You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front Economy
All the Oil We Need
2008-08-22
By EUGENE GHOLZ and DARYL G. PRESS

WHILE oil prices have declined somewhat of late, the volatility of the market and the political and religious unrest in major oil-producing countries has Americans worrying more than ever about energy security. But they have little to fear -- contrary to common understanding, there are robust stockpiles of oil around the globe that could see us through any foreseeable calamities on the world market.

True, trouble for the world's energy supplies could come from many directions. Hurricanes and other natural disasters could suddenly disrupt oil production or transportation. Iran loudly and regularly proclaims that it can block oil exports from the Persian Gulf. The anti-American rhetoric of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela raises fears of an export cutoff there. And ongoing civil unrest wreaks havoc with Nigeria's output.

Even worse, this uncertainty comes in the context of worrisome reports that oil producers have little spare capacity, meaning that they could not quickly ramp up production to compensate for a disruption.

But such fears rest on a misunderstanding. The world actually has enormous spare oil capacity. It has simply moved. In the past, major oil producers like Saudi Arabia controlled it. But for years the world's major consumers have bought extra oil to fill their emergency petroleum reserves. Moreover, whereas the world's reserve supply once sat in relatively inaccessible pools, much of it now sits in easily accessible salt caverns and storage tanks. And consumers control the spigots. During a supply disruption, Americans would no longer have to rely on the good will of foreign governments.
Posted by:Steve White

#9  Markets work only when profit and loss is the objective. Suicidal ideological positions invalidate market theory.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-08-22 19:33  

#8  John Stossel is more Libertarian in outlook, with shared weaknesses. Markets don't work in monopoly situations or when the supplier is trying to weaken/destroy the consumer's civilization.
Posted by: ed   2008-08-22 14:09  

#7  Oil going to $200 a bbl. would make this all academic anyway, as nobody would be able to affor to drive anywhere.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-08-22 12:34  

#6  Sad we couldn't sell the oil in the strategic reserve when prices were high and pay down some of the national debt.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-08-22 12:25  

#5  Nice analysis of how the reserves and alternate production can smooth over a local disrution of oil produciton in given places. But the politically loaded (lefty?) conclusions drawn are just pulled out of his ass - there is no relationship between them and the points he makes above them. His analaysis, in fact, points nearly to the complete opposite.

I disagree highly with the final conclusions.

Deterring an attack on a nuclear armed Iran is a GOOD thing? Not doubling the strategic reserve is a GOOD thing? Not expanding production here is a GOOD thing?

Wildly wrong conclusions.

Why is it good that the US be dissauded from destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program and its IRBM/ICBM program? Does he not know the effect of even a single EMP detonation over Europe or the US?

And this is a more likely scenario: Imagine an Iranian shorter range high altitude EMP over the oil producing regions on the Saudi-Kuwaiti areas, and over the Emirates. Think about all the computer controls needed to produce and refine oil, and them being suddely fried. That puts Iran in the command seat for oil production in the gulf, assuming they suvive the counterstrikes.

So again, how is deterring an attack on the mullah's nuclear weapons capability in Iran a GOOD thing? If we can suvive the oil shock as he says we can, then that's incentive to hit them hard, and remove the threats, since we can endure the loss of Iran's oil.

So, he posits that we can suvive short and medium oil shocks with the current reserves. Fair enough.

So why is it not a good thing to expand our capacity to better endure prolonged production interruptions?

Other places produce large amounts of oil and can jump production in the face of localized disruptions elsewhere. Fair enough.

So why is it not a good idea to spend the money to produce even more here (plus alternate enegry, nukes, electic cars, nat gas as a vehicle fuel, etc) so we place even smaller demand on international supplies -- and our increased reserve goes further so disruptions have an even lesser effect on us?

Posted by: OldSpook   2008-08-22 12:13  

#4  it could surely harass commercial tanker traffic. But it would be hard pressed to sustain an anti-shipping campaign sufficient to reduce oil flows drastically for weeks on end,

They don't have to sink a lot, maybe not even any; they just have to make the attacks plausible so Lloyds (etc.) won't insure the tankers.
Posted by: Glenmore   2008-08-22 10:57  

#3  Im also not convinced by their analysis of the Persian Gulf strategic situation.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2008-08-22 10:06  

#2  no, but the wood burning age in the UK effectively DID end when they ran out of wood. Not that it worked out badly.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2008-08-22 10:05  

#1  The stone age didn't end when we ran out of stone.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-08-22 07:45  

00:00