Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on August 30, 2013

Bookmark and Share

Will military strikes push oil prices to record highs?

Will military strikes push oil prices to record highs? thumbnail

As politicians in the US and Europe move closer to launching military strikes in Syria, the uncertainty in the country and the prospect of further instability in the Middle East is being reflected in the financial markets.

In recent days, the price of oil has surged to a six-month high. A barrel of Brent crude jumped 6% to $117 on Wednesday, and compares with less than $100 a barrel as recently as June.

Analysts from the bank Societe Generale suggest the price could eventually surge to $125 if air strikes are launched, and $150 a barrel if the military action disrupts production in the region.

That would be beyond the all-time high of $147 a barrel seen at the height of the financial crisis in 2008.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch has forecast a spike in oil prices of $120-$130 a barrel.

This is despite the fact that Syria’s oil production itself is negligible to the global market.

Even before the crisis that now engulfs the country, Syria exported barely 150,000 barrels a day to foreign buyers – mainly the European Union.

That compares with 10 million barrels a day exported by Saudi Arabia, for example, and a global oil consumption rate of 92 million barrels a day.

When sanctions were imposed on the regime of President Bashar al-Assad in late 2011, the exports stopped, and Syria is now estimated to produce just 50,000 barrels per day, and all of it refined domestically.

Spread

But the concern among investors is that any Western involvement in Syria may draw neighbouring countries deeper into the fray, and the conflict may spill out beyond its borders.

That could include neighbouring Iraq, which produces a much more significant three million barrels of oil a day – 3% of global consumption.

In Baghdad there are already concerns about the spread of the conflict across its long and porous desert border with Syria.

Extremist groups from Iraq – particularly local al-Qaeda affiliates – are now operating in northern Syria.

At the same time there has been a significant rise in sectarian violence in Iraq in recent months, with hundreds dead and fears of an outright civil war between Shias and Sunnis renewed.

Finally the Kurds who run northern Iraq, and produce around 250,000 barrels of oil a day from its oil fields, have an interest in the welfare of their fellow Kurds living just over the border in the north-eastern corner of Syria.

Strait under threat

The other great unknown is how Iran may react to military strikes. It has proven to be a steadfast supporter of the Assad regime over the last two years, despite growing international pressure, and has provided military and financial support.

It has warned against military strikes, and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said a Western attack would be a “disaster for the region”.

But it is not clear whether Iran’s response would go further than verbal condemnation, especially with recently installed President Hassan Rouhani – seen as more moderate than his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – apparently keen to improve relations with the West.

But if there were a response this could threaten both Iran’s supply of 2.7 million barrels of oil per day, and the Strait of Hormuz.

The strait is a narrow body of water that separates Iran from the United Arab Emirates, and is the only point of access to the Persian Gulf.

It is also the busiest passageway for oil tankers in the world, with more than 17 million barrels (18% of global consumption) passing through it each day.

Iran has in the past threatened to close the strait, cutting off the supply of oil, if it was itself attacked by the US or Israel.

‘Tightest balance’

It also remains unclear what the impact on other major oil producers in the region could be. Saudi Arabia has already sided with the rebels trying to topple the Assad regime.

But despite the apparent risks of military strikes, oil analysts point out that the oil price has been creeping up for some time, long before the threat of military action in Syria became an imminent possibility.

The reasons have included disruptions to production, particularly in Libya, where a patchwork of armed militia groups still maintain control over much of the country. The lack of security has seen oil production regularly disrupted, while industrial action at Libyan ports has prevented exports.

At the same time demand for oil has increased as the US and Europe recover from recession, and demand from China has also held up.

Gary Ross, chief executive of US energy consultancy PIRA, described the current situation as “the tightest physical balance on the world oil market I’ve seen for a long time.”

Some analysts are more optimistic, and suggest that if oil prices do rise significantly, the spike will be temporary.

“The market is reassessing the supply implications of the conflict in Syria,” said Eugen Weinberg, an analyst at Germany’s Commerzbank.

