Last summer, customers were paying you up to a whopping $147 a barrel for your oil, and though few except perhaps Arjun Murti over at Goldman Sachs thought those prices would stick around, it was equally so that almost no one expected to be paid as little as $32 a barrel just a few months later (and $36 today). Russia, Venezuela, Iran and most of the rest of the oil producing states simply cannot balance their budgets.

But, focusing for now on oil companies big and small, matters are about to get worse. As others are pointing out, that will become clear in just a few days -- on Dec. 31 to be precise. One might call it the day of reckoning. The Wall Street Journal's Ben Casselman was ahead of the pack in writing about this.

But what these reports aren't pointing out is that, if projections are anywhere near correct, this isn't a one-year matter. The companies may be in for trouble for at least the next couple of years. (After alarming the skittish market in the summer by forecasting $200-a-barrel oil, Goldman Sachs is now predicting average $45-a-barrel oil next year. The World Bank expects an average of $75 a barrel oil over the next two years.)

Here's why: It's the price of oil on Dec. 31 that all oil companies -- at least those that sell shares to the public -- must use as a measuring stick of just just how much in the way of proven oil and gas reserves they own. The most important factor in this calibration is how much it costs a company to drill a barrel of oil in, say, Canada, or the Gulf of Mexico. If they cannot drill that barrel economically at $40 a barrel (presuming that's about the price five days from now), it must be stricken from the books. Along with that number, the companies report their so-called "reserve replacement" -- to what degree managed to replenish the oil and natural gas they drilled during the year.

Those numbers must be reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission on a company's 10-K statement. That's where the trouble begins: When the companies go public with their reports in February and March, Wall Street will use the numbers to help calculate how much their share price is worth; and banks and venture capitalists will do the same to determine whether to lend to oil drillers in this tight financial environment, and if so at what interest rate.

Even for 2007 -- when oil ended the year at about $95 a barrel -- the struggle for some of the companies to replace reserves was already apparent. By the SEC rules, Exxon replaced just 76% of its reserves (though by its own internal methods it said it replaced 101%). Chevron replaced just 10%-15% of the oil and gas it drilled. BP said it replaced more than 100%.

But at $35 or $40 a barrel, those percentages are going to be far lower. Stay tuned for some news-spinning from Big Oil's public relations arms in the coming weeks and months. The companies' share prices have already been pummeled this year by Wall Street.

Some say that a focus on reserve reports is something for "unsavvy investors" and commentators -- "the resources are still there for a price," said this fellow calling others unsavvy.

That view is correct to a point -- Dec. 31 is an arbitrary date to judge one's reserves. But it's a narrowly drawn view, concentrating only on the presence of fossil fuels in the ground. It ignores that that oil and gas is becoming far harder and more expensive to drill; it's situated in smaller and smaller reservoirs, requiring the drilling of more and more wells to produce the same volume of oil; and it's largely controlled by petro-states that, even if low oil prices drive petro-states to be friendlier toward international oil companies, are still likely to demand far tougher terms than they did, say, in the 1990s.

In short, company reserves are becoming smaller, and the focus on reserves reporting is demonstrably relevant.

Some good news for the companies is that the SEC is going to change the reporting rule starting in 2010 -- companies will be able to use an average of the annual price rather than the year-end price.

But that's a slender reed of hope if trends and oil forecasts for an average $40-$60 a-barrel oil next year are accurate.

According to inflationdata.com, the average oil price in 2007 was $66.40; so far this year, it's about $98. So that if the current trajectory holds, the price on which the companies will report their 2009 reserves will be relatively low, too.

The Return of High Oil

In June, a couple of Dutch energy researchers released a fascinating, long-gestating report on high oil prices. At the time, oil was selling for about $130 a barrel, and the authors, neatly dissecting the market, argued that prices were only going to get worse. Just the next month, they did rise -- to $147 a barrel.

But, as O and G readers know, there was good reason to argue the other way at least in the short term – Ed Morse, now shifted from defunct Lehman over to LCM Commodities, asserted correctly that we were in for a considerable price correction.

