Introduction to a Long Lecture on Oil
7.14.08 Ferdinand E. Banks, Professor
The world oil market is a very different thing today from what it was just a
decade ago. The strength of global demand for oil has surprised just about
everybody – except me of course – while at the same time it has become clear
that there is and has been insufficient investment in additional production
capacity. The core issue here is that it has become increasingly difficult
to locate additional large deposits of oil, and as a result the major oil
producers consider it uneconomical to look as hard as their customers want
them to look. Unlike many observers in the economics faculties of the larger
universities, the executives of these firms have a comprehensive insight
into the cost and risk that are associated with exploring and producing in
marginal regions, and as a result they are paying more attention to the
preferences of their shareholders.
This short article is the introduction to a long lecture that I gave at the
Ecole Normale Superieure (Paris) a short time ago. Among the things I
attempted to make clear was that Saudi Arabia and some other countries have
no intention of interrupting their diversification efforts by exporting more
oil, since a greater export would decrease the price or growth in the price
of oil. I also suggested that even if Iraq eventually conformed to the
dreams of the International Energy Agency (IEA), their best efforts would be
inadequate for bridging the (ex-ante) gap between demand and supply that I
mistakenly thought would appear after 2010, but which may already be the
case. It even looks like influential decision makers are ready to accept
that only very large demand-suppressing price increases can keep the oil
market in a semblance of balance, and contrary to the sort of thing that the
financial press often wants us to believe, the absence of balance could
prove to be macroeconomically devastating.
THE STORY IN SHORT
For some years now I have been try to convince my peers and superiors that
the world oil market was in the process of a rapid transition, and the
combination of resource scarcity and accelerating demand (relative to
supply) would cause a fundamental transmutation that would be reflected in
some very dramatic oil price changes. Of course, until recently I was unable
to prove a few of the things that needed proving in order to reinforce this
contention, but it seems that this deficiency has vanished: it began to fade
away when the price of oil reached $100/b and continued to rise, because
with that price and the present movements of global oil supply and demand,
proofs are no longer necessary: this time the wolf is really here!
In the American Navy there was once a saying that ‘On every ship there is
someone who doesn’t get the message’, however on this ship everyone is
getting the message, where everyone includes a former head of the Petroleum
Industry Research Foundation in New York, who once claimed that OPEC is “on
its way into a stagnant volume environment at best”. That upbeat but
misleading statement can be translated as ‘OPEC’s oil is increasingly
unimportant’.
For me OPEC is – and has always been – the oil producing countries of the
Middle East. I’ve never concerned myself with the others because, as Matt
Damon said in the film Syriana: “It” – meaning oil – “is running out, and
most of what is left is in the Middle East”. As I never miss an opportunity
to point out, some people find this difficult to accept, however some people
specialize in being wrong. The Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA)
once said that OPEC’s fate was not in its own hands, although the truth is
that it has always been in its own hands, with the difference being that now
those producers are fully aware of what is – for them – a very satisfactory
turn of events.
Unfortunately, or fortunately as the case may be, dealing with Middle
Eastern energy resources also involves issues far outside that part of the
world, because it happens to be true that it is no longer advisable to
discuss Middle Eastern prospects without considering the actions and/or
goals of other energy producers, and vice versa. Here we have a perfect
example of what in game theory is called ‘strategic interaction’.
Hopefully this will become at least partially clear in the sequel, but to
begin I want to emphasize that as a teacher of economics and finance, I have
been fully occupied with trying to convince students that I have something
useful to say about what has and is taking place on the global energy front.
Note what I said: has and is taking place on the energy front, because many
observers, students, experts and decision-makers are in total or partial
denial about crucial developments in recent energy history.
I have also tried to offer a valuable insight into one phenomenon that will
characterize the future oil market, which I will repeat now, because it
should never be forgotten. Regardless of what you have heard or will hear,
read or will read, thought or will think and regardless of the assurances
that the oil and gas exporters in the Middle East give or will give, it is
doubtful whether those exporters are able or for that matter willing to
provide the energy resources that their customers desire or will come to
desire, at prices resembling those of the recent past.
