Commentators

null 15° London Hi 19°C / Lo 9°C

Hamish McRae: We will never have cheap oil again

Wednesday, 30 April 2008

When this wave of higher oil prices subsides, is it going to be business as usual? After the oil shocks of the 1970s and early 1980s, the oil price came back down and we went pretty much back to our bad old ways.

But this time it feels different. It is true that all the attitudes that characterised previous surges in the oil price are evident now. There is the resentment against the oil companies at their profits. There is the cockiness of Opec, with its president warning on Monday that the price might go to $200 a barrel. And there are the exhortations to conservation, but without much follow-up.

Taxes on energy are smaller relative to the total tax take now than they were when Labour took over. And there are the mad-cap government initiatives that do more harm than good. In the US in the 1980s the legal requirement on car manufacturers to improve the fuel consumption of their fleets merely pushed Americans into four-wheel-drives that were exempt. This time it is legislation and subsidies in favour of bio-fuels in the US and Europe that have helped force up the price of food globally.

However, though on the surface there is a sense of déjà vu, there are several reasons to suspect that it really will be different this time: that though the oil price will eventually fall back somewhat, we will never have cheap oil again – cheap in the sense of the $20-30 a barrel range of most of the 1990s and the first part of the 2000s.

Never? Well never is a long time but if it is so it is good news for conservation and indeed the planet. In the short-term there may well be some shading back in the price, but our economic structure is determined by long-term prices, not short, and the present surge seems likely to hasten us along the path to a less oil-dependent world.

Here's why. It is that the balance of power between those two old warriors, supply and demand, has irrevocably shifted.

Supply, as Opec keeps reminding us, is tight. Any disruption in supplies has therefore a disproportionate impact on the price. You can see that in the way disruption in the North Sea and Nigeria pushed up the global price over the weekend. Some 60 per cent of the world's supply comes from the non-Opec producers and they are pumping at or close to their limits.

You could say, over-simplifying grossly, that this "Nopec" oil is difficult-to-produce oil in politically easy places, whereas Opec oil is easy-to-produce oil in politically difficult places. As far as Nopec is concerned, many of the easier (ie, cheaper to produce) fields, such as on-shore US supplies, are in decline. The first generation of off-shore fields, including the North Sea, are in decline too.

Oil is still being found but the really big opportunities are in non-conventional sources, such as shale oil and tar sands, and these are expensive to exploit and may carry high environmental costs. So, over the next generation, the total Nopec supplies may creep up a bit – though even that is not clear – but it is not going to be cheap oil.

Opec oil, by contrast, is in geologically easier places. We know where it is; and we know how to get it out. Actually, it is mostly in the Middle East, with a fair amount in Africa. Saudi Arabia remains the world's largest producer. Opec members, for perfectly understandable reasons, wish to retain control over their output, which they do either by operating through national corporations or, when they do get Western companies in on the act, keeping them tightly controlled. In theory it would be easier for Opec to increase its production than for Nopec, but political realities curb the extent to which that is likely to happen.

So supply will remain tight for the foreseeable future. It may become very tight indeed if the "peak oil" advocates are right. These are geologists who believe that the world is close to the technical limits on what can be produced and that oil production is set to reach a peak and then to decline in the next few years. Most people in the big oil companies disagree but even "big oil" would acknowledge that the age of easy oil is past. That is materially different from the situation in the 1970s and 1980s.

Tight supplies clash with strong demand. The burgeoning demand from China for all sources of energy has been widely recognised, with China last year becoming a net importer of coal for the first time. (It has been a net importer of oil since the early 1990s.)

The point about oil, of course, is that it is not just a source of energy but also a feedstock for many chemicals, so while China is scooping up world coal and gas supplies too, it cannot carry on growing without relentlessly, year after year, importing more oil.

Add in demand from India and the consumption situation is utterly different from every previous global downturn. Every time up to now, and particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, a slowdown in the developed world economy fed through into a decline in demand, or at least a slowing in rate of growth. That does not seem to be happening now.

US oil demand is slackening, as you would expect, and European demand may well follow suit. But Asian demand is not. So Chinese growth comes down from 11 per cent a year to, say, 8 or 9 per cent? That does not help release much pressure on the oil fields. Oil becomes more expensive? Sure, but China has huge foreign exchange reserves and has to have it. So it will pay.

