June 8th, 2011
12:10 PM GMT
Share this on:

The dozen members of OPEC convened in a climate of highly charged politics, a war in a member state and with countries like the United States asking for some relief from $100 oil. It was one of the most interesting meetings in a decade because it is evidence that geo-politics and oil definitely mix and cause combustion.

In an unusual twist, ministers left Vienna without an agreement to increase their so-called production quota to match their current production. The market and perhaps more importantly the industrialised countries – led by the U.S. and Europe – were looking for a signal that more oil would be on the way.

This was a classic OPEC scenario that has not played out for years. In one corner the doves who wanted to maintain demand with reasonable pricing: OPEC heavyweight Saudi Arabia along with two other countries with spare oil to offer, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. In the other corner the price hawks: Venezuela, Iraq and Iran whom have traditionally pushed for higher prices.

At this meeting, the hawks won out. A senior delegate from a Persian Gulf state said he was stunned by the outcome. The tone behind closed doors was not one of cooperation, but of protecting their respective positions.

One source on the ground here said pressure from the International Energy Agency and from the U.S. ahead of the meeting actually played against the proceedings here. No one wanted to be seen helping the West while the Middle East remains in turmoil.

OPEC Secretary General Abdulla El Badri told CNN at the start of the meeting that “OPEC is always ready to act to make sure the market is well supplied,” but in reality he could not convince others to make that official. He says the market continues to price in a 15-20 percent premium based on concerns around the Arab uprisings.

If one looks at the first half chart for North Sea Brent crude when prices averaged $109 a barrel, there was a spike every time an uprising began – Egypt, Libya, Yemen and now Syria. In 2010, prices averaged $79 – closer to what I like to call the “Goldilocks Scenario” a level that is not too high for importers and allows ample revenues for OPEC producers. Right now the market is out of kilter and wanted OPEC to raise a 2008 quota of 24.8 million barrels a day to match current production of 26.3 million barrels.

If life was only that simple. Coming into the meeting here in Vienna the presidents of Venezuela and Ecuador both said oil at the century mark is a fair price. Venezuela’s oil minister Rafael Ramirez echoed that call at the meeting. To his right, was one of the more moderate price doves, the UAE minister Mohamed Al Hamli, a veteran of the energy business in Abu Dhabi. He told me the market is tight and more supplies would be needed in the second half. He added that he has spare capacity of a half million barrels a day on offer.

Beyond the pricing debate, there were plenty of other plot twists to highlight. Iran has the rotating presidency of OPEC and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a former sports minister to be here and nominated him as oil minister. That raised a few eyebrows amongst peers. Moammar Gadhafi sent the former head of the country’s power grid to come. He did not make the opening session and joined the session four hours late. Libya prior to the war was producing 1.6 million barrels a day. Most of that is off the market and it has been Saudi Arabia filling the void.

And that leaves, the Kingdom’s veteran oil minister, Ali Al Naimi. After 16 years within the OPEC community and a great track record of getting deals done before the meeting starts, this time he left empty handed and crude prices responded accordingly.



soundoff (6 Responses)
  1. Steve Thompson

    Here are some interesting comments from a former Vice President at Saudi Aramco outlining Saudi Arabia's lack of ability to increase its daily oil production:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/02/peak-oil-inconvenient-truth.html

    It looks like peak oil is here.

    June 8, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
  2. Adam

    Interesting quandary we're in: As oil prices climb we attempt to use less. We should be using less. It's necessary - investments in technology to lessen our dependence on oil increases; auto companies start offering cars with better gas mileage; and, people start using public transit and riding bikes and such. But the one who hurts most is the average Joe who drives a ten year old car that doesn't get very good mileage, who has to pay more for food and other commodities because increased freight costs, and cannot, in general, spend the kind of money he once did to help stimulate the economy.

    If you think it's bad now - well, brother, you ain't seen nothing yet. There will come a time, relatively soon, where the price for a barrel of oil will be $200 or more, and nations around the world will be duking it out for those last few drops. As China and India go about the business of building their economies on American-style capitalism, and having 40% of the world's population, do you think there's going to be enough to go around?

    As much as it hurts right now, we have to stay the course and continue to wean ourselves off the black stuff. If we don't, we're going to be going toe-to-toe with the other burgeoning superpowers of the world to simply get food from markets - never mind getting to work.

    June 8, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
  3. nick2

    The higher oil is priced, the more incentive we will have to develop cleaner alternative energies. Government still has a lot of leeway in playing with national gasoline taxes to avert skyrocketing economic price hits.

    June 8, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
  4. Dan Jackson

    Everyone PLEASE write your congressperson and ask them to support HR 1380. This bill is intended to kick start natural gas as a transportation fuel. Let's tell OPEC what they can do with their $100+ oil.

    June 8, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
  5. Desjardins

    And what will happen when we reach the peak point , I am talking about the time when demands exceed supplies .
    Are we going to see a fast switch to alternative energy or an economic downturn or ......... war ??

    June 8, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  6. Ian

    We need to invest in algae fuel: algae could easily be grown in the masses by garden skyscrapers built in lower property value areas (e.g. ghetto zones) and converted to biofuel. That and we need to make the switch from mass production of fuel cars to electric as biofuels can be converted to electric and used to energize vehicles more efficiently than directly fueling it with the biofuels. It's time to reform the way in which we produce energy. Or face collapse.

    June 9, 2011 at 12:47 am |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

About Business 360

CNN International's business anchors and correspondents get to grips with the issues affecting world business, and they want your questions and feedback.

 
 
Powered by WordPress.com VIP