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 : Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (820)7/7/2005 10:59:28 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 24223
 
To decipher Russia's riddle, watch its oil

By David R. Francis

After communism in the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russia was told to go for it - a market economy.
Many economists, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United States, and others advised Russia to take the "big bang" approach: Privatize state-owned enterprises - the bulk of the industrial economy - in one fell swoop.

Russia did. It was a disaster.

Gross domestic product (GDP) - Russia's output of goods and services - tumbled 40 percent between 1991 and 1998. Poverty went up, encompassing about a third of the population, while a few private individuals with political connections managed to snap up key state properties at bargain prices. They became the infamous billionaire "oligarchs," despised by most Russians.

This divergence between the rise of a few and deepened general poverty puts the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky into context. Last year, he was one of Russia's most outspoken oligarchs and one of the world's richest men. Now, Mr. Khodorkovsky sits in prison, sentenced last month to nine years for embezzlement, fraud, and tax evasion. In the West, the sentence is widely seen as a step backward in economic reform. But in Russia, the sentence and the stripping away of most of his assets are viewed as justice after a period of wide-open capitalism and corruption.

But Russia's economic progress doesn't hang on the controversial Khodorkovsky. It lies heavily with what his company, Yukos, exploited: oil.

After a financial crisis and a major devaluation of the ruble in 1998, Russia has begun to snap back, helped greatly by rising oil prices. By last year, its GDP had climbed back to about 88 percent of the 1991 level. The improvement is a bit better for the average Russian because there are fewer of them to split the economic pie - roughly 5 million fewer since 1991, it's estimated. For Russians with money, life has greatly improved. Moscow shops are brimming with goods, unlike in the Soviet era. Boutiques are bustling.

The Russian economy is highly dependent on oil. It provides roughly 20 percent of GDP - maybe as much as 40 percent, if its impact on the rest of the economy through orders for machines, pipe, steel and other goods and services is included, estimates Marshall Goldman, longtime Russia analyst and author of "The Piratization of Russia: Russian Reform Goes Awry."

Oil and gas revenues have enabled Russia to boost the pensions of its senior citizens, prepay some $17 billion of Soviet debts to foreign nations and institutions, and build up a government "stabilization fund."

That oil dependence is one reason President Vladimir Putin has moved to take back control of Russia's national resources, including oil and gas. A poll indicates that only 18 percent of Russians would oppose renationalization.

Such moves are crucial to the economy's future. Mr. Goldman charges that Mr. Putin's actions in the oil and gas industry signal that the state will once again become a strong, if not dominant, voice in energy policy and economic planning.

Such a policy is understandable, given the poor overall results of privatization in the 1990s, but it probably has serious risks, according to recent research.

Privatization "did not markedly improve the efficiency" of domestic Russian firms in the past decade, conclude three University of Michigan economists in a recent paper. Those firms are not catching up to world standards and are falling further behind.

"It's saying that privatization didn't work," says Katherine Terrill, one of the coauthors. "That's depressing."

By contrast, those firms with some foreign investor involvement have increased their productivity faster than those owned and managed by Russians alone, the professors' research shows.

This leaves Russia's economic leadership in a quandary. Nationalistic and political sentiments call for retaining or winning control of key elements of the economy. Yet managers of purely domestic firms appear to be slower than those running foreign-influenced firms in learning the skills and technology that can keep them in the economic race.

Putin has announced the goal of doubling Russia's GDP in 10 years. That would require 7 percent annual growth after adjusting for inflation. If achieved, that goal would lift Russian living standards to that of Portugal - one of Western Europe's poorest nations.

But real GDP, after rising by more than 7 percent in the last two years, slipped to a 5.2 percent rate in the first quarter of this year. Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin warned last week that doubling the size of the economy would take economic reforms.

Progress may be difficult. The Yukos-Khodorkovsky affair has damaged Russia's reputation as a place to invest, despite Putin's efforts to reassure US and German executives. So far, foreign direct investment remains relatively tiny. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development counts only a $16 billion inflow over the past four years.

More ominously, the growth in oil production has slipped. After a 13 percent surge in 2003, growth slowed to maybe half that pace last year and is even slower so far this year, despite prices around $60 a barrel.
csmonitor.com



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (820)7/7/2005 11:17:33 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 24223
 
OTH, Exxon doesn't want yer help...

Green energy will never meet needs, says Exxon

Terry Macalister
Thursday July 7, 2005
The Guardian

ExxonMobil has dismissed solar and wind energy as "inconsequential" and urges politicians to concentrate on sources that would continue to provide 99% of future energy needs.
Lee Raymond, the chairman and chief executive, also argues that areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska should be opened to exploratory drilling.

His comments - in Exxon's house magazine, the Lamp - could be indicative of White House thinking. He says improvements in US air and water quality are being buried beneath "ideological agendas or inflamed rhetoric that often pervades discussions about energy and the environment".

Mr Raymond has infuriated green groups and will worry G8 leaders encouraging George Bush to do more to fight global warming. Exxon is seen as a significant influence on presidential energy policies.
He said: "There are many alternative forms of energy that people talk about that may be interesting. But they are not consequential on the scale that will be needed and they may never have a significant impact on the energy balance.

"To the extent that people focus too much on that - for example on solar or wind, even though they are not economic - what they are doing is diverting attention from the real issues," he said.

He argues that even if alternative energy had double-digit growth rates they would only supply 1% of the world's energy needs in 25 years' time. "I am more interested in staying focused on the 99%," he said.

Mr Raymond said he was not saying that US energy supply was at risk if exploration did not take place in Alaska. "I don't think we have a basis to say that. However, willful and deliberate ignorance about the country's energy base is also not a wise approach."

The US Geological Survey suggested there may be the equivalent of several billion barrels of oil below this area, part of which is an important breeding ground for caribou.

Critics said such a relatively small amount of hydrocarbons was reason enough for oil firms to be kept out.

Mr Raymond said: "That is a flawed argument because there are not many exploration projects anywhere in the world that we would pursue if they were predicated on such a standard."

Nick Rau, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "His refusal to accept the need for renewables is consistent with an inability to accept climate change is happening."

guardian.co.uk