Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

Oil Wars

Transforming the American Military into a Global Oil-Protection Service
By Michael T. Klare


Guarding the pipelines

It has been argued that our oil-protection role is a peculiar feature of the war in Iraq, where petroleum installations are strewn about and the national economy is largely dependent on oil revenues. But Iraq is hardly the only country where American troops are risking their lives on a daily basis to protect the flow of petroleum. In Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and the Republic of Georgia, U.S. personnel are also spending their days and nights protecting pipelines and refineries, or supervising the local forces assigned to this mission. American sailors are now on oil-protection patrol in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the South China Sea, and along other sea routes that deliver oil to the United States and its allies. In fact, the American military is increasingly being converted into a global oil-protection service.


The situation in the Republic of Georgia is a perfect example of this trend. Ever since the Soviet Union broke apart in 1992, American oil companies and government officials have sought to gain access to the huge oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Sea basin -- especially in Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Some experts believe that as many as 200 billion barrels of untapped oil lie ready to be discovered in the Caspian area, about seven times the amount left in the United States. But the Caspian itself is landlocked and so the only way to transport its oil to market in the West is by pipelines crossing the Caucasus region -- the area encompassing Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the war-torn Russian republics of Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, and North Ossetia.


American firms are now building a major pipeline through this volatile area. Stretching a perilous 1,000 miles from Baku in Azerbaijan through Tbilisi in Georgia to Ceyhan in Turkey, it is eventually slated to carry one million barrels of oil a day to the West; but will face the constant threat of sabotage by Islamic militants and ethnic separatists along its entire length. The United States has already assumed significant responsibility for its protection, providing millions of dollars in arms and equipment to the Georgian military and deploying military specialists in Tbilisi to train and advise the Georgian troops assigned to protect this vital conduit. This American presence is only likely to expand in 2005 or 2006 when the pipeline begins to transport oil and fighting in the area intensifies.


Or take embattled Colombia, where U.S. forces are increasingly assuming responsibility for the protection of that country's vulnerable oil pipelines. These vital conduits carry crude petroleum from fields in the interior, where a guerrilla war boils, to ports on the Caribbean coast from which it can be shipped to buyers in the United States and elsewhere. For years, left-wing guerrillas have sabotaged the pipelines -- portraying them as concrete expressions of foreign exploitation and elitist rule in Bogota, the capital -- to deprive the Colombian government of desperately needed income. Seeking to prop up the government and enhance its capacity to fight the guerrillas, Washington is already spending hundreds of millions of dollars to enhance oil-infrastructure security, beginning with the Cano-Limon pipeline, the sole conduit connecting Occidental Petroleum's prolific fields in Arauca province with the Caribbean coast. As part of this effort, U.S. Army Special Forces personnel from Fort Bragg, North Carolina are now helping to train, equip, and guide a new contingent of Colombian forces whose sole mission will be to guard the pipeline and fight the guerrillas along its 480-mile route.


Oil and instability

The use of American military personnel to help protect vulnerable oil installations in conflict-prone, chronically unstable countries is certain to expand given three critical factors: America's ever-increasing dependence on imported petroleum, a global shift in oil production from the developed to the developing world, and the growing militarization of our foreign energy policy.
Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. This article is based on his new book, Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency (Metropolitan / Henry Holt).
 
Beware the 'Peak Oil' Agenda Saudi Oil Is Secure and Plentiful, Say Officials

Tim Kennedy, Arab News
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=6&section=0&article=44011&d=29&m=4&y=2004

WASHINGTON, 29 April 2004 — Officials from Saudi Arabia’s oil industry and the international petroleum organizations shocked a gathering of foreign policy experts in Washington yesterday with an announcement that the Kingdom’s previous estimate of 261 billion barrels of recoverable petroleum has now more than tripled, to 1.2 trillion barrels.

Additionally, Saudi Arabia’s key oil and finance ministers assured the audience — which included US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan — that the Kingdom has the capability to quickly double its oil output and sustain such a production surge for as long as 50 years.

[...]

“Saudi Arabia now has 1.2 trillion barrels of estimated reserve. This estimate is very conservative. Our analysis gives us reason to be very optimistic. We are continuing to discover new resources, and we are using new technologies to extract even more oil from existing reserves,” the minister said.

