Monday, January 30, 2006

Trading oil in euros, does it matter? | EnergyBulletin.net | Peak Oil News Clearinghouse

Trading oil in euros � does it matter? EnergyBulletin.net Peak Oil News Clearinghouse

by Cóilín Nunan
RELATED NEWS:
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse...
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse...
Strange ideas about the Iranian oil bourse...
Kuwait oil reserves only half official estimate-PIW...
Iraqi oil production choked for years...
With speculation mounting over the possibility of a US- or Israeli-led military attack of Iran sometime later this year, it has been suggested that real motivation for US antipathy towards the Iranian government has little to do with concerns that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons. Some commentators have instead suggested that Iran’s real Iranian threat to the US and its economy is that, in defiance of the US administration, it is attempting to establish an oil ‘bourse’ (exchange) in March of this year which would enable oil to be traded in euros. This would move oil sales away from their usual denomination in dollars and would, it is argued, undermine the American currency with grave consequences for the US economy. (1,2) This internet-based debate is reminiscent of what occurred before the invasion of Iraq when several observers, myself included, hypothesised that Saddam Hussein’s decision to sell Iraqi oil in euros was perhaps one of the reasons the US wanted ‘regime change’. (3,4) The US decision after the invasion to return Iraqi oil sales to dollar denomination and to convert back into dollars all Iraqi foreign currency reserves, which had been in euros prior to the war, was certainly entirely consistent with this theory. (5)However, others have claimed that the idea that the currency in which oil is sold matters at all is based on a poor understanding of economics. If oil sales were switched away from the dollar, they claim, it would make no difference to the US economy, and therefore this cannot have anything to do with the reasons the US went to war in Iraq and is now adopting a threatening stance towards Iran. I will try and address their main argument, as I feel the economic reasons why the denomination of oil sales are is an important issue have not always been clearly explained, including by myself.Those arguing that the denomination of sales is crucial to dollar strength have tended to say that countries are forced to save dollars so that they have dollars to buy oil. Their critics, however, reply that you do not have to save in dollars to buy oil since you can save in whichever currency you want and then buy dollars on the foreign exchange market whenever you want to buy oil. What matters, say the critics, is in which currency people ultimately save rather than in which currency they trade. (6,7) It is people saving in dollars, or in US financial assets, which results in high levels of investment in the US and ultimately permits the US to run a huge trade deficit.The latter argument is largely correct, but it leaves out the crucial fact that the reason countries choose to save in dollars, to a far greater extent than in any other currency, is nonetheless related to the fact that oil is sold in dollars. Yes, what is important is in which currency countries save, but this is to a significant extent determined by which currency they trade in.In order to understand why, we need to ask ourselves, why do central banks keep foreign exchange reserves at all? Also, what considerations determine which currency they choose to keep as reserves? The answer to the first part of this question is that the main reason central banks keep foreign currency reserves is so that, if necessary, they can intervene in the markets to support the exchange rates of their own currency. If, say, their currency is being attacked by speculators who are selling it on the foreign exchange markets, the central bank can use its foreign currency to buy up its own currency, thus supporting its value. You cannot, of course, buy up your own currency unless you have previously accumulated savings of foreign currency. So when central banks keep foreign currency reserves, their prime concern is not so much to invest this money in order to secure the maximum possible return, but instead to protect their own currency so that it is a stable currency. The more reserve currency a country has, the less likely that speculators are going to attack that currency. Nobody would dream of launching a speculative attack against the yen or the yuan because their reserves are so massive, but the currencies of many poor countries are far more likely to suddenly devalue since their central banks have only small foreign currency reserves and can do little to protect their currency if the markets decide to sell it. In this context, it is worth also remembering how George Soros became famous by launching a speculative attack against the pound. The Bank of England ultimately was unable to defend the currency as its foreign exchange reserves were being run down, a clear illustration of how the strength of a currency is related to the ability of the central bank to defend it. (8)So protecting your own currency is the main reason for keeping foreign exchange reserves, but in which currency should you keep them? Well the answer to this question depends nearly entirely on the answer to the question 'against which currency would a sudden and unwanted devaluation of your own currency be most damaging?' If the answer to the second question is 'by far the most damaging unwanted currency devaluation would be a fall of my currency versus the dollar', then it makes sense to keep the vast majority of your currency reserves in dollars: doing so will enable you to buy your own currency with dollars, thus supporting its dollar exchange rate. If you are most worried about your currency devaluing against the dollar, it makes no economic sense to keep most of your reserves in euros or yen.For all of the rich countries in the world, a sudden devaluation against the dollar has the potential to be far more damaging than a sudden devaluation against the euro, the yen, the yuan, the rubble, etc. This is because most of the goods and services traded internationally are priced and paid for in