“Our view is military action will not destabilise the whole Middle East, which means the risk premium is being overstated. If the conflict is contained in Syria, prices are too high.”

BBC



14 Comments on "Will military strikes push oil prices to record highs?"

  1. BillT on Fri, 30th Aug 2013 2:00 am 

    $200 by Christmas?

  2. alokin on Fri, 30th Aug 2013 3:27 am 

    Would Syrian missiles be able to reach SA oilfields?

  3. Sharpie on Fri, 30th Aug 2013 4:39 am 

    Since when does Saudi Arabia export 10 million barrels per day?

  4. GregT on Fri, 30th Aug 2013 4:54 am 

    Wow,

    So here we are, in the 21st century, and we still haven’t progressed beyond empirialism, capitalism, and war. Will we ever grow up? Not likely.

    It is time for people to live within the means of their own resources, instead of killing others to maintain their own lifestyles.

    The US of A already used up it’s share of global oil, killing other people for theirs, is morally unaceptablr

  5. GregT on Fri, 30th Aug 2013 4:55 am 

    Unaceptable.

  6. GregT on Fri, 30th Aug 2013 4:58 am 

    Unacceptable.

    Love my I-Pad. 🙁

  7. BillT on Fri, 30th Aug 2013 8:40 am 

    alokin … probably not, but Iran’s can and would.

  8. Luke on Fri, 30th Aug 2013 9:22 am 

    War looks like a means to guarantee the flow of precious commodities to the hungry West. But War does not affect nature’s ability to deliver and to absorb. Commodities are being exhausted in a unprecedented rapid pace and are not being replaced because nature’s magic engines don’t exist. And the atmosphere will not expand till it touches the Moon to dilute our pollution. In both cases humanity will need to accept our globe is a finite thing to share with many other generations.

  9. DC on Fri, 30th Aug 2013 10:14 am 

    The BBC should pay more attention to crimes of the Cameron regime, which has far less legitimacy than Mr Assad’s government. Of course, no mention that our rigged energy markets love war. Nothing beats them for making a fast buck, even though Syria counts for very little on world oil markets. Rather less now thanks to US\UK terrorism. In fact, if the BBC bothered to notice, every country the US\UK destroys, surprisingly, all have oil production problems, which strangely enough, never existed before the US got involved.

  10. bobinget on Fri, 30th Aug 2013 5:19 pm 

    BBC did just announced, gas killed 1,429 Syrians.
    How many more dead and displaced will it take to get you angry?

    This Syrian disaster is like one of American West’s huge forest fires. Unless contained it could burn down the entire state.

  11. BillT on Sat, 31st Aug 2013 12:10 am 

    bobinget, I hope you mean ‘contained’ as in the US leaving the country’s problems up to the country’s citizens. That means that the Us stops supporting the rebels and all…

  12. DC on Sat, 31st Aug 2013 1:46 am 

    The BBC is not a credible source. They can claim 1400 died, or 14,000. Those numbers were pulled out of the case officer running this ops ass. Until the legitimate gov’t of Syria makes an official statement-anything out of the BBC or any US source should be treated as false.

    If your going to get angry-get angry at the source of the attack, the Obomber\Cameron and Hollande Regimes.

  13. BillT on Sat, 31st Aug 2013 2:41 am 

    “… No nation in world history caused more bloodshed and human misery than America.

    Historian Gabriel Kolko called the 20th century “the bloodiest in all history. More than 170 million people were killed.” Most were civilians.

    According to Kolko, America bears most responsibility. It does so through imperial interventions. It’s the world’s largest arms producer and exporter. Mass killing and destruction follow….”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/imperial-madness/5347085

  14. MrColdWaterOfRealityMan on Sat, 31st Aug 2013 8:18 pm 

    Yes, all major powers know now that any significant conventional war involving ships, ground troops, aircraft carriers, etc. risks raising the price of the remaining oil, using up our remaining oil significantly faster and increasing risk of world economic collapse in both the short AND long term.

    Give that any war we’re likely to have in the future is a resource war, this is ironically funny. No?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *