WTI Crude

Loading...

Brent Crude

Loading...

Natural Gas

Loading...

Gasoline

Loading...

Heating Oil

Loading...

Rotate device for more commodity prices

Alt Text

Glencore, Qatar Fund Buy 20% In Rosneft

Glencore has teamed up with…

Alt Text

Oil Markets Not Convinced OPEC Deal Can Kill The Glut

Oil markets are less convinced…

Alt Text

Oil Majors Set To Lose $490 Billion If OPEC Talks Fail

With the official OPEC meeting…

Ferdinand E. Banks

Ferdinand E. Banks

Ferdinand E. Banks, Uppsala University (Sweden), performed his undergraduate studies at Illinois Institute of Technology (electrical engineering) and Roosevelt University (Chicago), graduating with honors in…

More Info

Libya: But What About The Oil?

As I pen these few humble words, Swedish combat aircraft are being tuned up for the long flight from Sweden to somewhere in the Mediterranean. There is no  shortage of volunteers – pilots, mechanics and other ground crew – for this mission, because it has been a very long winter in Scandinavia, and many young Swedish men are so keen to get close to the disco and bar life in that sunny part of the world that they can almost  taste it.

As they used to ask in the U.S. during WW2, is this trip necessary? Well, let’s do some math. The price of oil was about eighty-eight dollars a barrel (= $88/b) when the trouble in Libya began, and the price of West Texas Intermediate oil just touched $105/b – which means that the Brent price might be around $115/b. “About, might be, around” is sufficient, because as Bertram Russell once said, “all science is based on approximations”. Taking these prices into consideration, my ‘back-of-the-envelope’ calculations suggest that OPEC – whose exports are at least 25 million barrels of oil a day – has to-date raked in an extra 10 billion dollars or so because of the increased tension in Libya.

But 10 billion dollars might turn out to be no more significant than lunch money for oil importers when all the charges that will have to be faced because of the increase in the price of oil are contemplated. A palpable rise in the price of oil inevitably increases the price of other energy resources, as well as some other items. Furthermore, nobody seems to appreciate the macroeconomic damage that might be done because of the decision by Security Counsel blockheads to ‘diss’ Colonel Gaddafi,  instead of giving him the respect that he obviously feels he deserves. Had I been doing the planning, I would have arranged  for him to visit Paris and/or Washington in order to wine and dine and exchange opinions and wheel and deal with the kind of busybodies and careerists who completely lack the ability to estimate the possible economic consequences  of the stupid venture they ended up sponsoring or approving.

The venture in question – or fling which it deserves to be called – is about oil, and not about providing for the safety of Libyans. The way to provide for the safety of Libyans was to find some way to talk to the Colonel in a quiet room,  and explain to him (and his colleagues) the seriousness and unacceptability of uncivilized and unbusinesslike behavior. If necessary some money could change hands.  As the CEO of the Italian corporation ENI pointed out, threatening sanctions and military action might result in the ‘peace officers’ – to use one of those lovely expressions coined in the old American West for lawmen – shooting themselves in the foot.  A decline in world oil production of perhaps 1.5 percent, due to a clumsy handling of the Libyan troubles, almost immediately led to an increase in the oil price of 17 percent. That is not good, and somebody influential needs to look at the work of Professor James Hamilton (of the University of California, San Diego) to see what this can mean for the macroeconomy!

Let’s put it this way, the global macroeconomy cannot support the kind of oil price escalation that this fling might bring about.  For reasons I choose not to go into here, but which have to do with the strategy of OPEC, that increase could turn out to be a prelude to further increases. With all due respect, instead of running off at the mouth in talk-shops or gab-fests or teach-ins  that he hosts, and which could have a very unhealthy effect on the price of oil,  Prime Minister Sarkozy should make an effort to avoid commenting on the internal affairs of sovereign states. I know that he doesn’t want to busy himself reading about his private life in French newspapers and magazines, but at least he could examine the dossier Les Guerres du Pétrole (in Géoéconomie, 2006), should he feel compelled again to deal with economic issues that neither he nor his up-market friends and neighbors  have the slightest possibility of understanding.

By. Professor Ferdinand E. Banks; Uppsala University (Sweden)

REFERENCES

Lindahl, Björn (2011). Oljebolag på två stolar. Svenska Dagbladet (22 March).
Paillard, Christophe-Alexandre (2006). La puissance américaine et l’instabilité
         energetique mondiale. Géoéconomie (No 38, Ete)




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on March 24 2011 said:
    What worries me most about Libya is that as passions on both (or all) sides heat up, we might see one group of fanatics or another rig oil wells with explosives and set them off. That happened in early 1991, when Saddam's forces blew up Kuwait's oil wells out of pure cussedness and spite when they were forced to withdraw in the face of the overwhelming firepower of American and other armed forces.
  • Anonymous on March 25 2011 said:
    Excellent observation, Alex. Of course what we want is the Colonel to quietly retire, and what I want is for his son Saif to take charge. That gentleman has THE LOOK!What I don't want though is this talk by ignoramuses and morons about protecting civilians. Of course we want civilians protected, even if it means the use of ground forces, BUT THE WAR IS ABOUT OIL. It's about oil and at any time it might lapse into aggrevated stupidity. We might as well get that clear.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News