dollars and, virtually all commodity trade, including the trade of oil which is by far the most important good traded internationally, is denominated in dollars. If your currency falls suddenly against the dollar, then the price of oil will suddenly increase for you, whereas if your currency falls against the yen, but not against the dollar, the price of some Japanese imports will go up, and these imports are probably not essential to the running of your economy anyway. Furthermore, many Japanese imports are also priced and paid for in dollars, so even these are more likely to go up in price for you if your currency devalues against the dollar rather than the yen. Since virtually all of the really important imports are priced and paid for in dollars, it makes complete economic sense for rich central banks to keep most of their reserves in dollars. If the denomination of these important imports, in particular oil, were to move away from the dollar, then rich countries would move their reserves into other currencies and consequently the dollar would lose a lot of its importance.For poor countries, there is another reason for wishing to trade and save in dollars. They often have international debts, and these debts are usually denominated in dollars (in the case of IMF debts this is always the case). This means that if their currency devalues against the dollar, their debts go up. As a result, poor countries often denominate their exports in dollars, so that they can acquire dollars, without exchange risk. These are used to repay debts, conduct trade (including, in particular, buying oil which most of them do not have), and protect their own currencies. Since the exports of poor countries are often essential to the running of the world economy (they often export commodities), their decision to export in dollars has knock-on effects on rich countries who then have a further reason for saving in dollars.So can we conclude that an Iranian oil bourse trading oil in euros is the real reason for the current crisis? Perhaps this is prematurely jumping to conclusions. The claim that the Iranian bourse will definitely trade in euros appears to me to be based primarily on speculation at this stage. I have yet to see a clear statement on this from the Iranian government. There are certainly good reasons for suspecting that it might be in euros, since Iranian government sources have previously spoken favourably about trading for oil in euros (9,10) and according to a statement attributed to the Vice-Governor of the Iranian central bank, Iran began selling oil in euros to Europe in 2003. (11)However, in January of 2004, Bijan Namdar Zangeneh, who was then Oil Minister, played down the possibility of Iran switching to euro payments, (12) and as recently as last September, the head of Iran’s stock exchange dismissed claims that the new oil bourse would be using the euro as the transaction currency. (13) We also know that Iran has previously been involved in discussions with other primarily Muslim countries, like Malaysia, which aimed at introducing an entirely new currency, the ‘Islamic Gold Dinar’, which would be used in international trade, and in particular the oil trade. (14) In the euro’s favour, on the other hand, is the fact that little has been heard of the Islamic Gold Dinar in the past year, and just last month the Chairman of the Majilis Energy Commission (the Majilis is the Iranian parliament) was quoted as saying that ‘preparatory measures have been taken to sell oil in euros instead of dollar’ and that initially Iran should ‘sell its oil in both dollar and euro, and then gradually move toward euro’. (15) However, until we hear from official Iranian sources that the trading will be in euros, it is probably unwise to draw too many firm conclusions.The possibility that the Iranian oil bourse might not use euros would not necessarily diminish its significance and there could still be good reason for believing that US/UK governments and financial interests would still be strongly opposed to it as it would challenge their control of oil trading, but that is another question.REFERENCES1. William Clark, ‘The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker’, October 2004, www.energybulletin.net/2913.html2. Krassimir Petrov, ‘The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse’, January 2006, www.energybulletin.net/12125.html3. William Clark, 'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth', January 2003, www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html4. Cóilín Nunan, 'Oil, currency and the war on Iraq', January 2003, www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm5. Cóilín Nunan, ‘Petrodollar or petroeuro? A new source of global conflict’, November 2004, www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm6. James D. Hamilton , ‘Strange ideas about the Iranian oil bourse’, January 2006, www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/01/strange_ideas_a.html7. Chris Cook, ‘What the Iran 'nuclear issue' is really about’, January 2006, www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA21Ak01.html8. William Keegan, ‘Black Wednesday gets a whitewash’, February 2005, The Observer, politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/comment/0,9236,1411995,00.html9. C. Shivkumar, 'Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms', June 16 2003, www.blonnet.com/2003/06/17/stories/2003061702380500.htm10. Anon., 'Iran may switch to euro for crude sale payments', Alexander Oil and Gas, (September 5, 2002), www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntm23638.htm11. Juan Caros Escaron, ‘El ‘petroeuro’ rompe el cascarón’, November 2000, El Mundo12. Hashem Kalantari, ‘Iran Oil Min: No Plan To Switch Oil Pricing From Dollar’, IranExpert, www.iranexpert.com/2004/oilmin11january.htm13. Anon., ‘Oil bourse not to use euros in Iran: TSM chief’, Iranmania,www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=35269&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs14. Faisal Islam, ‘Return to an old standard?’, February 2003, The Observer, observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,891682,00.html15. Anon., ‘Preparatory measures taken to sell oil in euros’, December 2005, Mehrnews.com, www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=260851

