SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (42374)4/10/2002 1:42:38 PM
From: Skywatcher  Respond to of 50167
 
And the more the world and the sunbelt countries get off the Oil Hypodermic....the better for all!
CC



To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (42374)4/10/2002 2:58:39 PM
From: IQBAL LATIF  Respond to of 50167
 
This is Paul Krugmans take on what will happen to oil. I don't think that any crisis in ME is impending in terms of Iran, Libya joining Iraq. Short of Arafat being taken out or some untoward incident the scenerio of Paul is quite academic.. great heading but will not happen..

Fighting in the Mideast could set off a new oil crisis
Paul Krugman The New York Times Wednesday, April 10,

2002,, The global economy

NEW YORK In 1973 an Arab embargo sent oil prices soaring, and a global recession followed. In 1979 the Iranian revolution provoked a second surge in oil prices, and another global recession.
.
Are we now at risk of a third oil crisis? I wish I could say "no," but I can't.
.
Oil prices have risen about $10 per barrel since the situation in the Middle East began deteriorating. So even if they stay where they are, this represents a serious shock to the system - and there could be more to come.
.
True, political analysts assure us that despite Iraq's decision to stop oil exports for a month, no broader, 1973-style oil embargo is likely. Let's hope they're right. But the 1979 oil crisis wasn't a result of a deliberate embargo. Economists have never reached a consensus about what happened in 1979, but my interpretation is that it was similar to the recent California electricity crisis. In both cases the key was the combination of a tight market and demand that was not very responsive to price.
.
Under those circumstances, individual producers - power companies in California, oil-producing countries in 1979 - have a lot of market power. That is, it is in each producer's interest to cut back production to drive prices higher. One result is a price surge, even though there is no real capacity shortage.
.
Are world oil markets that tight? Not yet: the world still has the capacity to produce another 7 million barrels a day. So Iraq, by taking away its 2 million barrels a day, cannot create a crisis by itself. But the remaining excess capacity is just about equal to the combined production of Iran and Libya, which have also proposed an embargo. The point is that it would not take much worsening in the political situation to produce markets so tight that the logic of market power kicks in and countries decide that, quite aside from politics, their financial interest lies in reducing, not increasing, their output.
.
If an oil crisis can happen so easily, why haven't we had one since 1979? The answer is that we made ourselves crisis-proof for a while, then became complacent.
.
After the oil crises of the 1970s, Western economies sharply increased their energy efficiency: The U.S. economy was a third bigger in 1985 than it was in 1973, but it consumed less oil. The result was the marginalization of the danger zone - in 1985, the Persian Gulf produced only 18 percent of the world's oil, less than half of its share in 1973. But rapidly growing oil consumption in the sports utility vehicle era was met, inevitably, by increased Persian Gulf production. So oil prices are once again hostage to Middle Eastern politics.
.
If oil prices do surge, will this have the same disastrous effects as the price spike in 1979? No, but it may have different disastrous effects. In 1979 the clear and present danger from soaring oil prices was that they would send already inflation-prone Western economies into an out-of-control inflationary spiral. To fight that, all the leading economies raised interest rates - which controlled inflation, but also generated a nasty recession.
.
Today, after a decade of price stability, fears of inflation are more muted. Instead, the main concern is the drag of oil prices on purchasing power. Each $10-a-barrel increase in the price of oil is like a $70 billion tax increase, one that falls most heavily on middle- and lower-income families. And this is not a good time to slash purchasing power. Business investment, which plunged last year, has still not recovered; optimistic economic forecasts depend on the assumption that buoyant consumer spending will keep the economy afloat until businesses do decide to invest again. If consumers are made poorer by higher oil prices and cut back instead, that assumption goes out the window. And the Fed can't respond with another big round of interest rate cuts. Since it has already reduced rates from 6.5 to 1.75 percent, it doesn't have much ammunition left. So I'm sorry to say that under current conditions, a third oil crisis could indeed happen. It doesn't have to happen: A diplomatic breakthrough could calm oil markets, and even if oil prices rise the U.S. economy may be more robust than I fear. But the scary scenario remains a serious risk.
< < Back to Start of Article The global economy