So, with prices having gone strongly down, as Morse forecast, I made a phone call to the report’s lead author – Jan-Hein Jesse, whom I met last year at an OPEC meeting in Vienna – and asked whether he thinks his thesis still holds. I.E., is another price spike coming down the road?

The answer, Jesse replied, is probably yes. The ‘probably’ covers the event that we are headed into a long, deep depression, in which case all such previously composed economic analyses are off the table, and one must reassess the facts afresh.

But if in the next two or three years we come out of recession in fair economic shape, look for another steep rise in oil and gasoline prices.

Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, has been arguing the same point while making the rounds last week and this week in Washington and elsewhere. He’s been explaining the IEA’s latest World Energy Outlook, which is just as bleak as Jesse’s paper. Jesse wrote the paper with Coby van der Linde.

In short, demand in China, India and elsewhere in the developing world is probably going to roar back and outstrip supply in 2011 or beyond.

That alone will push prices back up. I have a story in the new Business Week on how oil companies also are now responding to $50 oil by shelving oilfield development projects. So, as Jesse told me, “In 2010 or 2011, we will be in the same situation as [the high prices of] last year. Then we will start all over again [in an energy crisis], but it will be much more difficult.”

One interesting observation of Jesse’s is that price no longer works as a stimulant in the other direction – high prices don’t necessarily motivate oil producers to flood the market with supply, and thus tamp down the upward motion of prices. That’s because almost all the available new oilfields are controlled by national oil companies like Saudi Aramco, Russia’s Gazprom and Venezuela’s PDVSA. Unlike oil companies such as Exxon and BP, which if they can are driven to maximize profit by producing more oil when prices are high, these national companies earn what they need from the higher prices, and let the rest of the oil sit in the ground.

In order to meet rising demand starting in 2011 and beyond, Jesse wrote, these producers – the companies and countries – will have to bring twice as much newly found oil onto the market in the next 22 years than what they did in the last 22 years. Meaning they will have to find and deliver 70 million barrels a day of new supply to the market. Almost no one thinks that is possible.

Jesse’s ultimate forecast is that the West – the U.S. and Europe – are going to have to use a lot less oil in order to make way for rising demand in China, India and elsewhere. If they don’t, he says, look for geopolitical tension, and another possible deep and prolonged recession. The coming energy shortages are bound to produce “sometimes confrontational relationships” between the world’s main oil consumers and the petro-states, the authors write.

Jesse and the IEA come to the same conclusion – the current global energy model isn’t sustainable. In order to avoid “the nasty side of oil scarcity,” Jesse and his co-author write, OPEC and other petro-states need to produce more oil, and the West needs to purse efficiency and the development of alternative energy.

Irony at Lehman Brothers: The Stubborn (and Prescient) Ed Morse

Here's one danger of being lionized in one's own lifetime.

Just a few months ago, Goldman Sachs' Arjun Murti, declared "an oracle" for his early prediction of $100 oil, predicted that crude oil prices were headed to $200 a barrel. One financial writer said that detractors of Murti's "superspike theory" of high oil prices would now "eat crow." And when oil reached $147.27 a barrel in July, the soft-spoken Murti was feted day after day.

Today, when oil closed below $100 a barrel for the first time in seven months, at $95.71, Murti looks a lot less far-seeing. His place has been taken by Ed Morse.

The 66-year-old Morse, whom O and G and BW readers heard a lot about in a profile in July, suffered the slights of colleagues in and outside his office at Lehman Brothers while predicting a collapse of oil prices below $100 a barrel based on a different reading of the fundamentals.

Morse said that the market had misread global supply -- where the market saw tightness, Morse saw a growing surplus.

Ironically, Morse has been proven right on the day that his firm declared bankruptcy.

Pushing the issue further, and buttressing Morse's assertions, oil prices may be calibrated a bit differently today. Until now, analysts have focused almost entirely on the tightness of supply -- we're consuming almost the same as what the world's oilfields can produce, so any crisis, like a hurricane for instance, provokes oil analysts and journalists to predict another bout of Murti's superspike.

Yet that isn't what's happened recently. Instead, prices have bumped up a bit, only to fall again once the crisis passed.