Saturday, January 28, 2006

Metal prices surge as reserves fears are highlighted

Telegraph Money Metal prices surge as reserves fears are highlighted

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Filed: 27/01/2006)
Mankind has already used up a large chunk of the metal ever likely to be found in the Earth's crust and will face a supply crunch once Asia catches up with the West, according to a new report by the US National Academy of Sciences.

The study found that 26pc of all copper ore thought to exist has already been lost, either wasted in milling, smelting and corrosion, or buried in landfills.
The report, drafted by geologists from Yale University, said there were enough ore reserves to meet immediate needs but warned of an inevitable shortage down the road.
"It is clear that scarcity value will raise the real prices of scarce metals and will stimulate intensive recycling well above today's levels," it said.
The findings come as metal prices surged across the board yesterday in a frenzy of buying by funds, many betting on India's housing boom and another strong year in China.
Platinum hit an all-time record of $1,060 an ounce, while copper and zinc both smashed through to fresh highs before slipping back on profit-taking. Copper is up 58pc since last May.
Silver reached a 19-year peak of $9.53 on hopes that Barclays would soon win US approval for the launch of its exchange traded fund (EFT) in silver.
The Yale findings are akin to the "peak oil" theory predicting a decline in crude output as reserves run out, but metals - unlike oil - can be recycled again and again.
Even so, the demand by Asia's sprouting cities may ex-haust reserves even if there is full recycling. The study found that 19pc of all likely zinc has been lost. Platinum is first in line for depletion. The entire global stock is just enough to sustain a 500m vehicles with fuel cells for 15 years. For copper, the total stock in use has settled at around 200kg per capita in rich countries.
"Nations such as China will need to increase their average urban per capita use by seven to eight times to achieve the same level of services. Is there enough copper to meet this?" asked the report.
New discoveries have raised the copper reserves by just 0.63pc a year since 1925 but usage has risen at 3.3pc. The scarcity has been offset until now by better technology, keeping price steady in real terms for 50 years.
This process may now be nearing its limit. Other metals can step into the breach up to a point. Aluminium, still plentiful, is already replacing copper for some electrical uses. Iron is ubiquitious.
Yale's Professor Robert Gordon, the lead author, said it was hard to see where scarce metals could be found given that mining in Antarctica is banned by treaty. "Deep-ocean mining is very hard and would disturb ecologically pristine areas," he said.
Robin Bhar, a metals analyst at UBS, said he was sceptical about the findings. "We've hardly scratched the surface of the Earth's crust. Even so, I wonder whether the prices today are signalling the risk of metals running out," he said.