Naimi said Saudi Arabia is committed to sustaining the average price of $25 per barrel set by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. He said prices should never increase to more than $28 or drop under $22.*

[...]

“Saudi Arabia’s vast oil reserves are certainly there,” Naimi added. “None of these reserves requires advanced recovery techniques. We have more than sufficient reserves to increase output. If required, we can increase output from 10.5 million barrels a day to 12 - 15 million barrels a day. And we can sustain this increased output for 50 years or more. There will be no shortage of oil for the next 50 years. Perhaps much longer.”

Note that the oil reserves claimed by Saudi Arabia alone (1.2 trillion barrels) exceed what the Peakers claim are the total recoverable oil reserves for the entire planet. Let's pause here for a minute and think about the significance of that: one tiny patch of land, accounting for less than than 1/2 of 1% of the earth's total surface area, potentially contains more oil that the 'Peak' pitchmen claim the entire planet has to offer! Is there not something clearly wrong with this picture?

Needless to say, that sort of candor by the Saudis could put a serious crimp in Washington's plans to sell the 'Peak Oil' scam. Perhaps that is why, just three days after that announcement, the Saudi oil industry was attacked by some of those terr'ists. Not to be deterred, however, Saudi officials announced three weeks later, on May 21, that the Kingdom still intended to dramatically increase its petroleum output. And a week after that, on May 29, those crafty terr'ists launched yet another brazen attack on the Saudi oil industry. Shit happens, I guess.
 
And this from a few days ago:

World oil demand estimate raised

World oil demand stands at over 80 million barrels a day - The International Energy Agency has revised upwards its estimate of world oil demand, quashing hopes of an imminent decline in oil prices. The IEA said in its monthly oil market report that demand for oil was running at 82.2 million barrels a day, 750,000 more than previously thought.

Demand growth this year is running at its fastest level in 24 years, the Paris-based organisation said.

_39941820_world_oil_gra203.gif
 
Look, the "Peak Oil Now, Imminent End of Civilisation" arguments are bogus for any number of reasons. Oil is not infinite in supply, but there's plenty down there. That's not the immediate point though. Many major reserves are in geo-politcal hotspots, and the particular problem right now is soaring demand, as Barking Mad is saying, combined with a serious lack of refining capacity in non-sweet oils(interestingly, from what I've read recently, there's a big discount on the market to Saudi and Venezuelan oils (up to $6 a barrel) compared to the "sweet" Texas and Brent crude prices which are currently hitting the heights), as well as a lack investment in production capacity, in part linked to stupidly low energy prices over the last 20 years. Environmental standards have been responsible in part for the former (NB I am not saying this is bad per se) as it's cheaper to scrub sulphur dioxide out of sweet crude.

The longer term issue, of gradually declining supplies, rising world energy demand and impact of carbom emissions on the climate is quite something else, but it's not what's causing the current peaks.
 
I'd be very interested in your views on the following question slaar and indeed those of freke or anyone else with credible and serious training in economics.

Suppose that the oil price trend stays high for an extended period, as seems likely due to increasing demand and the apparent difficulty in meeting that demand. What happens to the global economy over the next few years ... ?
 
http://thewolfatthedoor.blogspot.com/

3. Market economics and pseudo-science reach mutual accommodation, more or less, in references to capacity constraint, demand growth, and accelerating consumption. Oil, like bourgeois politics, can then pretend to be all things all at once-- abundant and scarce, cheap and dear, more important and less essential, post-peak and pre-dawn.

But "the economy," global and national, is not growing dramatically; petroleum "productivity," dollar output per BTU is not declining; transportation demand is not soaring.

For the past three years, US real private non-residential fixed investment, the real bell-weather, non bell-shaped curve measuring the success of capital's self-expansion, its reproduction, has been below its 2000 peak. Annual spending on industrial equipment has declined each year since 2000. In 2003, the spending was 14 percent below the 2000 mark. Spending on transportation equipment, and petroleum provides 95 percent of the energy consumed in transportation, was 25 percent below the 2000 mark. Total net new non-residential fixed investment for 2003 was only 40 percent of its 2000 measure.

Capacity utilization rates for industry remain below the 2001 level. While industrial output for 2002 and 2003 measured approximately 12 percent above the 1997 mark, once high-technology production is removed for the analysis, industrial output is actually below the 1997 level.

Between 2000 and 2003, overall US energy consumption declined 1 percent. Per capita energy consumption, however, has declined 4 percent, and consumption per dollar of GDP has fallen 5 percent. In three years, total petroleum consumption has increased by 3.5 percent, hardly a spectacular rate of growth.

The global economy likewise has not surpassed rates of growth recorded prior to 1997. World trade did grow between 2002 and 2003, but almost 70 percent of that growth was an accounting adjustment for the decline of the US dollar. Real trade grew at 4.5 percent, below the rate of increase recorded in the 1990s, while manufacturing grew only 2.5 percent. None of this growth has exceeded pre-existing capacity in transport or production.

China? China is not so much an economic miracle as it is the force fed goose, about to explode from an enlarged liver.

4. Hubbert the king based his analysis on a single, critical assumption-- that all oil production would follow the pattern of a single oil field. The critical assumption has been taken over, uncritically, by the little Hubbertist knaves. But the history of production has not followed this single field pattern. Indeed, even the US, with its steadily declining production has not shown the same steady decline in proven reserves and proved recoverable amounts. Between 1977 and 2002 US cumulative production increased 68.2 billion barrels, 56 percent, to 189.6 billion barrels. Proven reserves, which measured 33.6 billion barrels in 1977 declined only 25 percent to 24.0 billion barrels in 2002. Proven ultimate recovery increased in this period from 155.0 billion barrels to 213.6 billion. Proven reserves actually increased between 1998 and 2002. The disparity between cumulative production and remaining reserves is itself a product of replacement at the drill-bit-- where production has led to more accurate estimates of remaining reserves. This is the pattern that is being repeated right now in Russia, Colombia, Mexico, Nigeria, Sao Tome.

5. However great the utility of oil, its necessity to production and circulation, oil is not the universal solvent, nor the ultimate source of value, neither the aqua regia nor aqua vitae, of capital. Labor time, more precisely, the expropriation of labor time is all that and more, the royal river transporting all the bourgeoisie's goods to market. The bourgeoisie's rate of success in realizing that expropriation becomes manifest in the mass and rate of profit; in the dedication of profit to reproducing the expropriation of labor-time through the application of greater technical inputs-- into expanding production.

1997 stands as the critical year in that process of reproduction, that success and failure in the reproduction of capital, as 1997 saw the collapse of the newly-emerging economies of Asia, a collapse triggered by overproduction; a collapse pre-figured in the overproduction of the semi-conductor industry; overproduction made manifest in the destruction of the former Soviet Union; overproduction reproduced in the collapse of oil prices a year later.

All that has occurred since 1997 has been the manifestation of this overproduction, this failure of reproduction. Today the future is upon us and it looks just like Afghanistan, Iraq, Jenin. It is a future of where the reproduction of capital consists of the destruction of the prospects for any future at all.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
I'd be very interested in your views on the following question slaar and indeed those of freke or anyone else with credible and serious training in economics.

Suppose that the oil price trend stays high for an extended period, as seems likely due to increasing demand and the apparent difficulty in meeting that demand. What happens to the global economy over the next few years ... ?
Don't have time to answer in detail now I'm afraid, but I'll give it a go.

The short answer is: nobody can say for sure. There's likely to be a global ratcheting up of inflation for the first time in a while, although for us more in the form of more expensive imports as our domestic oil / GDP unit ratio is significantly lower than in the 1970s, a hell of a lot of investment in alternative oil supplies, but also in energy efficiency and alternative sources, much like after the OPEC shocks. For those concerned about long term climate change and sustainability that's a benefit. The other obvious thing is that oil demand will fall if prices keep rising, but the way this fall in demand manifests itself (job cuts etc) and where is pretty tough to say. Developing economies are far more vulnerable to oil shocks (they were a major factor in the wiping out of ISI gains in the 1970s and 1980s which helped pave the way for the liberalisation agenda). How this all plays out, and where it plays out is as chaotic (in the mathematical sense) potentially as the fall-out from the last oil shocks, although it must be added that we're well down from those peaks in real terms at the moment.