Its possible that oil is now in a Wal-Mart age of inventory-on-demand. That is, the market knows that the Saudis, for instance, have a few hundred thousand barrels of spare capacity that they seem willing to switch on and off as the market demands. The same role is played by the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which can fulfill a month of American oil demand.

So that the tightness of supply seems less important. And it may take a lot more before Murti's equation again becomes relevant.

Following Oil's Descent: Half-way There

O and G readers will recall that on July 17 -- with oil at $133 a barrel -- this site predicted that crude prices were on a descent that would end below $100.

We are now about half-way there. Today oil dropped below $116 a barrel.

Why is this the case? First, as stated previously, there is no global shortage of oil itself. There is plenty to meet current demand. The problem has always been the "what if" crowd -- as in, What if there is another Katrina? What if there is war with Iran, and the Strait of Hormuz gets shut down?

These are reasonable fears. But traders are looking at a deep drop in consumer demand for gasoline, at a decline in China's industrial demand for oil, and a hike in the value of the dollar, and deciding both to bet on lower oil, and otherwise to take their speculative bets elsewhere.

In short: the air is going out of the commodity bubble.

Prediction: Sub-$100 Oil

Is the drop in oil prices this week a trend? Will motorists get to stop spending the grocery money to fill their tanks?

One thing is sure and that is that oil prices are in a bubble. I wrote a story on this topic for the issue of Business Week that came out today.

It's a profile on Ed Morse, chief energy economist for Lehman Brothers, who has spent much of the last several months explaining why the year-long runup in oil prices is temporary, and will ease starting in the fall. Next year, he says, the average will be $93 a barrel, which would drop prices at the pump considerably. The on-line version includes a fascinating video of Morse.

Morse's basic argument is that there is no shortage of oil. The market is going to notice a buildup of stored oil around the world starting in the fall. And a plummet in prices will follow.

He makes a convincing case. I myself think that any plunge could end up being a dip, with prices rising again as Chinese and Indian demand go back up. As written previously on O and G, Christophe de Margerie, the chairman of France's Total, seems the most sensible voice on the state of Big Oil.

Gasoline Prices: To Trust or Not To Trust

One of the vexing parts of the runup in oil prices is Saudi Arabia. No, not that it has so much oil and the world is sending so much money over there to buy it. Instead, it's that almost the sum total of our knowledge that the Saudis can keep supplying the oil is that they say they can.

That's right -- the Saudis, unlike almost every other top-tier petro-state on the planet, won't let any outsider look over their detailed oilfield data. You can get the name of the field, and an estimate of reserves. But experts like to examine more arcane data on an oilfield to get a feel for how long a particular reservoir can keep flowing, and at what rate.

The oil markets like such transparency too. Then they know precisely how much oil to expect from where if there's a crisis, like an oilfield seized by Nigerian rebels, or the threat of war with Iran.

But with the Saudis -- the world's largest oil suppliers -- the world has little more than the Saudis' word for it. As Roger Diwan, a Saudi expert at PFC Energy in Washington told me, "We need to trust or not to trust. And nobody trusts."

Part of the outcome of this failure of trust is that oil prices have doubled over the last year. And you know what has happened as a result with gasoline prices.

I've got a story on this topic on the Business Week web site today. It turns out that some of the Saudi promises are doubtful.

As my colleague Stanley Reed wrote in Business Week recently, just two weeks ago King Abdullah gathered together the leaders of OPEC, the CEOs of Big Oil, and several world leaders in an effort to show that the kingdom would and continue to supply a safety margin of oil supply for years to come. Saudi officials said the kingdom would raise its current production of about 9.5 million barrels a day to 12.5 million barrels a day, and that, if need be, they could manage to increase to 15 million barrels a day.

But consider some field-by-field data for the Saudi fields that I was leaked yesterday. They cover the next five years -- through 2013. According to this data, the maximum production is somewhat less -- 12 million barrels a day. And that's the maximum.

It's equivalent to your car's maximum speed -- true, you can get it up to 120 miles per hour, but you can't keep driving that fast for a long time; setting aside the police, your car won't tolerate it. The sustainable speed, if you want to keep your car, is more like 70 or 80 miles an hour.