NEW YORK In 1973 an Arab embargo sent oil prices soaring, and a global recession followed. In 1979 the Iranian revolution provoked a second surge in oil prices, and another global recession.
.
Are we now at risk of a third oil crisis? I wish I could say "no," but I can't.
.
Oil prices have risen about $10 per barrel since the situation in the Middle East began deteriorating. So even if they stay where they are, this represents a serious shock to the system - and there could be more to come.
.
True, political analysts assure us that despite Iraq's decision to stop oil exports for a month, no broader, 1973-style oil embargo is likely. Let's hope they're right. But the 1979 oil crisis wasn't a result of a deliberate embargo. Economists have never reached a consensus about what happened in 1979, but my interpretation is that it was similar to the recent California electricity crisis. In both cases the key was the combination of a tight market and demand that was not very responsive to price.
.
Under those circumstances, individual producers - power companies in California, oil-producing countries in 1979 - have a lot of market power. That is, it is in each producer's interest to cut back production to drive prices higher. One result is a price surge, even though there is no real capacity shortage.
.
Are world oil markets that tight? Not yet: the world still has the capacity to produce another 7 million barrels a day. So Iraq, by taking away its 2 million barrels a day, cannot create a crisis by itself. But the remaining excess capacity is just about equal to the combined production of Iran and Libya, which have also proposed an embargo. The point is that it would not take much worsening in the political situation to produce markets so tight that the logic of market power kicks in and countries decide that, quite aside from politics, their financial interest lies in reducing, not increasing, their output.
.
If an oil crisis can happen so easily, why haven't we had one since 1979? The answer is that we made ourselves crisis-proof for a while, then became complacent.
.
After the oil crises of the 1970s, Western economies sharply increased their energy efficiency: The U.S. economy was a third bigger in 1985 than it was in 1973, but it consumed less oil. The result was the marginalization of the danger zone - in 1985, the Persian Gulf produced only 18 percent of the world's oil, less than half of its share in 1973. But rapidly growing oil consumption in the sports utility vehicle era was met, inevitably, by increased Persian Gulf production. So oil prices are once again hostage to Middle Eastern politics.
.
If oil prices do surge, will this have the same disastrous effects as the price spike in 1979? No, but it may have different disastrous effects. In 1979 the clear and present danger from soaring oil prices was that they would send already inflation-prone Western economies into an out-of-control inflationary spiral. To fight that, all the leading economies raised interest rates - which controlled inflation, but also generated a nasty recession.
.
Today, after a decade of price stability, fears of inflation are more muted. Instead, the main concern is the drag of oil prices on purchasing power. Each $10-a-barrel increase in the price of oil is like a $70 billion tax increase, one that falls most heavily on middle- and lower-income families. And this is not a good time to slash purchasing power. Business investment, which plunged last year, has still not recovered; optimistic economic forecasts depend on the assumption that buoyant consumer spending will keep the economy afloat until businesses do decide to invest again. If consumers are made poorer by higher oil prices and cut back instead, that assumption goes out the window. And the Fed can't respond with another big round of interest rate cuts. Since it has already reduced rates from 6.5 to 1.75 percent, it doesn't have much ammunition left. So I'm sorry to say that under current conditions, a third oil crisis could indeed happen. It doesn't have to happen: A diplomatic breakthrough could calm oil markets, and even if oil prices rise the U.S. economy may be more robust than I fear. But the scary scenario remains a serious risk. The global economy