I'll come back to this, and I'd welcome anyone else's thoughts.

bigfish - some of that analysis is a fairly standard "overproduction" critique of capitalism; the massive weak link there is writing off China as a "force fed goose"; they've got a fair few problems to get through, but long term they're looking like postponing that "downfall of capitalism" significantly through long term, significant productivity increases involving a fifth of the world's population, for better or for worse. As ever it's significantly under-valuing the resilience of the system; people were saying exactly the same 100 years ago just as the US was powering through to overtake the UK and drive economic growth (and the rest) for, arguably, 50-100 years.
 
Suppose that the oil price trend stays high for an extended period, as seems likely due to increasing demand and the apparent difficulty in meeting that demand. What happens to the global economy over the next few years ... ?

Kinda agree with slaar.

Poor in rural + urban areas in 3rd world are fucked.

Disabled/elderly reliant on cars even in 1st world are probably fucked aswell due to government policies.

Look at all the strikes in Nigeria

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6504181
 
sihhi said:
Poor in rural + urban areas in 3rd world are fucked.

Disabled/elderly reliant on cars even in 1st world are probably fucked aswell due to government policies.
Rural people in the 1st world are likely to be pretty heavily hit too. As it is many poor people in the countryside go without so they can run a car, they'll probably miss out on even more before they accept the isolation of rural life.
 
The 2000 petrol price crisis made it clear that two of the most vulnerable groups in terms of sensitivity to a rise in prices are farmers and lorry drivers.
 
I think that's truer with regards to the short term than anything else. Farmers will end up getting sorted (apart from the smaller ones, but they geberally aren't hit as hard -though with smaller margins they're obviously less able to cope etc etc a seperate point etc) because they're a powerful bunch, and lorry drivers will be able to respond somehow because we don't have another way to transport goods, and we don't have a way to live without transporting goods.

Lorry drivers are suffering now due to less taxes on European fuels, but if price rises are wholesale then that advatage won't remain - so there's a possibility that British lorry drivers will be put in a position where they're better able to compete than they can now.

The impact on rural families will be a different affair. No coverage on the news, just a slow seeping away of access to already limited services, and a drift towards even greater rural hardship :(

Or....

Villages will come alive again as people begin to work and socialise where they live. Farms will produce more food for local consumption. Pubs will regain lost life. And village sports facilites and communities centres will become buzzing hives of activity :)
 
Backatcha Bandit said:
Matt Savinar of Life After The Oil Crash is making his book available for free until the election. You can download the PDFs at the bottom of this page:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/downloads.html


Another collection of writings that may prove useful in the time to come:

http://www.survivingpeakoil.com/articles.php

Quote of the day: "Your inability to keep yourself informed does not make me a 'crank'".

Thanks for the link I've just read the first part of Matt Savinar's book :eek: :eek: Heavy reading but seems a bit over egged.
I hope it is over egged. :confused:
 
Dandred said:
Thanks for the link I've just read the first part of Matt Savinar's book :eek: :eek: Heavy reading but seems a bit over egged.
I hope it is over egged. :confused:

Personally, I don't believe it is possible to 'over egg' or overstate the magnitude of the problem.

I would love it if we were all wrong about this - if there was something we had overlooked that might offer us some way out of the situation we have landed ourselves in, but unfortunately as yet, despite quite a few years of researching this subject, I have found no evidence to suggest that we will be able to avert an absolute catastrophe (dieoff).

Indeed, the harder I look, the more evidence I find that supports the conclusions of Savinar, Cambell, Le Harre, Simmons, Smalley, Hanson et al.


Section 49 on page 65 of the PDF raises some questions/points regarding the relationship between energy and money. If anyone has time to read that I think it might make for an interesting discussion, particularly if anyone feels that Savinar has got it wrong (personally, I don't think he has, but would welcome a challenge in that regard).

-

One other thing that I can't remember if we have discussed here or not (I'm back on a rather slow dial-up and short of time to look back atm) is the issue of World Tanker Capacity and the fact that we appear to running at around 100% with charter fees going through the roof.

In particular, the effects of the new legislation that comes into force in (IIRC) May 2005 regarding the use of single-skin tankers, which will dramatically erode the tankerage capacity overnight if enforced, thus obviously further adding to supply constraints.

Edit: With regard to the 'fuel protests' of a few years back - I feel it worth mentioning again this Guardian article which contains information that I found surprising at the time - it examines some of the more parapolitical aspects of what was going on at that time, and is very much worth reading.
 