El Gobierno boliviano acusa a Repsol de 'fraude contable'

CincoDias.com -

El recién nombrado ministro de Hidrocarburos de Bolivia, Andrés Soliz, acusó el viernes a la petrolera hispano-argentina Repsol YPF de haber cometido un 'fraude contable' por haberse anotado como propias, en la Bolsa de Nueva York, las reservas de gas natural que explota en el país.
Soliz añadió que, a su juicio, 'Repsol no es la única' firma que procedió de esa forma con los yacimientos gasistas bolivianos, aunque admitió que no tenía pruebas sobre otros casos.
Además, confirmó que la empresa Andina, participada a partes iguales por Repsol YPF y el Estado boliviano, está siendo sometida por la Aduana Nacional a una investigación al existir indicios de posibles delitos de contrabando de combustible y de falsedad documental en los formularios de exportación. La compañía tiene hasta el próximo 2 febrero para presentar sus alegaciones.
Las declaraciones del nuevo ministro se produjeron un día después de que la petrolera que preside Antonio Brufau rebajara en un 25% el nivel de sus reservas probadas de hidrocarburos. Más de la mitad de esta revisión afectó a Bolivia, debido a las incertidumbres que a juicio de la compañía introduce la nueva Ley de Hidrocarburos del país y los anuncios hechos por el nuevo presidente Evo Morales en la materia.
De hecho, Soliz interpretó la revisión de reservas como una medida por parte de Repsol para 'transparentar' su situación en el país andino, informa Efe. Añadió que la decisión de la compañía supone para el país 'un paso gigantesco' hacia la planeada nacionalización de los hidrocarburos, 'en la medida en que no son las empresas las que van a determinar el manejo de las reservas, sino que será el Estado nacional el que lo va a hacer'.
En esta línea, el ministro restó importancia a la decisión de Repsol YPF de congelar 400 millones de euros de inversiones en Bolivia 'hasta que se clarifiquen las reglas del juego'. Soliz sostuvo que en 'la balanza' debería compararse esa cantidad con los potenciales 150.000 millones de dólares (123.935 millones de euros al cambio actual) que significan los 48,7 billones de pies cúbicos de gas natural en el subsuelo del país.

Chinese in energy deal with Saudis

FT.com / International Economy / Oil - Chinese in energy deal with Saudis

By Andrew Yeh in BeijingPublished: January 27 2006 16:50 Last updated: January 27 2006 16:50
China and Saudi Arabia on Friday signed a host of agreements, the most important of which was one on future energy co-operation, during a landmark visit to Beijing by King Abdullah.
//
ADVERTISEMENT

on error resume next
plugin = ( IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.4")))
if ( plugin


-->
The symbolic visit, a first by a Saudi king to China since diplomatic ties were established in 1990, could signal closer co-operation on oil-related projects.
After arriving in Beijing on Sunday, King Abdullah met China’s President Hu Jintao on Friday is scheduled to meet Wen Jiabao, premier, on Saturday. Mr Hu heralded his presence as ushering in “a new chapter” of bilateral relations. “I believe your majesty’s visit will play an important role in pushing forward the development of relations between the two countries,” Mr Hu said on Friday at the Great Hall of the People.
The king, who is also scheduled to visit India, Malaysia and Pakistan, is on his first official trip outside the Middle East since being crowned last year. A large Saudi government and business delegation is on a three-day visit to Beijing to discuss a wide range of energy-related projects, including oil refining, natural gas and mineral exploration. Ali al-Naimi, Saudi oil minister, is also in Beijing. “We hope this co-operation will develop even more,” King Abdullah said. “We praise the important role China plays regionally and internationally.”
Details of the high level discussions between the Saudis and Chinese, both secretive regimes, have been shrouded in uncertainty. Specifics of the were not publicised. Talks on possible military co-operation and terrorism are also thought to be on the agenda.
China has a sizeable Muslim minority, particularly in its western regions, and some of those groups have grown disenchanted with Beijing’s rule.
China, the world’s most voracious energy consumer, relies heavily on Saudi oil. Saudi Arabia is the country’s top supplier of oil, accounting for 440,000 barrels per day, or 17 per cent of Chinese oil imports, in the first 11 months of 2005.
Saudi Aramco already has a $3.5bn (£2bn) deal with Exxon-Mobil and Sinopec, the state-owned refiner, to expand a large refinery project in southern Fujian province. The Saudi oil company is also believed to be considering a project in the northern city of Qingdao. Bilateral trade rose 59 per cent year-on-year in the first 11 months of last year to $14.5bn, according to China’s foreign ministry.