NEW YORK In 1973 an Arab embargo sent oil prices soaring, and a global recession followed. In 1979 the Iranian revolution provoked a second surge in oil prices, and another global recession.
.
Are we now at risk of a third oil crisis? I wish I could say "no," but I can't.
.
Oil prices have risen about $10 per barrel since the situation in the Middle East began deteriorating. So even if they stay where they are, this represents a serious shock to the system - and there could be more to come.
.
True, political analysts assure us that despite Iraq's decision to stop oil exports for a month, no broader, 1973-style oil embargo is likely. Let's hope they're right. But the 1979 oil crisis wasn't a result of a deliberate embargo. Economists have never reached a consensus about what happened in 1979, but my interpretation is that it was similar to the recent California electricity crisis. In both cases the key was the combination of a tight market and demand that was not very responsive to price.
.
Under those circumstances, individual producers - power companies in California, oil-producing countries in 1979 - have a lot of market power. That is, it is in each producer's interest to cut back production to drive prices higher. One result is a price surge, even though there is no real capacity shortage.
.
Are world oil markets that tight? Not yet: the world still has the capacity to produce another 7 million barrels a day. So Iraq, by taking away its 2 million barrels a day, cannot create a crisis by itself. But the remaining excess capacity is just about equal to the combined production of Iran and Libya, which have also proposed an embargo. The point is that it would not take much worsening in the political situation to produce markets so tight that the logic of market power kicks in and countries decide that, quite aside from politics, their financial interest lies in reducing, not increasing, their output.
.
If an oil crisis can happen so easily, why haven't we had one since 1979? The answer is that we made ourselves crisis-proof for a while, then became complacent.
.
After the oil crises of the 1970s, Western economies sharply increased their energy efficiency: The U.S. economy was a third bigger in 1985 than it was in 1973, but it consumed less oil. The result was the marginalization of the danger zone - in 1985, the Persian Gulf produced only 18 percent of the world's oil, less than half of its share in 1973. But rapidly growing oil consumption in the sports utility vehicle era was met, inevitably, by increased Persian Gulf production. So oil prices are once again hostage to Middle Eastern politics.
.
If oil prices do surge, will this have the same disastrous effects as the price spike in 1979? No, but it may have different disastrous effects. In 1979 the clear and present danger from soaring oil prices was that they would send already inflation-prone Western economies into an out-of-control inflationary spiral. To fight that, all the leading economies raised interest rates - which controlled inflation, but also generated a nasty recession.
.
Today, after a decade of price stability, fears of inflation are more muted. Instead, the main concern is the drag of oil prices on purchasing power. Each $10-a-barrel increase in the price of oil is like a $70 billion tax increase, one that falls most heavily on middle- and lower-income families. And this is not a good time to slash purchasing power. Business investment, which plunged last year, has still not recovered; optimistic economic forecasts depend on the assumption that buoyant consumer spending will keep the economy afloat until businesses do decide to invest again. If consumers are made poorer by higher oil prices and cut back instead, that assumption goes out the window. And the Fed can't respond with another big round of interest rate cuts. Since it has already reduced rates from 6.5 to 1.75 percent, it doesn't have much ammunition left. So I'm sorry to say that under current conditions, a third oil crisis could indeed happen. It doesn't have to happen: A diplomatic breakthrough could calm oil markets, and even if oil prices rise the U.S. economy may be more robust than I fear. But the scary scenario remains a serious risk. The global economy