You're right BB, that Guardian article is very interesting. Thanks ...

It would probably be interesting to compare the UK to other areas of what one might call geo-political interest, in this respect.

Strategic US bases more or less outside UK government control, a massive propaganda campaign used to install quislings (ie Thatcher and her successors) who then create a favourable environment for oil extraction, demolish much of our capacity for economic self-sufficiency and introduce ruthless free-market policies to the severe detriment of our working people.

With regard to that 'interesting discussion' I take it you mean this stuff?
As you can see, dealing with the oil crisis requires much more than just finding a replacement for oil. It requires replacing a growth-based monetary system with a steady-state system.
The point being that almost all of economics and the very structure of our way of life, assumes a growth-based system rather than the steady state system that Hubbard was proposing as early as the mid 20th century and that those (mostly environmentalists) who can tell the difference between a finite stock and a continuous flow of energy have been proposing for some time now?

I agree that there are some interesting questions there. Perhaps our economists can help. Has there been any thinking about the implications of a growth-based model vs steady state? Or about how to make the transition?
 
bigfish said:

I read that, quickly. It seems to me that Dave, the author, is trying to understand US foreign policy in terms of a single narrative thread about oil, and has concluded that anyone arguing that there's a shortage of oil is giving succour to some simple, single agenda about controlling oil. It seems he's arguing backward from the narrative he's constructed about foreign policy.

So, to me, it doesn't say anything either way about the question of resources...
 
laptop said:
I read that, quickly. It seems to me that Dave, the author, is trying to understand US foreign policy in terms of a single narrative thread about oil, and has concluded that anyone arguing that there's a shortage of oil is giving succour to some simple, single agenda about controlling oil. It seems he's arguing backward from the narrative he's constructed about foreign policy.

So, to me, it doesn't say anything either way about the question of resources...
I see what you mean about the single narrative. I'd look at it this way. What do we actually know with a reasonable degree of certainty? (I use 'know' in this sense, I'm aware there are dissenting views)

We know fossil fuels are a finite resource. We know that some kinds of fossil fuels are easier to translate into economic value than others and that these different kinds of fossil fuels have politically charged distributions. We know that human population is increasing. We know that more fossil energy goes into our food systems than they yield in food energy. We know that demand for energy, food and other resources derived from fossil fuels is increasing roughly in proportion to the growing global population. We also know that burning fossil fuels causes climate change. We know that control over these important resources is regarded as strategic and worth going to war over.

What we don't know for sure is how to precisely quantify all this stuff. Firstly because many of the data owners (oil companies, middle east kingdoms etc) have a clear interest in lying about the actual numbers. Secondly because all of these variables interact in complex ways in the real world, mediated by economics, politics etc, and that they do so over relatively long periods.

It is certainly possible that people with different political views may tend to construct their own different narratives based on whichever information and interactions they are aware of, or which they have selected as relevant to the narrative they want to produce, for reasons other than scientific truth.

I think it's also possible to focus on what we know with a reasonable degree of confidence though, and to draw conclusions from that. One conclusion that I would draw is that while we have a way of life based on continuous economic growth, we are in a nasty dilemma. Either we have sufficient fossil fuels to trigger the worst effects of climate change, or we haven't, in which case some of us are probably going to struggle to eat sometime in the future.

As we go forward in time, we are going to find out where the relevant constraints really are. Various groups are going to try to exploit the changing environment as part of a co-evolutionary process of global change. The clever trick for those who care about egalitarian values is to figure out how to adapt to those changes in a way that support their values. You can bet that the people who live by predatory and violently xenophobic values will be doing the same.
 
slaar said:
bigfish - some of that analysis is a fairly standard "overproduction" critique of capitalism; the massive weak link there is writing off China as a "force fed goose"; they've got a fair few problems to get through, but long term they're looking like postponing that "downfall of capitalism" significantly through long term, significant productivity increases involving a fifth of the world's population, for better or for worse. As ever it's significantly under-valuing the resilience of the system; people were saying exactly the same 100 years ago just as the US was powering through to overtake the UK and drive economic growth (and the rest) for, arguably, 50-100 years.