US asks India to back off Syria oil deal: report

Xinhua - English

NEW DELHI, Jan. 28 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States has asked India to reconsider its decision to buy a Syrian oilfield, The Hindu reported here Saturday.
The demarche to this effect was made earlier this month and an aide memoire outlining Washington's objections has been handed over to Indian Foreign Ministry here, the daily reported.
Indian Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) Videsh Ltd. (OVL) and China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) teamed up in December 2005 to purchase a 37 percent stake in the al-Furat oil and gas fields from PetroCanada for 573 million U.S. dollars.
India considers the Syrian venture to be of enormous strategic significance for the value of underlying assets and the role it will play in cementing China-India partnership for acquiring oil and gas equities in third countries.
"The U.S. strongly opposed such investments in Syrian resources," the newspaper quoted the aide memoire as saying.
It added that "Now is not the time to send mixed messages to SARG (Syrian Arab Republic Government) either through investment deals or through any form of economic or political reward to the Damascus regime."
Indian officials have said that Washington has been told that the Syrian investment would proceed as planned. Enditem

ExxonMobil sees crude prices falling: executive

Reuters Business Channel Reuters.com

ANTANANARIVO (Reuters) - ExxonMobil (XOM.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the world's largest oil company, expects that oil prices will fall as the current bullish cycle slows, the company's head of exploration operations said on Friday.
"We primarily don't believe the price will stay this high. The oil business is cyclic ... Our expectations are that prices will drop," Tim Cejka, president of ExxonMobil Exploration Company, told Reuters in an interview at the opening of company's new offices in Madagascar on Friday.
The U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude was quoted at $67.40, up $1.14, on Friday.
Exxon is ramping up operations in Madagascar, the world's fourth largest island, where it believes its leases could hold as much as 7 billion to 10 billion barrels of oil.
The company plans to begin drilling its first exploratory well later this year or in early 2007, which would be the first-ever deepwater well to be drilled off of Madagascar.
Cejka said he thought Exxon's chances of finding economically recoverable reserves there were in the range of 10 to 20 percent.
"The first discovery needs to be large enough to build infrastructure. Madagascar has no oil industry infrastructure. So we have to find something sizeable - upward of a billion barrels," he said.
Exxon has stakes in 87,000 kilometers off the northwestern coast of the island, located off the east coast of Africa.
ExxonMobil's concessions sit in water from 1,000 meters to 3,000 meters deep, which means the cost of drilling is going to be high.
"We've heard estimates as high as $100 million for a single well. We're trying to bring it down but it's probably going to be $60-70 million," Cejka said.
NEW AFRICAN FRONTIER?
The other problem will be getting a hold of one of roughly two dozen rigs in the world capable of drilling at that depth, and Cejka said they were all under contract right now.
If Exxon finds economically viable fields, production could start in 4 or 5 years, Cejka has said.
A promising seismic study in 2004 by independent U.S. exploration company Vanco Energy sparked interest in its potential, but Madagascar's prospects are still not well-mapped.
Besides Exxon, Norway's Norsk Hydro (NHY.OL: Quote, Profile, Research) has invested in offshore blocks.
Madagascan government officials in September said they are negotiating possible concessions with Chevron Texaco (CVX.N: Quote, Profile, Research), Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L: Quote, Profile, Research) (RDSb.L: Quote, Profile, Research), BP (BP.L: Quote, Profile, Research), Total (TOT.N: Quote, Profile, Research), Norway's Statoil (STL.OL: Quote, Profile, Research) and China's National Petroleum Corp.
Besides offshore prospects, some believe that onshore deposits locked in bituminous shale can be economically recoverable if oil prices stay over $30 a barrel.
With larger fields in traditional areas yielding less or becoming tougher to access, oil majors like Exxon have started looking in more remote corners like Madagascar where the risk is high but the potential is equally so.
Madagascar is home to 17 million people, has some of the world's most unique flora and fauna, and is one of the last unexplored frontiers in the hunt for African oil.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Ready for $262/barrel oil? - Jan. 27, 2006

Plugged in: Ready for $262/barrel oil? - Jan. 27, 2006

Two of the world's most successful investors say oil will be in short supply in the coming months.