NEW YORK In 1973 an Arab embargo sent oil prices soaring, and a global recession followed. In 1979 the Iranian revolution provoked a second surge in oil prices, and another global recession.
.
Are we now at risk of a third oil crisis? I wish I could say "no," but I can't.
.
Oil prices have risen about $10 per barrel since the situation in the Middle East began deteriorating. So even if they stay where they are, this represents a serious shock to the system - and there could be more to come.
.
True, political analysts assure us that despite Iraq's decision to stop oil exports for a month, no broader, 1973-style oil embargo is likely. Let's hope they're right. But the 1979 oil crisis wasn't a result of a deliberate embargo. Economists have never reached a consensus about what happened in 1979, but my interpretation is that it was similar to the recent California electricity crisis. In both cases the key was the combination of a tight market and demand that was not very responsive to price.
.
Under those circumstances, individual producers - power companies in California, oil-producing countries in 1979 - have a lot of market power. That is, it is in each producer's interest to cut back production to drive prices higher. One result is a price surge, even though there is no real capacity shortage.
.
Are world oil markets that tight? Not yet: the world still has the capacity to produce another 7 million barrels a day. So Iraq, by taking away its 2 million barrels a day, cannot create a crisis by itself. But the remaining excess capacity is just about equal to the combined production of Iran and Libya, which have also proposed an embargo. The point is that it would not take much worsening in the political situation to produce markets so tight that the logic of market power kicks in and countries decide that, quite aside from politics, their financial interest lies in reducing, not increasing, their output.
.
If an oil crisis can happen so easily, why haven't we had one since 1979? The answer is that we made ourselves crisis-proof for a while, then became complacent.
.
After the oil crises of the 1970s, Western economies sharply increased their energy efficiency: The U.S. economy was a third bigger in 1985 than it was in 1973, but it consumed less oil. The result was the marginalization of the danger zone - in 1985, the Persian Gulf produced only 18 percent of the world's oil, less than half of its share in 1973. But rapidly growing oil consumption in the sports utility vehicle era was met, inevitably, by increased Persian Gulf production. So oil prices are once again hostage to Middle Eastern politics.
.
If oil prices do surge, will this have the same disastrous effects as the price spike in 1979? No, but it may have different disastrous effects. In 1979 the clear and present danger from soaring oil prices was that they would send already inflation-prone Western economies into an out-of-control inflationary spiral. To fight that, all the leading economies raised interest rates - which controlled inflation, but also generated a nasty recession.
.
Today, after a decade of price stability, fears of inflation are more muted. Instead, the main concern is the drag of oil prices on purchasing power. Each $10-a-barrel increase in the price of oil is like a $70 billion tax increase, one that falls most heavily on middle- and lower-income families. And this is not a good time to slash purchasing power. Business investment, which plunged last year, has still not recovered; optimistic economic forecasts depend on the assumption that buoyant consumer spending will keep the economy afloat until businesses do decide to invest again. If consumers are made poorer by higher oil prices and cut back instead, that assumption goes out the window. And the Fed can't respond with another big round of interest rate cuts. Since it has already reduced rates from 6.5 to 1.75 percent, it doesn't have much ammunition left. So I'm sorry to say that under current conditions, a third oil crisis could indeed happen. It doesn't have to happen: A diplomatic breakthrough could calm oil markets, and even if oil prices rise the U.S. economy may be more robust than I fear. But the scary scenario remains a serious risk.



To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (42374)4/29/2002 4:18:02 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 50167
 
This was our take on oil embargo on 9th of April..

Message 17307818

In the Aftermath of Iraq's Suspension of Oil Exports: Is the Oil Embargo Feasible?

By Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli* on 26th April in an article writes..

Saddam's Failure

Amidst much fanfare and political pathos, on April 8, 2002, Saddam Hussein announced a one month oil export suspension, in solidarity with the Palestinian people.

After the immediate nervous market reaction which boosted oil prices on that day, realities and common sense began to set it, and the price of oil has fallen approximately 19 percent by the end of the first week after Iraq's announcement. There may be two reasons for the market to quickly regain its composure: first, the assurances from oil exporters, particularly from Saudi Arabia, that oil flow will not be affected by political considerations; and second, the Iraqi decision ironically coincided with the news that OPEC members had exceeded their quota in March by 1.3 million barrel per day(1) which is approximately equivalent to the size of the Iraqi oil export under the "Oil for Food" program. Iraq's decision has remained completely localized, as no other oil exporter has followed Iraq's lead. Faced with this reality, the Iraqi Oil Minister, 'Amer Muhammad Rashid, could only beg other oil producing countries: "at a minimum do not increase your oil production."(2) Feeling isolated on the subject, Saddam Hussein addressed another speech on April 22 to "Arab brothers, kings, presidents, emirs and officials" imploring them to reduce oil production by 50% "and directly deprive the U.S. and [the] Zionist entity from the other exported half…"(3)

Is the Oil Embargo Feasible?

Based on the reading of the political and economic map of the Middle East, as reflected in news and analysis in major Arabic newspapers, such an embargo is not under consideration by those who count most—the oil producing and exporting countries.

In a news analysis in the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, analyst 'Adel Ibrahim writes(4) that while an oil embargo resulting inevitably in spikes in oil prices could harm the U.S. economy – such an embargo would lead to economic harm to the oil producing countries themselves which they can ill afford, given the present international economic conditions.

According to Ibrahim, a number of Arab producers have stated categorically that an oil embargo is not on the agenda. Kuwait, for example, said that the oil weapon is "a double-edged sword which could hurt the Arabs more than it would hurt the U.S." Besides, Sheikh Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Sabah, Kuwait's deputy prime minister and minister of defense, said that it would not be possible to help the Palestinians if there were no oil revenues. "Oil," he said, "is a real wealth for the people, and we can not use it as a means for pressure."