Well, that may be so slaar, but, if memory serves, at around the same time as "the US was powering through to overtake the UK", the Russian masses were powering through the gates of the Winter Palace and establishing workers councils in St. Petersburg and Moscow.

Nor does the author underestimate the resilience of the capitalist system as you insist. The analysis makes no claim that the system is about to expire. On the contrary, this destruction - this reproduction of destruction - is the resilience.

The issue, in any case, is not one of resilience, its one of necessity. The necessity for capital to destroy the productive forces in order to maintain the productive relations, to maintain private property; and the necessity for the conscious, intentional overthrow of these relations.

Your comment on China, like your comment on earlier times, pays little heed to the roll played by the working class in the development of contemporary society and in the shaping of the modern world. Over the last 50 years a huge decline has taken place in the size and social significance of the Chinese peasantry - explained by the process of industrialization. This, in turn, has given rise to a huge increase in the size and social significance of the Chinese working class and with that the deepening of the basic conflict between capital and labour.

China has some problems you say, but long term it looks like postponing the "downfall of capitalism" through significant increases in productivity. I would contend, however, that such an optimistic forecast owes more to wishful thinking and the omission from your calculations of any serious estimate of the rapidly deteriorating near term global prospect; wherein, for example, the very real possibility of external factors such as a major disruption in the oil supply would exacerbate social tensions, tending to destabilize the relations of production underpinning the Chinese economy. Unemployment in China is currently running at about 200 million and rising, labour supply is expanding, healthcare, social welfare, education - the common property - is being destroyed, poverty is rampant—all part and parcel to the necessity of capitalist reproduction.

The claim made by some that the invasion of Iraq has been motivated by an American desire to seize what remains of the last "finite" drops of the world's oil reserves, is way off the mark. American imperialism's military expansion into the Persian Gulf, isn't about controlling oil as fuel, it's about power. As US academic Michael Klare, in his book, Resource Wars, puts it: "Control over the Persian Gulf translates into control over Europe, Japan, and China. It’s having our hand on the spigot”.

In terms of nuts and bolts, what we see being assembled is something more akin to the infamous California energy price gouging scam operated by Enron, only this time raised to the power of a global extortion racket operated through the consortium of oil giants. This would go some way to help explain why profitable refineries are being taken off line and why tanker capacity is being cut back.

With its hand on the oil spigot, the US will be in a position to place its imperial rivals on short rations for decades to come. Thus, the necessity of capital embodied in US imperialism to destroy the productive forces in order to maintain the productive relations, arises once again threatening inter-imperialist conflict, but then so does the necessity for the conscious, intentional overthrow of these relations in order to prevent a monumental human catastrophe.
 
All you people on this thread who have put up stuff on here well done.

What seems absolutely crazy is how private companies extract so much profit from oil.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3949239.stm
Analysts expect BP to unveil third quarter earnings of $4.5bn (£2.5bn) on Tuesday, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

Shell is expected to announce third-quarter profits of about $4.7bn (£2.6bn) two days later.

The forecasts suggest both companies made profits of about $50m (£27m) a day in the three months to September.
 
Just read the 'The Oil Age is Over'
How am I meant to sleep now?

Need a weeping emoticon.
 
Apparently this profit works out at £1m per hour or about £16k a second.

'Strong global demand' boosts BP

Oil giant BP has thanked "strong global demand" for another set of sharply increased profits. During the third quarter of this year, the company's pro-forma result - which approximates to net profits - was $3.9bn (£2.1bn), up 43% year on year. High crude prices have helped all oil companies, but BP insisted that the crucial element was a healthy market. Expensive crude is not an automatic blessing for BP, which relies on refining and marketing.

But the continuing global thirst for products such as petrol and diesel has boosted BP's refinery profit margins; earnings in its marketing business were up 89% year on year. Nonethless, the company has made efforts to expand its crude output this year. Production at its upstream exploration division rose 11% year on year in the third quarter, boosted largely by output from its recently-acquired TNK-BP Russian venture.

Generally, production outside Russia commands a higher margin, but fortunes there were battered by a series of Caribbean hurricanes and tricky conditions in the North Sea. During the quarter, Brent crude oil averaged $41.54 per barrel, up $6 on the previous quarter. BP chairman Lord Browne warned, however, that these highs were unlikely to be sustained, pointing out that Europe's economy was sluggish, and China's starting to ease. "Oil prices are considered to have an approximate support level of $30 per barrel for at least the medium term, with chances of spiking above this level," he said.