By Nelson Schwartz, FORTUNE senior writer
January 27, 2006: 4:40 PM EST
DAVOS, Switzerland (FORTUNE) - Be afraid. Be very afraid.
That's the message from two of the world's most successful investors on the topic of high oil prices. One of them, Hermitage Capital's Bill Browder, has outlined six scenarios that could take oil up to a downright terrifying $262 a barrel.

The other, billionaire investor George Soros, wouldn't make any specific predictions about prices. But as a legendary commodities player, it's worth paying heed to the words of the man who once took on the Bank of England -- and won. "I'm very worried about the supply-demand balance, which is very tight," Soros says.
"U.S. power and influence has declined precipitously because of Iraq and the war on terror and that creates an incentive for anyone who wants to make trouble to go ahead and make it." As an example, Soros pointed to the regime in Iran, which is heading towards a confrontation with the West over its nuclear power program and doesn't show any signs of compromising. "Iran is on a collision course and I have a difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided," he says.
Another emboldened troublemaker is Russian president Vladimir Putin, Soros said, citing Putin's recent decision to briefly shut the supply of natural gas to Ukraine. The only bit of optimism Soros could offer was that the next 12 months would be most dangerous in terms of any price shocks, because beginning in 2007 he predicts new oil supplies will come online.
Hermitage's Bill Browder doesn't yet have the stature of George Soros. But his $4 billion Moscow-based Hermitage fund rose 81.5 percent last year and is up a whopping 1780 percent since its inception a decade ago. A veteran of Salomon Bros. and Boston Consulting Group, the 41-year old Browder has been especially successful because of his contrarian take; for example, he continued to invest in Russia when others fled following the Kremlin's assault on Yukos.
Doomsdays 1 through 6
To come up with some likely scenarios in the event of an international crisis, his team performed what's known as a regression analysis, extrapolating the numbers from past oil shocks and then using them to calculate what might happen when the supply from an oil-producing country was cut off in six different situations. The fall of the House of Saud seems the most far-fetched of the six possibilities, and it's the one that generates that $262 a barrel.
More realistic -- and therefore more chilling -- would be the scenario where Iran declares an oil embargo a la OPEC in 1973, which Browder thinks could cause oil to double to $131 a barrel. Other outcomes include an embargo by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez ($111 a barrel), civil war in Nigeria ($98 a barrel), unrest and violence in Algeria ($79 a barrel) and major attacks on infrastructure by the insurgency in Iraq ($88 a barrel).
Regressions analysis may be mathematical but it's an art, not a science. And some of these scenarios are quite dubious, like Venezuela shutting the spigot. (For more on Chavez and Venezuela, click here.)
Energy chiefs at the World Economic Forum in Davos downplayed the likelihood of a serious oil shortage. In a statement Friday, Shell's CEO Jeroen Van der Veer declared, "There is no reason for pessimism." OPEC Acting Secretary General Mohammed Barkindo said "OPEC will step in at any time there is a shortage in the market." But then no one in the industry, including Van der Veer, foresaw an extended run of $65 oil -- or even $55 oil -- like we've been having.
It's clear that there is very, very little wiggle room, and that most consumers, including those in the United States, have acceded so far to the new reality of $60 or even $70 oil. And as Soros points out, the White House has its hands full in Iraq and elsewhere.
Although there are long-term answers like ethanol, what's needed is a crash conservation effort in the United States. This doesn't have to be command-and-control style. Moral suasion counts for a lot, and if the president suggested staying home with family every other Sunday or otherwise cutting back on unnecessary drives, he could please the family values crowd while also changing the psychology of the oil market by showing that the U.S. government is serious about easing any potential bottlenecks.
Similarly, he could finally get the government to tighten fuel-efficiency standards and encourage both Detroit and drivers to end decades of steadily increasing gas consumption. These kinds of steps would create a little headroom until new supplies do become available or threats like Iran's current leadership or the Iraqi insurgency fade.
It's been done it before. For all the cracks about Jimmy Carter in a cardigan and his malaise speech, America did reduce its use of oil following the price shocks of the 1970s, and laid the groundwork for low energy prices in the 1980s and 1990s. But it would require spending political capital, and offending traditional White House allies, and that's something this president doesn't seem to want to do.

EU energy chief says Europe must cut consumption

Reuters AlertNet - DAVOS-INTERVIEW-EU energy chief says Europe must cut consumption

DAVOS, Jan 27 (Reuters) - Europe's biggest challenge if it wants to reduce future dependency on external energy supplies is to cut oil consumption for transport, EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs told Reuters on Friday.
Piebalgs is working on proposals for a common EU energy policy and said he hopes that measures to encourage manufacturers to boost vehicle efficiency will be included.
"I think this is the biggest challenge we have," Piebalgs said. "Transport consumes a lot of oil. Even if we can't establish a legal framework for it, energy efficiency should really be a Europe-wide policy."
The international tension over Iran's nuclear ambitions, unrest in Nigeria and a row between Russia and the Ukraine over gas supplies this year have increased concern among Europe's leaders about future dependency on potentially unreliable energy suppliers. EU leaders will discuss the energy policy in March.
Piebalgs said in the long term Russia would be a reliable supplier to Europe, and that the Russia-Ukraine gas row and the Kremlin-driven demise of producer YUKOS would not dissuade European countries from investing there in the future.
"Russia is interested in being a strong player in this market, and to be a strong player you need to be reliable," he said. "Russia has always been reliable in the past and has always delivered gas on contract terms."
Piebalgs said the EU would need to encourage car manufacturers to develop and adopt new technologies to increase energy efficiency. Biofuels would help a little, but oil would continue to dominate the transport sector, he said.
The common energy policy would also need to tackle how to improve relations with external energy suppliers, diversifying supply and reforming EU internal energy markets, he said.
INVESTMENTS
Policy would need to look at using investment banks, the European Development and Reconstruction Bank and financial instruments to increase European investment in the energy industries of suppliers such as Norway, Russia and North African countries.
Within Europe, investment was needed on gas interconnectors in Belgium to improve supply availability to the UK and France, he said.
Another interconnector was necessary between Poland and Lithuania, he said.
New terminals to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) would help diversify supply, Piebalgs said, adding that Germany would probably need more LNG terminals.
Polish Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz said on Thursday that Poland was looking at building a new LNG terminal.
Piebalgs pointed to the Nabucco pipeline project that aims to pump gas from Turkey to Austria as important for gas supply diversification. The 4.5 billion euros project plans to pump 25 billion cubic metres (bcm) per year (2.4 billion cubic feet per day).
Nabucco could bring gas supplies from Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Egypt and Syria as well as Turkey.
The policy should also look at harmonising energy regulations in EU countries, he said.
Momentum is growing within Europe for the common energy policy, although members will be wary of attempts to boost the EU's executive powers.
The EU's dependence on foreign energy sources is increasing as its own supplies run out. The European Commission forecasts import dependence could grow to 70 percent of general energy consumption by 2030 and 90 percent for certain fuels like oil.

Energy gap: Crisis for humanity?

BBC NEWS Science/Nature Energy gap: Crisis for humanity?

It is perhaps too early to talk of an energy "crisis".

Fossil fuels have been the cheapest and most convenient so far
But take your pick from terms like "serious concern" and "major issue" and you will not be far from the positions which analysts are increasingly adopting.
The reason for their concern can be found in a set of factors which are pulling in glaringly different directions:
Demand for energy, in all its forms, is rising
Supplies of key fuels - notably oil and gas - show signs of decline
Mainstream climate science suggests that reducing greenhouse gas emissions within two decades would be a prudent thing to do
Meanwhile the Earth's population continues to rise, with the majority of its six billion people hankering after a richer lifestyle - which means a greater consumption of energy.
Underlying the growing concern is the relentless pursuit of economic growth, which historically has been tied to energy consumption as closely as a horse is tethered to its cart.
It is a vehicle which cannot continue to speed up indefinitely; it must at some point hit a barrier, of finite supply, unfeasibly high prices or abrupt climate change.
The immediate question is whether the crash comes soon, or whether humanity has time to plan a comfortable way out.
Even if it can, the planning is not necessarily going to be easy, or result in cheap solutions. Every energy source has its downside; there is no free lunch, wherever you look on the menu.
Runaway horse
The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts a rise in global energy demand of 50-60% by 2030.
If all else remained equal, that rising demand would be accommodated principally by fossil fuels, which have generally been the cheapest and most convenient available.

