Thursday, March 10, 2011 - 5:33 AM

There's a presumption out there that things look tough in the Middle East, but that soon enough -- maybe by summer -- they will sort themselves out, and becalm the volatile prices of oil and gasoline. Not so, says veteran oil analyst Edward Morse, a student of history who correctly called the 2008 oil bubble while everyone else was still throwing money into the pot. "This is not a one-off disruption," Morse says. Instead, we're in a new age of geopolitical risk that threatens to disrupt the region for a decade or even longer.
As if to reinforce his point, 6,400 miles away in Libya, Col. Moammar Qaddafi has again triggered the all-important Flaming Oil Port Index by having his air force bomb the country's main oil terminal at Es Sider, turning it into a ball of fire. Oil prices shot up.
Given the Libyan uprising, not to mention the trouble in Bahrain, Egypt, Oman, Tunisia and Yemen, even the region's rich petro-states understand the basic math, says Morse -- their demographics (60 percent of the region's population under 25 years old, high unemployment rates, and lopsided income distribution), awakened by the kindling of revolutionary fever, have put all of them in potential jeopardy. "A rapid contagion is spreading," he said. "Even if you think you are relatively safe, this is a new, permanent risk. It will be with us for the next decade," or even two.
Therefore, all the petro-states are going to mimic the recent largesse of Saudi King Abdullah, who distributed $36 billion to his people in the form of higher wages and forgiven loans, and do so on a regular basis. They will also try to figure out how to put all those discontented and often well-educated youth to work.
That's great, but what does that mean for the rest of us? That the break-even point for annual government expenditures in all the states -- meaning the price of oil required to cover regular state obligations like salaries, road repair and defense, plus these new expenses in order to satisfy the restive youth -- has just gone up, says Morse. If they needed $60-a-barrel oil multiplied by the number of barrels they are producing and selling each day to fund the state budget, now they will need much higher prices. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other petro-statesmen that previously attempted to keep oil price stamped down to some degree can no longer be counted on to do so. Instead, they will be interested in the kind of price increases we are seeing today. For more Ed Morse, including a video, read on to the jump.
Oh, prices could dip down a bit back into the double-digits, but short of some apocalyptic global economic meltdown such as we saw in 2008, get used to paying a lot more to fill your tank.
Morse made his remarks in Houston at the Davos of the oil industry, a week-long conference put on by oil historian Dan Yergin called CERAWeek. I pulled Morse aside after his speech. Here is our conversation:
Even so, Morse is much less pessimistic regarding the coming decade than some others, such as Total CEO Christophe de Margerie (see yesterday's post). For instance, as Morse says in the video above, he thinks we will have a lot more spare oil production capacity coming two or three years than is generally understood -- spare capacity is not going to dry up in that period, he says. When traders fail to see such a global cushion of surplus production capacity, they tend to react in a panic-stricken manner to energy events like pipeline explosions or hurricanes. We see this panic in the form of higher oil and gasoline prices. The world may still face a crunch in the middle of the decade, with all the disruption that suggests, Morse says, but fresh oil supplies will come onto the market by the end of the current decade.
So we have a divergence among the big thinkers -- deMargerie forecasts general upheaval because of oil shortages; Morse thinks geopolitics have changed the Middle East, but that oil supply is misunderstood. We can't know with certainty who is right. What we can do is diversify in preparation for whatever happens.
Mohammad Huwais AFP/Getty Images
I find Morse an 'informed' skeptic of the Peak Oil(and I mean the consensus in the Peak Oil movement which is between 2010-2015, depending on you're talking about), considering the fact that he is much more optimistic about the end of the decade.
Irregardless, I, of course, disagree with him. And so does Goldman Sachs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/8369427/Oil-markets-brace-for-Saudi-rage-as-global-spare-capacity-wears-thin.html
"We believe that OPEC spare capacity has already dropped below 2m bpd. The question therefore arises how much spare capacity is left to absorb potential supply disruptions in other countries."
Spoken by Jeff Currie, a man described as 'the bank's oil guru'.
People have a wide array of opinions on Goldman Sachs but most would agree that they are no fools, and perhaps the most brilliant on Wall St bank(brilliant is not necessarily moral).
Another thing is that peope forget that Brent was very close to 100 dollars per barrel already before the unrest began.
Libya has sped up what was coming anyway.
Not to mention that the ex-chief geologist of Saudi Aramco openly proclaimed, more than thrice, that the Saudis have vastly overestimated their reserves.
Yes, we all know about the Wikileaks docs, but he actually said the same things in an ASPO video from 2009. That he is now backtracking is about the fact that he wants to keep his political perks.
In any case, I view Mr.Morse as informed but ultimately wrong. And it appears the ex-chief geologist of Saudi Aramco and Goldman Sachs is closer to me than to him.
But I am sensing a shift in your writing too. I wouldn't say you're picking sides, but if you look at the steady stream of your writing it looks to me, at least from here, as if you are getting closer and closer to similar conclusions, albeit not as drastic as some obsessed peakers(Heinberg, Kunstler etc).
P.S. Do forgive embarrasing spelling errors. There's no edit function and I'm simply too lazy(it's the interwebz) to make meticulous previews of my posts. Mea culpa D.S.
As you note, my view on prices has shifted. I expected the arrival of lower prices, seeing the rise to $90 and above as trader-driven. The Middle East events change the calculus. They have injected a risk premium into the price that traders will be loath to wring out. I agree that the Goldman crew is first-rate. But they also can be guilty of irrational exuberance. Recall that after they correctly forecast the rise toward $150 a barrel, they pushed their luck and forecast $200 a barrel oil, just before it fell to $32 a barrel.
So, I guess you are saying $100 is stable, that it won't go higher, when you say it isn't going anywhere?
(5)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE