[The Guardian]
Blood and oil

Europe and America are taking increasingly divergent approaches to the
unreliability of the Middle Eastern petroleum supply - one green, the other
unrepentantly black, writes Randeep Ramesh

Thursday October 17, 2002

The question of whether oil is worth spilling blood over has been quietly
raised by the foreign office minister, Peter Hain. In a speech today to the
Royal United Services Institute in London, Mr Hain notes that the cost of
protecting the Middle East's oil reserves, paid for mostly by the US and
without which the west would grind to a halt, is as high as $25 (£16) a
barrel - about the same as it costs to buy. Mr Hain, seen as an outrider for
Blairite thinking, goes on to warn that no amount of money will guarantee
petrol supplies to the west and consumers should be weaning themselves off
the black stuff.

At present the world remains so dependent on oil for transport, it cannot
stand any disruption in supplies. Remember the chaos and gridlock that the
fuel protests brought to Britain? Tony Blair does and now recognises the
explosive nature of rising petrol prices.

The potency of the oil weapon is not lost on Osama bin Laden, either, who
has stated that crude oil should sell at $144 a barrel - about five times
the price at which it currently trades. The attack on the Limburg oil tanker
off Yemen's coast may prove to be al-Qaida's first targeting of the global
economy.

The Bush administration prefers not to discuss the economic effects of the
war on terrorism as this could sap support domestically and abroad,
especially in the Arab world where critics suspect, with good reason, the US
of wanting to seize its vast petroleum riches. Instead the White House
prefers to talk about imposing democracy and ridding the world of weapons of
mass destruction. These are noble aims, but they are undermined by leaks
suggesting a bolder grab for oil riches.

Mr Bush's senior adviser on the Middle East, Zalmay Khalilzad, has pushed
the idea of a post-Saddam Iraq as a colonial outpost of the American empire.
Its large oil reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia, could be tapped more
efficiently than at present and pay for the 75,000 troops required to
administer the new Iraq. This both overestimates the ease of producing oil
from a battle-scarred Iraq, which only manages to pump 1m barrels a day, and
underestimates the risk of a global financial shock, a serious concern given
that the last three big global recessions have been preceded first by a
crisis in the Middle East followed by a spike in the oil price.

While bombing Iraq would not in itself cause the oil price to rise sharply,
an attack by Saddam on Saudi or Kuwaiti oil fields or an uprising in Riyadh
would. The loss of, say, 5m barrels a day of oil production cannot be made
up quickly or easily. A big crude producer paralysed by revolution can see
production fall precipitously because its workforce is out on the streets
rather than manning the taps in the terminal. This is what happened in Iran
during the 1979 revolution. Iranian oil production fell from 6m barrels a
day to 3m and never recovered. If the same happened in Saudi Arabia, the
world would see oil prices spurt upwards.

America's addiction to oil is difficult for Europeans to stomach. It is not
just the consumption - a US citizen consumes 2.5 times the oil required by a
British one - but the differing cultural and political beliefs of two
continents. For example, green parties hold power in several nations,
notably Germany, whereas Mr Bush's administration prides itself on being
drawn from the oil industry. The EU has already committed itself to seeing
12% of all energy by 2010 coming from low-carbon, renewable sources in a bid
to prevent climate change. Although the US Congress is considering a
proposal to require utilities to supply 10% of power from renewables, the
White House is suspicious of the theory of global warming and refuses to
sign up to international treaties on climate change.

European politicians are increasingly concerned over the reliance on oil and
gas imports from unstable regions. As production from Britain and Norway
decreases, Europe will have to import more of its petroleum. More than 92%
of the continent's oil and 81% of its gas will come from abroad by 2030 -
putting the continent at the mercy of Opec and a nascent gas cartel led by
Russia, Iraq and Algeria. The message from Europe is the need to move faster
to renewable energies - more than 2bn euros will be spent on green fuels
such as hydrogen in the next three years.

The US response is to build up its strategic reserve of oil, prospect for
new fields in Alaska and consider launching a war for control of the world's
biggest petrol pump. Given the diverging paths taken by the two power blocs,
America should be wary of taking Europe's support for its military
adventures for granted.

Email
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to