Meanwhile, oil still goes up in price with the price yesterday being $54 a barrel.


Stability fears rise as oil reliance grows

The world's reliance on oil and gas is set to increase sharply as global energy demand soars by 60% over the next 25 to 30 years, an influential report predicts. "Fossil fuels will continue to dominate global energy use, accounting for some 85% of the increase in world demand," according to the World Energy Outlook 2004. The good news is that there is plenty of oil and gas in the ground to meet demand. "The Earth's energy resources are more than adequate to meet demand until 2030 and well beyond," the report says.

The world will have to contend with a predicted 60% rise in "climate-destabilising carbon dioxide" emissions between 2004 and 2030, most of it from cars, trucks and power stations. More than two thirds of the increase will come from developing countries as a consequence of fast economic growth and a massive rise in car ownership.

"By 2030, they will account for almost half of total demand," according to the report's author, the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA). One way to cut harmful emissions from poor countries would be to reduce what the IEA calls "energy poverty". "The ranks of those using traditional fuels in unsustainable and inefficient ways for cooking and heating will actually increase," the IEA says. Despite the sharp rise in overall energy consumption, "a billion and a half of the world's poorest citizens totally lack access to electricity, and almost as many will lack it in the year 2030", says IEA executive director Claude Mandil.
 
Not sure I get this.. Europe has admitted concern, but has reduced the amount of stock needed to be held in case of emergencies?!

European Commission Press Release

Brussels, 20 October 2004

Withdrawal of the legislative proposals on oil stocks: the Commission will retake the initiative.

Following institutional blocking in Parliament and Council, the Commission decided today to withdraw the legislative proposals made in September 2002 to reform the Community management of oil stocks, especially in cases of supply crisis. However in the current context of continuous rises in oil prices and market speculation, the Commission remains convinced of the need to improve the current EU legislation, dating mainly from the first oil crisis, and therefore reserves the right to make other proposals to better meet EU needs. "This decision is in line with the framework agreement signed between the Commission and the European Parliament at the beginning of our mandate. However, I remain convinced that we need this tool and particularly the improvement of the current management system of oil stocks at European level ", declared Loyola de Palacio, Vice-President of the European Commission in charge of Energy and Transport.

The current situation of rising oil prices results from a complex combination of factors including the increasing demand on the part of new large consumers (China in particular) but also the very high instability of the geopolitical context and speculation on the markets. In spite of the efforts made to reduce dependency, the EU will depend on external sources of hydrocarbon for around 70% of its fuel requirements in 2030, against 50% today. In this context, the Commission considers that several instruments must be used in parallel: an energy tax that is coordinated between Member States and adapted; measures aiming to promote energy efficiency and therefore to reduce hydrocarbon consumption; the intensification of the dialogue with producing countries and the search for greater transparency and better predictability of the markets, in particular through the development of a price observation system; the continuation of the nuclear option and the promotion of renewable energy; and finally the strengthening of the European oil stock management system in the event of supply crisis.

The draft Directive submitted by the Commission in September 2002 met the latter need by increasing from 90 to 120 days the minimum volume of stocks to be maintained in each Member State and by the opportunity provided to the EU of deciding on the use of these stocks, not only in the event of physical supply rupture but also in the event of perception of such a risk producing dangerous volatility of the markets.

Given the reservations of the co-legislators regarding this text, the Commission prefers withdrawing its proposals in order to better prepare, in the near future, new initiatives which will enable the EU to cope with the new oil context and to guarantee the proper functioning of its energy internal market.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
I agree that there are some interesting questions there. Perhaps our economists can help. Has there been any thinking about the implications of a growth-based model vs steady state? Or about how to make the transition?

I have been trying to follow the work of some of the economists at the Sustainable Europe Research Institute after I read a paper saying that Europe rejected a paper showing we could maintain economic growth in Europe via a sustainable path because unemployment was considered as an unacceptable consequence (grrrr!!!!). Anyway, from what I understand, much work is being done on looking at the materials flow analysis to try to acertain with more confidence what a post oil society could look like. I am trying to make contact with some Green lobbyists to find out how this is progressing... more soon..
 
Back
Top Bottom