And here once again I ask my favourite question: would you supply these
resources if you were in their place?
Some years ago in Rome, at a meeting of the International Association for
Energy Economics (IAEE), I was attending a lecture given by a young lady who
enjoys a certain status in the energy economics world. After her talk there
was an exchange of comments, during which – out of a clear blue Roman sky –
she informed her audience that Professor Banks was totally and completely
mistaken about the oil market in general, and prospects for oil producers of
the Middle East in particular.
Naturally, when I received this negative evaluation of my research abilities
I protested mildly, and later approached her for the purpose of making her
acquainted with two long articles that were related to her talk and
research, both of which were United States (U.S.) government publications,
both of which are relevant to this presentation, and both of which are
almost completely unknown to the great world of academic energy economics.
In one of these there was a map showing possible landing zones for marines
and paratroopers in the Gulf in case exports of oil fell to a level that
governments of the oil importing countries felt were intolerable. I didn’t
have that article with me at the time, however it didn’t make the slightest
bit of difference, because after briefly describing its contents, I saw from
the look of disgust on her face that she considered me a tiresome
know-nothing, and conceivably unbalanced for bothering her with my reference
to some boring document, assuming that it actually existed.
The second article (1979), which – for obvious reasons – I chose not to
mention, began with a long passage on the intended production program of the
foreign companies that managed oil facilities in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere
in the Middle East), before the governments in that region decided that
despite rumours that had been spread far and wide by Big Oil and others,
they were just as qualified to manage the resources located within the
borders of their countries as the ‘Seven Sisters’, as ‘Big Oil’ was known at
the time. This unexpected transfer of ownership took place shortly after the
October War in the Middle East, in l973, and I have often discussed that
event in my work, to include mentioning it in my new energy economics
textbook (2007), but unfortunately insufficient attention has been paid to
my humble efforts. To my way of thinking, had the decision makers in the oil
importing countries been more alert, then it is possible that the price of
oil would not be at its present level – which happens to be a level that, if
sustained and eventually augmented, poses a clear and present danger to the
international macroeconomy, due to the presence of various other
macroeconomic and financial stresses. There is also the danger that this
price could spike to an extreme value in the event of what is sometimes
called an ‘anomalous event’ in or close to one of the major oil producers,
where ‘anomalous event’ is a polite way of describing gunfire or extensive
property damage caused by high explosives. The agenda of the foreign
producers in Saudi Arabia ostensibly featured a progressive raising of oil
production to twenty million barrels of oil per day (= 20mb/d), and keeping
it there as long as it made economic sense – i.e. was profitable. The thing
to be understood is that the strategy underlying this production profile
turned on maximizing profits over a limited time horizon, and here I want to
emphasize that the choice of a time horizon was as important or even more
important than other components of their production strategy, which is an
observation that you did not encounter in Economics 101. You didn’t
encounter it because most of the teachers of Economics 101 do not know how
to handle the production of exhaustible resources like oil. However, after
the assets of these companies were confiscated by their previous hosts, a
very different agenda was introduced The apparent intentions of the
confiscating governments, and especially Saudi Arabia, also turned on
maximizing profits, although over a much longer time horizon. In addition,
when the opportunity arrived, these profits were to be used to diversify
their economies in such a way that the main source of prosperity would be
reproducible capital – i.e. structures and machines – rather than
exhaustible natural resources such as oil and gas. The opportunity arrived
in full bloom when the price of oil suddenly exceeded 40 or 50 dollars per
barrel, because those prices gave the governments of many oil producing
countries the kind of freedom that President Bush and his colleagues believe
only comes about by living or trying to live the American Dream. Everyone
who has watched CNN or the U.S. program ‘60 Minutes’ has probably seen a
brilliant example of this process in that lucky and superbly managed
‘emirate’ Dubai. Returning to the agenda for Saudi Arabia, ‘sustainable’ oil
production over an indefinite future was envisaged at about 10 mb/d, or
less, while an additional 1-2 million barrels per day were to constitute
surge capacity (which is capacity intended for use over a short period).
Notice the or less in the above, because the present King Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia recently said that the world cannot count on large increases in the
output of his country after 2010, which is interesting because some
observers think that today’s oil production is less than Saudi production a
year ago.
Needless to say, this kind of thinking and acting on the part of Middle
Eastern governments did not win approval everywhere, although I want to
confess that it made all the sense in the world to me. By way of contrast,
the position taken by an outspoken Nobel (Prize) Laureate, the late
Professor Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago, was that the general
welfare was always best served by unambiguous profit maximizing behaviour,
supervised by hard-core capitalists. When the assets of the short-run profit
maximizers throughout the Middle East were confiscated, and formal
production quotas for oil established by OPEC, Friedman predicted that the
price of oil would collapse and OPEC would fall apart. Friedman’s irrational
forecast is best forgotten, but even so I want to present and comment on a
similar goofy vision of the Middle East oil scene that was put together by
another University of Chicago Nobel Prize Winner, Professor Gary Becker.
Writing in Business Week (March 17, 2003) he presented his audience with the
following soap-opera:
“Middle Eastern nations are far less important to world oil production than
they were immediately after the formation of OPEC. Their share of world oil
production has fallen from almost 40% to less than 30% now. In order to
raise the global price of oil the OPEC cartel, led by Saudi Arabia, had to
restrict its members’ production. This raised prices, encouraging non-OPEC
nations, including Russia, to expand production. Also, oil companies have
made greater efforts to find new deposits deep in ocean waters, in the
frozen tundra of Siberia, and in China and elsewhere.”
This statement is completely without any scientific value, and will be
touched on later, but a comment is in order now. Becker’s twisted faith in
deep water deposits, as well as large new deposits becoming available in
Russia and China is best described as bizarre. Although a few years ago the
best energy economist in Russia said that his country could raise its oil
production to 30 mb/d of oil and keep it there, the truth is that oil
production in Russia has now roughly flattened at about 10 mb/d. According
to Leonid Fedun, vice-president of the largest independent company in the
Russian oil sector, it is unlikely that output will ever exceed that amount.
He could be slightly wrong of course, but it would hardly increase by enough
to result in Professor Becker being nominated for another Nobel. Something
that needs to be appreciated by all oil importers is that Russia is
potentially a very rich country, and an increasing fraction of Russian
energy production is going to be consumed domestically.
China is already a country with a large oil deficit and where the growth in
oil consumption is much larger than the growth in domestic supply. These
deficiencies are probably increasing faster than anywhere else in the world,
to include the United States. Oil companies are making great efforts to find
new deposits “deep in ocean waters”, are drilling boreholes everywhere,
exploiting deposits in remote locations in the far north of Alaska, and
perhaps far up in the Arctic Ocean, and desire greater access to coastal
waters. Regardless of how much desiring and drilling and exploiting they do
however, it will not suffice to replace Middle Eastern resources, nor
greatly depress the oil price. Only a new energy technology in conjunction
with a reduction in demand growth for conventional oil is likely to do that!
This unpleasant truth has escaped Professor Becker, but it is well known in
the executive suites of both ‘Big and Little Oil’.
Please note that I say in the above a reduction in demand Growth, and NOT a
reduction in Demand. A reduction in demand is something that is that is very
unlikely to take place under normal circumstances.
Finally, attention can be directed to the decline in OPEC production that
was mentioned by Becker, and which that scholar interpreted as a misfortune
for those nations. The earlier decline in OPEC production, and its present
slow increase, is the key source of the new economic strength of the Middle
East, as well as some of the other OPEC countries. If they had maintained
their output at 40% of the total, they might still Nicolas Sarkis has
published a paper (2008) in which he questions the willingness or the
ability of OPEC countries to sweeten the dreams of the oil exporting
countries, and perhaps to accommodate them in other ways. He knows, just as
you and I know or would know if we thought deeply about it, that they might
find themselves subjected to considerable economic and/or political
discomfort if they become heavily involved in trying to make the impossible
possible.
SOME FINAL REMARKS
Perhaps the main purpose of this short paper is to disabuse readers of their
fantasies that the present bad news about oil is in the nature of a
springtime fling. As the greatest singer of the twentieth century – Frank
Sinatra – might have said, it could be for keepsville.
Some time ago it was pointed out in the important business publication
Fortune that the Pentagon was making a study of the political turmoil that
could result if the extreme physical consequences of global warming suddenly
appeared. It was suggested that countries with sizeable military assets
might be tempted to maintain their prosperity by imposing on weaker
neighbours.
As far as I am aware, no one has investigated in detail what a peaking of
global oil production might mean from a military point of view, however as
noted above a U.S. congressional document appeared showing landing zones in
the Gulf for military forces from the U.S. or for that matter a coalition of
concerned Cadillac owners. Professor Douglas Reynolds of the University of
Alaska is also familiar with publications discussing a possible seizing of
oil producing assets by force, although it is not impossible that all of
these documents/publications are part of an activity that in game theory is
known as screening. This includes helping to concentrate the minds of rivals
or potential rivals by circulating misleading information about your
intentions. (According to Reynolds, Time Magazine carried an interview with
Dr. Henry Kissinger in which the military option was ventilated.)
In any event, some question must be asked as to whether the motorists of
North America and Europe would, in the event of an oil price approaching or
exceeding $200/b be willing to garage their Volvos and SUVs, and calmly wait
until a technology appears which permits an economical exploitation of
assorted unconventional resources, or for that matter items such as
conventional oil from The Chaco or Iceberg Alley. The thing to be aware of
here is that the economy of much of North America, as well as e.g. the
northern part of Scandinavia, cannot function without a large input of motor
transport. I am also curious about the willingness of the politicians and
bureaucrats of e.g. ‘peace loving’ Sweden to cancel their precious junkets
to the restaurants and cafes of Brussels and Strasbourg because of a
shortage of jet fuel. On the other hand, they would probably be overjoyed to
avoid the tedium of the senseless meetings that are held in those capitals
of the European Union.
A few years ago, in an issue of New Scientist (2004), Bob Holmes and Nocola
Jones offered the following: “If production rates fall while demand
continues to rise, oil prices are likely to spike or fluctuate wildly,
raising the prospect of economic chaos, problems with transporting food and
other supplies, and even war as countries fight over what little oil is
available.” Len Gould and others in EnergyPulse (www.energypulse.net) have
expressed the same concern. I do not know in what room in the Pentagon
questions of this nature are being treated, but I certainly hope that it
isn’t the one in which I had the good luck to fail my first officers’
candidate board.
REFERENCES
Banks, Ferdinand E. (2008). ‘OPEC and oil’. Petromin.
______ (2007). The Political Economy of World Energy: An Introductory
Textbook. London and Singapore: World Scientific.
______ (2004). ‘A new world oil market’. Geopolitics of Energy (December).
______. (2001). Global Finance and Financial Markets. Singapore: World
Scientific
______. (1980). The Political Economy of Oil. Lexington and Toronto: D.C.
Heath.
Caruba, Alan (2008). ‘From the Soviet Union to Putin’s Russia’. EnergyPulse
(www.energypulse.net).
Crandall, Maureen S. (2006). Energy, Economics and Dreams in the Caspian
Region. Westport Connecticut: Praeger.
Holmes, Bob and Nicola Jones (2004). ‘Brace yourself for the end of cheap
oil’. New Scientist (2 August).
Holthusen, Eric (2008). ’Future transport fuels: meeting the growing demand
in an environmentally and socially responsible way’. Hydrocarbon Asia
(Mar-April).
Sarkis, Nicolas (2003). ‘Les prévisions et les fictions’. Medenergie (No. 5)
Robelius, Fredrik (2006). ‘Oljefyndet är en bluff’. PsX Press.
Copyright © 2002-2006,
CyberTech, Inc. - All rights reserved
|