Petrostate Tail Risk: The UK Joins My List

The coming February issue of Gregor.us Monthly will be taking a look at Petrostate tail risk. This is the risk that oil production and especially exports from oil producing nations could collapse as a result of sudden political instability. That instability could unfold in oil producing areas alone, or, it could be a phenomenon that engulfs the entire country. Possibilities range from a widespread labor related shut down of UK North Sea oil production, to a total collapse of federal governments in Abuja, or Mexico City.

Petrostates are highly individualistic, with their own unique histories. But because they produce oil, they are too often lumped together as a monolithic group. Risk to the stability of petrostates is not simplistically derived from falling oil prices. It’s a multi-factorial problem. Equally, as I begin to rank petrostates on a scale of risk, there are surprises.

One country not normally considered a petrostate, where I see alot of rising risk, is the United Kingdom. A perfect storm of conditions have combined in the last few years that outpace the fact that oil production is a much smaller part of UK GDP, than is typically found in other petrostates.

First, the UK has only just in the last two years tipped from net oil exporter to net oil importer. The change is then magnified by the fact that UK natural gas demand increasingly calls upon global LNG supply. This is a hard corner. Unlike other petrostates, the UK was not seeing enormous oil revenues that dwarfed GDP from other sources. Rather, oil revenue and security of supply were more embedded into overall UK financial strength, and partly formed its ability to become a nation oriented towards financial services. To have this oil revenue slip back from the net export threshold is not trivial, for the UK. And now, to have this revenue fall so dramatically in terms of price, and volume, at the same time The Square Mile is imploding, makes for a very big change, a large “delta.”

Pressures such as these lead to labor actions. This month’s protest in the UK against foreign workers directly impacted the UK oil refinery complex. And this echoes last year’s labor action, at the Grangemouth refinery. Readers may recall the Grangemouth strike also affected UK North Sea oil production, as supply flow is part of a chain that depends very much on northern refinery complexes to take up daily production. This is exactly the kind of delicate, high level optimization that makes developed countries more vulnerable now, when compared to less developed countries.

While this is a thesis I’ve developed over the past few years with regard to petrostates, it’s also a view which I heard expressed by Nassim Taleb with regard to the global financial system. Highly developed and stable means to be at risk. Flatter, less developed means to be more robust. During these storms. In a televised interview this week, Taleb said: “If a new phase of political instability comes to the world in this financial crisis, where would you rather be–in London, or Moscow? I would rather be in Moscow.”

I will cover the totality of petrostate risk in February’s newsletter. Despite the fact that the UK is rising on my list, it’s unsurprisingly not as high as Nigeria or Mexico.

-Gregor

  • MW

    Re: UK and oil, I suggest reading this: http://www.euromoneyfix.com/Article.aspx?gi=F32…

    Regards, MW

  • MW

    Re: UK and oil, I suggest reading this: http://www.euromoneyfix.com/Article.aspx?gi=F32…

    Regards, MW

  • MW

    Re: UK and oil, I suggest reading this: http://www.euromoneyfix.com/Article.aspx?gi=F32…

    Regards, MW

  • gregor.us

    Thanks for that. Some of my views push the envelope a little bit because I think that's necessary, and besides, I'm not writing here for the MSM. The reply to Jim Rogers from two RBS executives however brings together their pollyannish view with the hyperbole of Rogers. As I lay out in my post, it's the delta of going from net exporter to importer that becomes more pointed and more felt when combined with similar changes in demand for LNG, and also declining production of oil. The RBS, ironically, overstate the UK change from net oil exporter to next oil importer in terms of time, and turn. It really “started” to happen 4 years ago but did not fully express itself until 2 years ago. And yes, I think there is correlation here between that turn and how some of the foundation of the UK economy started to erode away.

    If we add up 1. The fall in oil prices not from 145 but say, from 100 to 40, 2. the drop in UK North Sea production, 3. the rise in UK demand for imported LNG, you get a delta in the billions. I'll be making those calculations more specific in February's newsletter.

    Thanks so much for sharing that document. Great to see how the RBS boys see it.

    G

  • gregor.us

    Thanks for that. Some of my views push the envelope a little bit because I think that's necessary, and besides, I'm not writing here for the MSM. The reply to Jim Rogers from two RBS executives however brings together their pollyannish view with the hyperbole of Rogers. As I lay out in my post, it's the delta of going from net exporter to importer that becomes more pointed and more felt when combined with similar changes in demand for LNG, and also declining production of oil. The RBS, ironically, overstate the UK change from net oil exporter to next oil importer in terms of time, and turn. It really “started” to happen 4 years ago but did not fully express itself until 2 years ago. And yes, I think there is correlation here between that turn and how some of the foundation of the UK economy started to erode away.

    If we add up 1. The fall in oil prices not from 145 but say, from 100 to 40, 2. the drop in UK North Sea production, 3. the rise in UK demand for imported LNG, you get a delta in the billions. I'll be making those calculations more specific in February's newsletter.

    Thanks so much for sharing that document. Great to see how the RBS boys see it.

    G

  • gregor.us

    Thanks for that. Some of my views push the envelope a little bit because I think that's necessary, and besides, I'm not writing here for the MSM. The reply to Jim Rogers from two RBS executives however brings together their pollyannish view with the hyperbole of Rogers. As I lay out in my post, it's the delta of going from net exporter to importer that becomes more pointed and more felt when combined with similar changes in demand for LNG, and also declining production of oil. The RBS, ironically, overstate the UK change from net oil exporter to next oil importer in terms of time, and turn. It really “started” to happen 4 years ago but did not fully express itself until 2 years ago. And yes, I think there is correlation here between that turn and how some of the foundation of the UK economy started to erode away.

    If we add up 1. The fall in oil prices not from 145 but say, from 100 to 40, 2. the drop in UK North Sea production, 3. the rise in UK demand for imported LNG, you get a delta in the billions. I'll be making those calculations more specific in February's newsletter.

    Thanks so much for sharing that document. Great to see how the RBS boys see it.

    G

  • Jim Lane

    Add the State of Alaska to your list!

  • Jim Lane

    Add the State of Alaska to your list!

  • Jim Lane

    Add the State of Alaska to your list!

  • Bob Inget

    Will Events in the Mid East, Change Perspective?

    What began as a world financial crisis is quickly escalating into one of survival. In 'Petrostates' like Mexico or Nigeria, corruption has reached levels only a few years ago, thought unacceptable. Diverse nations like the Ukraine or Afghanistan, certainly not petrostates, are vital for transport of petroleum.
    These nations, like Russia, Iraq, have become totally corrupt and, unmanageable.
    (the analogy between heroin and oil is a perfect one, the difference being, a new crop of poppies come yearly)
    This winter, the UK may yet come close to using ALL their storage gas. A national emergency like that, might move GB towards serious alternatives. (wind/tidal/nuclear) This sort rational decision won't be made in Mexico till it is way too late. In Nigeria there are lots of plans afoot to export gas now being flared. Almost none to use the gas locally, providing jobs in the manufacturing sector. Once again, as in Afghanistan, corruption hinders non violent movements. Mexico says they will limit exports by 2011, which proves they have no plans to utilize their quickly diminished oil reserves to create jobs internally, this year.
    .
    The worst situations we now face, IMO, is nuclear confrontation between nation states. Israel remains paranoid about Iran getting nuclear parity. There seems little doubt, post elections, Israel will attempt 'limited' air-strikes on Iran's nuclear and missile sites. Having come off almost unharmed after raids on Syria, Lebanon and Gaza, they may feel the 'risk' is worth taking.
    It was always too late, IMO. If far right forces in Israel manage a majority, the only uncertainty will be timing. Iran is not divided a Lebanon or Gaza. When backed into a corner Israel will use its N weapons “to survive” .

    The question then remains: Will, the US, like the UK, make rational energy decisions when our wish of “no more Mid East oil” is granted— for all time?
    Bob Inget

  • Bob Inget

    Will Events in the Mid East, Change Perspective?

    What began as a world financial crisis is quickly escalating into one of survival. In 'Petrostates' like Mexico or Nigeria, corruption has reached levels only a few years ago, thought unacceptable. Diverse nations like the Ukraine or Afghanistan, certainly not petrostates, are vital for transport of petroleum.
    These nations, like Russia, Iraq, have become totally corrupt and, unmanageable.
    (the analogy between heroin and oil is a perfect one, the difference being, a new crop of poppies come yearly)
    This winter, the UK may yet come close to using ALL their storage gas. A national emergency like that, might move GB towards serious alternatives. (wind/tidal/nuclear) This sort rational decision won't be made in Mexico till it is way too late. In Nigeria there are lots of plans afoot to export gas now being flared. Almost none to use the gas locally, providing jobs in the manufacturing sector. Once again, as in Afghanistan, corruption hinders non violent movements. Mexico says they will limit exports by 2011, which proves they have no plans to utilize their quickly diminished oil reserves to create jobs internally, this year.
    .
    The worst situations we now face, IMO, is nuclear confrontation between nation states. Israel remains paranoid about Iran getting nuclear parity. There seems little doubt, post elections, Israel will attempt 'limited' air-strikes on Iran's nuclear and missile sites. Having come off almost unharmed after raids on Syria, Lebanon and Gaza, they may feel the 'risk' is worth taking.
    It was always too late, IMO. If far right forces in Israel manage a majority, the only uncertainty will be timing. Iran is not divided a Lebanon or Gaza. When backed into a corner Israel will use its N weapons “to survive” .

