Pipeline transporting Russian natural gas. (image: visitbulgaria.info)

A new coalition of natural-gas-producing countries, called the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), had its first official meeting this week, the New York Times reported on Thursday. Members of the GECF convened in Doha, Qatar, where they elected Leonid V. Bokhanovsky as the coalition’s secretary general and discussed ways to fix the price of natural gas, which has been plummeting in recent months because of a glut in supply. Attending the meeting were energy ministers of the eleven member countries: Algeria, Bolivia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Libya, Qatar, Nigeria, Russia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.

The prenominate countries have been meeting informally since 2001, finally adopting a formal charter in Moscow a year ago. Some critics have labeled the group a “cartel,” applying the dubious informal title ‘Gas OPEC’ (presumably because ‘ONGEC’ is not all that catchy). Many analysts worry that the gas-rich GECF will have the power to drive up natural gas prices by constricting supplies, much in the same way that OPEC ostensibly spiked oil prices in the 1970s. Indeed, the eleven members of GEFC seem to have a tight grip on the market: Russia, the world’s biggest producer, alone supplies roughly 25 percent of Europe’s gas, while the three biggest gas-producers in the coalition control more than half of the world’s proven gas reserves.

Despite their clout, the members of the GECF are worried by the sinking price of gas. Over the last twelve months, oil prices have climbed about 40 percent while the price of natural gas has fallen by roughly the same percentage. The big reason for the price drop is a perceived overhang in supply—there’s just too much gas being produced and not enough demand for it. Most of the new gas has been coming from the United States, where new drilling technology—known as hydraulic fracturing (or ‘hydrofracking’)—has allowed gas to be extracted from geological formations previously considered impenetrable. This so-called ‘shale-bed gas’ poses a threat to Russia and other gas-producing nations, who have recently seen their market shares diminish.

Thus, the GECF’s first order of business was to figure out a way to maintain the link between natural gas and oil contracts; doing so would mean that the higher oil prices go, the higher gas prices go, too. And with oil hovering around $80 a barrel, this is an appealing arrangement for the members of GECF. If the group evolves into a cartel, it could prevent market forces from making relatively clean-burning gas less expensive than oil, said Ian Cronshaw of the International Energy Agency, which is opposed to the idea of strengthening links between oil and gas contracts. “Our position is that the market should set prices,” he said.

Be apprised: If GECF does begin driving up the price of natural gas, consumers who have the option of using either oil or gas to heat their homes and businesses will most likely begin using more heating oil. If this happens, the demand for oil will increase, thus driving up oil prices. In other words, nobody wins—except, of course, the oil and gas companies.

IEA Chief Fatih Birol addressed the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this week. (image: wikipedia.org and cfr.org)

Monday night at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA) presented the highlights of the recently released 2009 World Energy Outlook, which was recently completed. Yours truly was in attendance, and got the scoop just for you dear readers.

Mr. Birol knows his stuff- he worked for OPEC for six years, has written lots of articles about energy and energy policy, has won lots of awards for his work and is steeped every day in the numbers and analysis of global energy consumption and production. He’s known for being pretty plainspoken. So when he has something to say, we should listen.

And what he has to say isn’t pretty. Some samples:

• To keep up with global oil demand, the world will need to discover an additional four (yes, he said four) Saudi Arabia’s worth of crude production before 2030

• To keep up with global gas demand the world will need to discover an additional four Russia’s worth of natural gas reserves by 2030.

• Because of the financial crisis, global investment in oil production fell by $90B in 2009, or 19 percent- the first time this has happened in a decade.

• Existing oil fields will lose two-thirds of their productive capacity by 2030

• Between 2008 and 2030, the percentage of GDP spent on energy in the US will double, and in countries like China and India could increase three to six-fold.

• Oil prices were ‘not innocent’ in precipitating the financial crisis of 2008 and will remain a threat to global growth.

Whoa…Fatih…I’m trying to catch my breath here. What are we going to do?

Mr. Birol emphasized that the way to address these threats is to address climate change. In the IEA’s projections they use two scenarios, one they call the ‘Reference’ scenario (no change in our behavior) and the ‘450’ scenario (we keep carbon parts per million in the atmosphere under the critical 450 and thus will save the world- or so Al Gore tells me).

The changes he calls for to reach the 450 scenario are EXPENSIVE. They would cost many trillions—with a capital T. Renewables, electric cars, carbon capture, wind, solar, cap and trade, the works. But, he emphasizes, the cost of waiting will be even more expensive.

During the Q&A session that followed his presentation, someone asked him what his recommendations would be if climate change turned out to be an elaborate hoax (I paraphrase). He said he would still recommend 90% of the changes outlined in the review. Huh?

Birol explained that many people, especially in the developing world, view energy security as a bigger issue than climate change. Countries like China and India may not be very interested in spending money on climate change, but they may be extremely willing to spend on energy security. The same argument could be made to climate change skeptics. In his view, the changes we would make to reduce emissions are the same moves we would make to improve our energy security.

Interesting. Is it possible climate change zealots and national security hawks can fall in love on this? Who’s going to call Al Gore and Dick Cheney for the handshake photo-op? And is this really a way we can convince China it is in their best interest not to turn the planet into the air quality equivalent of my Grandpa’s apartment (Marlboro reds, two packs daily)? Sounds revolutionary to me.

Birol did have some other very interesting comments that we will touch on in future articles, among them:

• Hydrofracking in the US represents a silent energy revolution that no one is paying attention to, but will provide us with oodles of natgas for the next 20 years.
• Oil and coal usage in OECD (developed) countries peaked in 2009
• A natural gas glut is forming globally and will reach its apex in 2015

So put that in your pipe and smoke it. Be back in touch soon.