Indonesia, the largest Islamic country in the world, went further by categorically excluding the possibility of oil embargo.

Analyst 'Adel Ibrahim asks whether the Arab countries can repeat the "surprise" or the "shock" of 1973 when the oil embargo was introduced to coincide with the October war of that year. His answer is that repeating that exercise would not be feasible because, with rising competition from Russia, Norway, Angola, Mexico and the countries on the Caspian Sea Basin, OPEC has lost its considerable leverage over oil supply. He cites the creation in 1974 of the International Energy Agency (a consumer organization headquartered in Paris) which has sought to reduce the world dependency on Arab oil through strategic stockpiling, technological advances and cost reduction.

The United States, which was the primary target of the 1973 embargo, has since diversified its sources of supply. For example, last February, U.S. consumption totaled 17 million b/d, 50% of which was imported from Venezuela, Mexico and Canada. Saudi Arabia was fourth on the list of oil suppliers to the U.S.

In short, no one in the U.S. seems to be overly concerned about shortage of oil as a result of rising tensions in the Middle East. More importantly, OPEC is on record that it will not use oil as a political weapon.(5)

Similarly, a survey of Egyptian officials and oil experts published by the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Qabas has also concluded the futility of an oil embargo. One economic expert, Dr. 'Hamdi Abd Al-'Azim, was quoted saying that the use of the oil weapon by the Arab countries would make them "the primary losers because they would enter into an economic war with the United States which could develop into a political war." He went on to remind the newspaper readers that many Arab countries receive aid from the U.S., "such as wheat and financial support," and an embargo could put an end to this aid.(6)

Prince Sa'ud Al-Faisal, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia which is the largest exporter of oil in the world, stressed that the Arab countries depend on their oil exports for economic growth. He said oil "is not a weapon like a gun or a tank but a resource that benefits the national economy." He said "we are in a war with an enemy and the first thing this enemy will do will be to destroy our oilfields."(7)

Editor-in-chief of the Saudi London-based daily, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, refers to the question whether using the oil as a weapon is still feasible. Mind, not oil, writes Al-Rashed, is a condition for a country to be rich. Singapore is an example. Poor in natural resources, it developed an economy larger than any Arab country's. While oil is found in many Arab countries, "the minds of some of their governments have kept their residents wretched and poverty-stricken, astride camels and donkeys, even in this day and age. By Allah, the resource of the mind is greater than the resource of oil…" Al-Rashed concludes as follows: "In the modern age, the nations of the Arab world are divided in accordance with how crazy their leaders are: there are great [Arab] nations that were dragged along by the shouts and cries, and there are small nations that retained some measure of reason and tried to limit the damage."(8)

Calls for an Oil Embargo Against U.S. are for Political Gains

In the same vein, other analysts believe that the Iraqi call for the use of oil as a political weapon is "more an attempt to score political points in confronting the conservative neighbors than a serious proposal." They maintain that the Arabs have learned from their experience in 1973 when the oil embargo brought the opposite results. The embargo, they argue, "drove the Western countries to increase their expenditures on explorations in high-cost places like the Northern Sea, on searching for alternative sources of energy and on building large stockpiling facilities."(9)

Earlier in the month, the Islamic Conference held in Kuala Lumpur turned down Iraq's unsuccessful attempt to place the subject of oil embargo on the conference's agenda.(10) (Some observers maintain that Iraq's decision to suspend oil exports for a month was intended to give the Iraqis the opportunity to carry out some maintenance and rehabilitation work on their oil installations.)(11)

Conclusion

Barring unexpected violence on the streets of some oil producing countries which could impel their rulers to change their stance on oil embargo - there is currently no viable indication of a pending oil embargo.

This conclusion is buttressed by market fundamentals, by the stated policy of OPEC as the major oil cartel organization, by the emergence of major oil producers outside the Middle East and by the oft-stated policies of major Arab oil producers that oil should be used as an instrument for development of their own countries rather than as a weapon against the consumers.

*Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli is Senior Analyst of MEMRI's Middle East Economic Studies Program.