As a result, both supply and demand are less responsive to price changes than they were in previous cycles. Eventually, at some price, people are forced to conserve more oil. We either use less of it or we substitute where possible with alternatives. Eventually, if the price is high enough, the oil companies will figure out ways of extracting more of the stuff. But this process will not happen as swiftly or as dramatically as it did in previous cycles.

That is good news. The plunge in the oil price, particularly after the peak in the early 1980s, and the low price through the 1990s until about three years ago, undermined a lot of the conservation efforts those spikes in the price provoked. The price hit $80 a barrel in the early 1980s, in real terms roughly where we are now. Had that price been maintained through the following quarter century we would be in much better shape than we are now.

So we should reasonably hope that the world will not have much more expensive oil. At the present level it is expensive enough to start forcing conservation, and as a result of the impact it is having on food prices – oil at $100-plus takes money from the poor and gives it to the rich – it is not something that supports social stability or human decency.

But let's equally hope that it does not come down too much either. The market mechanism can be a brutal one, but it can also be a powerful one, forcing a necessary change in the way we live on our planet home.

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Comments

18 Comments

Tony A... I really, really hope you're wrong and this is all a dream and all you guys and gals with your finite figures are all barking mad. If not, that God fella's still there to save us all, right? Phew!

Posted by Matt B | 01.05.08, 12:13 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Zeev says France's nuclear is 78% of their total energy requirements. This is false. It is only about 78% of their electricity generation requirements. As oil tends to be about 38% of total world energy, France's nuclear is almost certainly well under half of their total energy requirement. And it is not even independence in that area, since most of their uranium is imported. I hope the world don't lurch from finite fossil fuels to finite uranium, in its hunt for energy replacements.

Unsustainable societies can't be sustained (of course). So even if economics forces change in energy sources, our continued use of finite resources, of all kinds (and at increasing rates), will not move us to sustainability. Real economic growth requires real growth in the consumption of resources (and the attendant damage to our habitat). As this is unsustainable on a finite planet, one of the requirements of sustainability is an end to economic growth. Most people don't want to hear that, of course, but nature doesn't care what people think. If we don't get our act together, nature will act on our behalf, and the consequences will likely be much worse than we imagine.

Posted by Tony Armstrong | 01.05.08, 02:08 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

This is an interesting review but constrained by the narrow vision of a market economist. In his last paragraphs he makes ineffectual references to conservation, social stability and human decency but, at the end, puts his trust in the brutal market mechanism. He, and too many others in the contemporary world, are still thinking in terms of old-fashioned balance sheets rather than some form of 'true-cost' economics. So companies and countries are able to disregard social and environmental costs as 'externalities', to be paid by someone else. World authorities should strive to follow a comprehensive green economics, perhaps guided by something like the Genuine Progress Index.

Posted by Jeremy Woodley | 30.04.08, 23:02 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

The high price of oil will spur increasing interest in renewable energy sources, and suppliers have begun to notice. Big oil companies, like BP, as well as investors, such as Credit Suisse, JPMorgan, and others, have devoted more and more time and resources to promoting renewables. To learn more about what companies are doing to bring renewables into the mainstream, I suggest you check about the Renewable Energy Finance Forum, held June 18-19 in New York City. The event provides an opportunity for financiers, renewable energy project developers, and other stakeholders to network and share ideas about the future of renewable energy finance. Over 40 high profile industry leaders will be speaking at the event, covering topics such as biofuels, solar power, wind energy, market drivers, and more.

For more information, visit http://www.REFFWallStreet.com.

Posted by Samantha | 30.04.08, 17:55 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

It is utterly irresponsible on our part to pretend that the oil crisis is someone else's fault. We blame environmentalists for obstacles to ANWR development, we blame OPEC for not increasing production, we blame Arabs for having the oil in the first place, but we fail to realize that it's US who we should blame for wasting away trillions of gallons of oil is stupid ways without thinking one iota in our future. Venezuela invested oil resources and now it has 75% hydroelectric and 25% natural gas, France invested in nuclear to 78% of total energy requirements, Russia invested in various souces to power 76% of its energy needs. What have we done? we trapped ourselves.


The only solution we've found to secure energy independence has been to invade the sources and kill millions of their true owners, while threatening to unleash a II WWW, this time nuclear. Hail America!

Posted by Zeev Reuteman | 30.04.08, 15:32 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Sadly we have not made any serious attempt to conserve oil by driving or flying less so now we shall have to be limited by cost we can only hope this will help the planet

Posted by RPelling | 30.04.08, 15:12 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

If our government were not so greedy and grasping and they lowered the duty that they take from fuel, perhaps it would help the public a little. This could be achieved if they stopped giving child allowance after 2 children. Also at the moment every Tom Dick and Harry from abroad can have money from our benefit system.No wonder this country is in a mess. We should be saying to immigrants that we do not give handouts until they have contributed to our system for a minimum of five years. Perhaps then this government could stop taking 85% of pump prices in duty from people who work hard and pay for all these handouts we give.

Posted by Shelagh Kemp | 30.04.08, 14:12 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Dear Hamish,

It is truly refreshing to have such a clear and humane analysis published in the mainstream media. Thank you!

"Never? Well never is a long time but if it is so it is good news for conservation and indeed the planet. In the short-term there may well be some shading back in the price, but our economic structure is determined by long-term prices, not short, and the present surge seems likely to hasten us along the path to a less oil-dependent world."

And amen to that.

Posted by Mark D | 30.04.08, 14:11 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

The price of oil, or any commodity, is determined by the ‘equilibrium’ of supply and demand. When a commodity becomes scarce, the natural effect is to reduce demand by increasing the price. The problem with oil, though, is it seems to know no-bounds.

As oil reaches its peak and supplies start to dwindle, oil produces can only be interested in maximising profits from remaining supplies. The signals have been there for a few months now, as consumers watch a steadily rising oil price. With OPEC seeing an almost intractable reliance upon its oil around the world, with many green and environmental policies less than coherent in structure throughout the west, it is cashing-in on this panic mentality which is having a profound economic effect on many other areas within our daily lives.

http://www.markatscotland.blogspot.com

Posted by Mark Dowe | 30.04.08, 14:09 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details


I am astonished that the article above, amongst all forest of political, technical and business reasons for rising oil prices, dismisses peak oil as almost unimportant. It is given just one small paragraph.

Their was a respected Danish study completed last year that actually stated in their conclusions that, in their opinion, Oil peaked in 2006. The study also concluded that Oil reserve figures - oil stats - which were put out by OPEC and Big Oil companies were probably deliberately overestimated to prevent panic.

The Grangemouth strike is now over, and Nigeria continues to pipe gas amid the oil pipe attacks - but are these really the reasons for the recent oil hike ? Oil has now dropped back to about $115 and the dollar has strebgthened simultaneously. .This is a recovery?

People like OPEC, the Big Oil companies and both Bush and Cheney(both oil men in the know) are behaving peculiarly. The oil cartels are not pumping more oil and oil is "tight" indeed. Maybe, just maybe they can't do it because there is no more oil to pump. Both Bush and Cheney went into Iraq for the oil - everyone knows this now. Do they know something we don't ? Why has Bush been so aggressive with Iran ? Is it really to do with a nuclear bomb or is it because they want - so very desperately - Iran's oil ?

You are correct in your article - there will never be cheap oil again. But the reasons you give simply do not fit the Oil/Dollar picture.

The situation is much worse than you think and, if oil is running out, disastrous.

Over the last year - oil gone up by 80%. Doesn't that seem a little odd ? Is this normal ?

I think my reasons and reasoning are better and much more realistic....

Regards,

Bill


Posted by Bill Thompson | 30.04.08, 13:54 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

18 Comments

Columnist Comments

alan_watkins

Alan Watkins: That nice Mr Cameron is turning nasty

Is he not – how can one put this tactfully? – in danger of over-reaching himself?

janet_street_porter

Editor-At-Large: Here's one way to reduce knife crime – look the other way

The reasons why kids carry knives will not be resolved by T-shirts

joan_smith

Joan Smith: We all need time off. Only the reasons differ

There are many reasons why someone might need or want time off work


Most popular in Opinion