Well, in the Saudi fields, the sustainable level of production is going to be about 10.4 million barrels of oil a day, according to the person who leaked the data.

What does this mean? That the world needs to keep focusing elsewhere to reduce prices, mainly for the moment on lowering consumption.

Photo: MiikaS

Rights: Creative Commons

Green's Moment of Truth?

Today's breathtaking surge of oil prices through $120 a barrel and on toward $121 underscores a possible shift in the U.S. -- Americans may be finally recovering from their seduction with the road.

An insightful piece by my Business Week colleague Christopher Palmeri details how America's demand for oil appears to be dropping. They are traveling less, and when they do, doing so in smaller vehicles -- they are buying more compact cars, and fewer SUVs.

Caution is in order, since the country is in recession, and these statistics are for a single quarter. Yet the tightness in global oil supplies isn't likely to lift -- Russian production is stuck at about 10 million barrels a day and dropping, and the Saudis are probably at or near their own production peak, according to a piece today by my former Wall Street Journal colleague Neil King. The only big unknown is whether Iraq and Iran come on the market with large new supplies. But even if they do, what are we talking about -- another collective 4 million barrels a day? Five million barrels tops? That's not much of a global cushion, and not sufficient to relieve the tightness as Asian demand continues to grow. Arjun Murti over at Goldman Sachs says that oil may soar to $150 to $200 a barrel in the next couple of years, according to a piece by Bloomberg's Nesa Subrahmaniyan.

Goldman has been prescient on oil prices. And the stars do seem lined up for high commodity prices of all types. But if demand truly is dropping in the biggest gas-guzzling country on the planet, there is reason to give some credence to the opposite outcome -- that the price will stabilize, and even drop. Not too much. Perhaps a bargain $100 a barrel? A firesale $90?

Yet that could be sufficient to trigger an era of proving time for the conviction of investors and innovators in renewable fuels. In an excellent contrarian piece, my Business Week colleague John Carey says that corn ethanol has wrongly suffered a black eye over its impact on the food supply. Corn ethanol isn't as much a villain as it's made out to be.

But that's irrelevant to the current environment. What's driven billions of dollars into venture capital has been the runup in oil prices. As long as prices keep rising, that money will probably keep flowing (although probably not into corn ethanol). But if the price surge slows, or reverses, look for an impact in the constellation of renewable companies.

Which venture capitalists have the conviction and stomach to put more into technologies many of whose genuine value won't be known for years and years? And which technology will they decide has the right stuff to succeed in the long term? The air is likely to go out of some of the fledgling companies' perceived value.

Turkmen Subjected to More Sanity: My friend David Stern, the New York Times writer in Central Asia, writes that Turkmenistan leader Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov is dismantling yet another vestige of the deceased buffoon he succeeded. After having reinstated full schooling for children, and reopened local circuses, libraries and even the ballet, Berdymukhamedov is removing the Arch of Neutrality, a revolving statue of his predecessor, Saparmurat Niyazov, from the center of the capital of Ashkabad. Perhaps next he will start issuing visas to foreigners.

Photo: ndanger
Rights: Creative Commons

Greenspan and the Caspian

As part of the publicity for his memoir, just out today, Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan has given a slew of interviews. In a chat with Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, he accents the knife's edge on which the world economy rests because of tight oil supplies, and inadvertently provides an argument for why the Caspian Sea is strategically important.

In the Post interview, according to Woodward, Greenspan said that the disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day of oil could translate into crude prices as high as $120 a barrel; the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy, Greenspan said. Read story

That is precisely the volume of oil exports expected from the Caspian -- from Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan combined -- after about a decade. The main fields involved will be Tengiz, Kashagan and Karachaganak in Kazakhstan, and offshore Baku in Azerbaijan.

As it appears now, much of this oil will pass through the East-West oil corridor championed by Washington, with its hub in Baku. It is why the U.S. has put so much diplomatic weight behind relationships with Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.

Oil prices are largely decided on the margin -- those last 3 to 5 million barrels of total daily world demand. In the next decade, the flow of Caspian oil will produce the equivalent of that margin.