  |
Global Energy Markets: Worse Than You May Think
Anna Chambers and
Nikolas K. Gvosdev
Speaking at a briefing on global energy markets,
organized by The National Interest, a leading
authority on international energy issues warned that the
United States could face an acute energy
crisis—including supply disruptions and price increases
to $70 per barrel for oil and $2.80, or more, per gallon
for gasoline—in the next few years.
J.
Robinson West, founder and chairman of PFC Energy, one
of Washington’s most influential international energy
consulting firms, is a former Assistant Secretary of the
Interior in the Reagan Administration and a member of
the advisory council of The National Interest.
Former National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft,
moderated the discussion at The Nixon Center.
Using his essay “The Future of Russian Energy” (in the
Summer 2005 issue of The National Interest) as a
departure point, Mr. West noted that after 9/11, many
were predicting that, to reduce dependence on
Saudi Arabia,
the United States would increase its reliance on Russia
as an alternative source of supply. “I am here to tell
you,” he declared, “that Russia is not the key to
America’s energy future.”
The energy sector is being mismanaged in Russia, he
observed, and there is no competent bureaucracy to
oversee operations. More broadly, West asserted, the
country’s political leadership has not set clear
priorities for what it wants. The heavy and inefficient
hand of the state is bearing down on the energy sector
and little has been done to improve weak management
accountability. Moreover, he said, despite high oil
prices, Russian firms are not investing in upgrading
existing infrastructure or developing new pipelines and
fields. As a result, PFC Energy’s analysts no longer
feel that Russian oil production is set to peak at 10
million barrels per day in 2008—they see production
reaching a lower plateau much sooner.
In
part, due to uncertainty following the Yukos case,
foreign investors are still reluctant to come into
Russia, West said.
Yet, he added, Russian energy sector managers do
not seem to understand that the oil business requires
constant reinvestment and take money out of their
companies instead. Gazprom—as a company—is making
less now than it was three years ago, when oil
prices were around $20 per barrel.
In
fact, West argued, one of the curses of the
Russian energy sector is the equally high prices for oil
and gas- as a result, there is no incentive for the
government to reform while money is still flowing in in
such large supply.
There is a lot of “gravy” circulating widely
instead. Of course, he continued, these problems are
not unique to Russia. State oil companies hold 77
percent of world oil reserves and high prices are
discouraging needed changes (and funding massive public
sector spending) in
Mexico
and other countries as well.
Global energy markets are in a peculiar stage today in
which demand is not being dampened by rising prices,
West said, creating a situation where—in the absence of
reinvestment—there is nowhere for the excess capital to
go. Today’s markets are also
unique in that what is and will remain a cyclical
business does not seem susceptible to the normal cycling
down after a price boom. The price of oil will fall
significantly from today’s levels again in the future,
West asserted, but asking when is like asking a Maine
lobster fisherman if he’s been a fisherman all his life;
the answer will likely be “Not yet.” If you ask him if
the fog will rise, he answers, “Always does.”
Unfortunately, finding the specific answers to these
questions that business leaders and policy-makers crave
is extremely difficult.
West also noted that the high level of uncertainty in
today’s energy market is a key driver of high prices.
There are considerable political uncertainties hanging
over most of the major producers—including Russia,
Venezuela, Iran, Iraq and Nigeria, he explained.
The very real problem of declining production compounds
these uncertainties.
In
Iraq, West said, the petroleum sector is in a shambles.
The interim government does not have the authority to
make binding deals, and the professional cadres in the
oil ministry are being replaced by “acolytes of Chalabi.”
As a result, he continued, corruption is increasing to
such a point that Anglo-American oil firms will not be
able to do business in
Iraq—leaving
the field open to Chinese, Russian or other less
constrained companies.
West continued, pointing out that Iranian production is
declining as well, and a new team is coming to power
that is more prepared to pursue Iranian interests in the
region, which could lead to conflict. This new team is
also not interested in international investment and
ideologically opposed to the presence of foreign
companies, he concluded. Turning to Venezuela, West
described the state oil company as being on the verge of
collapse, and the Chavez government as unstable.
Mexican production is about to drop due to aging fields
and infrastructure, and the Mexican constitution
prohibits international investment in its oil sector.