    The question then remains: Will, the US, like the UK, make rational energy decisions when our wish of “no more Mid East oil” is granted— for all time?
    Bob Inget

  • Bob Inget

    Will Events in the Mid East, Change Perspective?

    What began as a world financial crisis is quickly escalating into one of survival. In 'Petrostates' like Mexico or Nigeria, corruption has reached levels only a few years ago, thought unacceptable. Diverse nations like the Ukraine or Afghanistan, certainly not petrostates, are vital for transport of petroleum.
    These nations, like Russia, Iraq, have become totally corrupt and, unmanageable.
    (the analogy between heroin and oil is a perfect one, the difference being, a new crop of poppies come yearly)
    This winter, the UK may yet come close to using ALL their storage gas. A national emergency like that, might move GB towards serious alternatives. (wind/tidal/nuclear) This sort rational decision won't be made in Mexico till it is way too late. In Nigeria there are lots of plans afoot to export gas now being flared. Almost none to use the gas locally, providing jobs in the manufacturing sector. Once again, as in Afghanistan, corruption hinders non violent movements. Mexico says they will limit exports by 2011, which proves they have no plans to utilize their quickly diminished oil reserves to create jobs internally, this year.
    .
    The worst situations we now face, IMO, is nuclear confrontation between nation states. Israel remains paranoid about Iran getting nuclear parity. There seems little doubt, post elections, Israel will attempt 'limited' air-strikes on Iran's nuclear and missile sites. Having come off almost unharmed after raids on Syria, Lebanon and Gaza, they may feel the 'risk' is worth taking.
    It was always too late, IMO. If far right forces in Israel manage a majority, the only uncertainty will be timing. Iran is not divided a Lebanon or Gaza. When backed into a corner Israel will use its N weapons “to survive” .

    The question then remains: Will, the US, like the UK, make rational energy decisions when our wish of “no more Mid East oil” is granted— for all time?
    Bob Inget

  • MW

    I'd be interested to read your views on Mexico. They are en route to be a net importer in the next decade; my naive take on it is that Pemex is badly run and they aren't making the most of the fields they have (unlike, say, Brazil?). As you may be aware, Stratfor is very negative on Mexico as a whole, though largely b/c it sees the country as a narco-state.

    Regards, MW

  • MW

    I'd be interested to read your views on Mexico. They are en route to be a net importer in the next decade; my naive take on it is that Pemex is badly run and they aren't making the most of the fields they have (unlike, say, Brazil?). As you may be aware, Stratfor is very negative on Mexico as a whole, though largely b/c it sees the country as a narco-state.

    Regards, MW

  • MW

    I'd be interested to read your views on Mexico. They are en route to be a net importer in the next decade; my naive take on it is that Pemex is badly run and they aren't making the most of the fields they have (unlike, say, Brazil?). As you may be aware, Stratfor is very negative on Mexico as a whole, though largely b/c it sees the country as a narco-state.

    Regards, MW

  • gregor.us

    Last time I ran my model, Mexico was at the top of the list of collapse risk. There's a witches brew of bad things now bearing down on Mexico.

    G

  • gregor.us

    Last time I ran my model, Mexico was at the top of the list of collapse risk. There's a witches brew of bad things now bearing down on Mexico.

    G

  • gregor.us

    Last time I ran my model, Mexico was at the top of the list of collapse risk. There's a witches brew of bad things now bearing down on Mexico.

    G

  • gregor.us

    Last time I ran my model, Mexico was at the top of the list of collapse risk. There's a witches brew of bad things now bearing down on Mexico.

    G

  • gregor.us

    Last time I ran my model, Mexico was at the top of the list of collapse risk. There's a witches brew of bad things now bearing down on Mexico.

    G