Moreover, Mexican politicians have been diverting a cash
flow out of PEMEX into other projects, leaving little
for reinvestment, he concluded. For politicians, West
said, “oil is like plumbing … as long as it works they
don’t care” about efficient operations or long-term
sustainability. This leads to underinvestment in
infrastructure, pipelines, and development of new
assets.
In
the past, West suggested, there was always some excess
production capacity that could pick up the slack during
any major disruptions—but now, there is nearly none
(only two million barrels a day, 85 percent of which is
in Saudi Arabia).
Saudi Arabia
is equivalent to the central bank of oil production,
West said, and, without condoning its domestic
governance in any way,
Riyadh
has been very responsible in managing its key part of
the oil sector; Saudi Aramco is very competent and
professional.
But even Saudi Arabia has limits on what it can do
today. When a strike in Venezuela halted production,
Saudi Arabia increased its production. But Venezuela is
six “steaming days” away from U.S. refineries; it takes
45 days for an oil cargo from
Saudi Arabia
to reach the United States.
If
just one major oil-producing nation stops producing or
faces a severe disruption of supply, West warned, oil
prices—which closed earlier this week at $60.54—could
easily rise over $70 a barrel, which could translate
into gasoline prices of $2.80 or more per gallon in the
United States. West suggested several plausible
scenarios, such as a coup in Venezuela, that could lead
to precisely this outcome.
Many have suggested that sharply increasing demand for
energy is fueling a race for resources between
China
and the United States that will define the future of the
energy market, West observed. But in his view it
remains to be determined whether the U.S. and China will
cooperate or compete. He does not believe that the
United States and China have to be in “a zero sum game”
over energy, and even raised the prospect of Washington
helping to facilitate Chinese international investment
and access to guaranteed streams of production.
West acknowledged that the bid by the Chinese National
Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) for UNOCAL has raised
hackles in Washington, but asserted that the deal will
die on its own. CNOOC has received a 25-year,
no-interest loan from the Chinese government—which he
described as “a case of Airbus on steroids” that would
never receive WTO clearance. The best way to handle the
issue, West said, is to treat it as a commercial
transaction. Then ultimate responsibility lies with the
board of UNOCAL, not the U.S. government, to decide
whether or not to accept CNOOC’s bid.
In
the end, West said, the real problem is that the Bush
Administration is not paying enough attention to energy
security. Everyone likes to believe that there is more
than enough oil to meet current needs, he noted. So,
for example, when PFC Energy warned that passage and
renewal of ilsa
(the Iran-Libya Sanction Act) would have a real and
negative impact on increasing production, people seemed
to think that the oil would come from somewhere else.
Demand is estimated to be 120 million barrels per day by
2030—but PFC analysts cannot see supply increasing much
beyond 100 million barrels per day. Where is the rest
of the oil going to come from? West noted that Saudi
Arabia is engaged in a $50 billion investment program,
but said this would bring the country’s capacity to 12
million barrels per day and ultimately perhaps 15
million barrels per day, but no more. At the same time,
he argued, the resource base in Central Asia has been
“grossly exaggerated” and capital investment is an order
of magnitude less than West Africa, where production is
much higher. There will be ongoing competition for
Central Asian supplies, but to call it a “Great Game”
seems a bit much; rather it would better be described as
a series of “knife fights in dark alleys.”
West predicted that 2015 could be the tipping point
where global demand for oil exceeds supply and urged all
the serious stakeholders in the United States to sit
down and assess the situation. The current American
lifestyle—based on the spread of suburbs and
exurbs—depends on cheap credit, cheap land, cheap energy
and the Federal Highway Act to build roads. It is not
the SUV, West said, but Wal-Mart which is the symbol of
this way of life—and Wal-Mart’s earnings are starting to
decline. In West’s view, the reliance on cars as a way
of life has prevented the elasticity of demand that the
current oil price surge should have produced:
automobiles are no longer a luxury or just the way
people get to work, but an integral and unavoidable part
of people’s lives. As a result, an energy crisis will
be a “big deal” politically—the suburbs and exurbs are
the heart of Red America, and if gasoline prices top $3
per gallon, Social Security will pale in comparison.
July 8, 2005
This brief was
prepared by Anna Chambers, assistant managing editor for
The National Interest, and Nikolas K. Gvosdev, editor of
The National Interest.
Updated 7/8/05
|
 |