But oil supplies show signs of running down; this, combined with concerns about rising demand and political instability, conspired to force prices up from $40 a barrel at the beginning of 2005 to $60 at its close.
There is more oil out there, for sure; but the size of proven reserves is uncertain, with oil-producing countries and companies prone to exaggerate the size of their stocks. Currently uneconomic sources such as tar sands could be exploited; but at what cost?
Natural gas stocks - in recent times the fuel of choice for electricity generation are also showing signs of depletion, and there is growing concern in Western capitals about the political instability associated with oil and gas supplies from the Middle East and Russia.
Coal, the fuel of the industrial revolution, remains relatively abundant; but here the climate issue raises its provocative head most volubly, because of all fuels, coal produces more greenhouse gas emissions for the energy it gives.
Based partly on the predicted availability of cheap coal, the IEA forecasts a 50% rise in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
Mainstream climate science, meanwhile, indicates that to avoid dangerous consequences of climate change, emissions should fall, not rise, by 50%.
The economic and environmental horses are clearly pulling in mutually incompatible directions.
No climate curbs
It is a rare human that dons a hair shirt voluntarily; and in seeking to deal with climate change, we are, it seems, behaving to type.
It took the world's most comfortably-off nations more than seven years to bring the Kyoto Protocol into force following its signing in 1997.

Sharp divisions over nuclear power show no signs of disappearing
An alternative "climate pact", the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, emerged last year contending that technology alone would solve global warming.
It recently concluded its first ministerial meeting by endorsing projections that under its aegis, emissions will at least double by 2050; economic growth is sacrosanct, and so consumption of coal and other fossil fuels must also continue to rise.
Concern over climate change, then, is not on a global basis proving to be a driver for clean technology or for reducing demand for energy.
Price barriers
Rising prices or simply constraints on supplies of fossil fuels could, however, bring other fuels into the equation; and nuclear fission is at the head of the queue.
According to the World Nuclear Association, there are now about 440 commercial reactors in the world, providing 16% of its electricity; for major developing countries such as India and China, nuclear power remains both a significant part of the electricity mix and a close companion to military programmes.
But concerns over waste have set other countries such as Germany on a determinedly non-nuclear path.
Waste apart, nuclear faces another potential obstacle; stocks of uranium are finite.

Photo-voltaic cells: The look of the future?
Analysts differ over how soon a uranium deficit might emerge; some believe that a significant ramping up of nuclear capacity would exhaust economic reserves on a timescale of decades.
That could be extended by adopting "fast breeder" reactors, which create more fissile material as they go.
Too good to be true? Perhaps, because there is a major downside; the creation of plutonium, with its attendant dangers of proliferation.
The other nuclear technology, fusion, is full of hope but even its most ardent supporters admit it is decades away.
Wind, waves and sunlight
Most of the energy we use on Earth comes directly or indirectly from the Sun.
It is the Sun which stirs winds and the great water cycle, depositing rain on highlands and creating the potential for hydro-electric power; it is the Sun's energy which grew plants which decayed to form the coal and oil that we have extracted so determinedly in our industrial age.
Is it now time, then, to use its energy directly, to blanket the Earth in photo-voltaic cells and silently power humankind's future?
Certainly it could be done, with energy to spare; but at costs up to five times that of coal and gas, it is not going to be soon.
Wind, wave and tidal power are all fine technologies, but their potential is limited, not least by the fact that they do not generate continuously.
That could be overcome by storing energy. But there are few realistic ways of doing it; and the additional cost would quickly negate any advantage these technologies currently possess.
Hydrogen, meanwhile, is touted as the great climate-friendly hope.
But hydrogen is just a carrier of energy. It must be created, for example by using electricity to split water molecules, in which case replacing petrol-driven cars with hydrogen vehicles would vastly increase the global demand for electricity.
No free lunch, indeed - but a desperately tortuous and risk-laden menu and a kitchen where political or environmental fires could flare up at any moment.

Transport experts have seen the future, and it's got pedals

Britain, UK news from The Times and The Sunday Times - Times Online

THE right to travel when and where we please will be eroded over the next 50 years as the shortage of cheap oil and environmental concerns force us to lead more local lives, according to a government report.
Every journey will have to be justified and face-to-face contact with colleagues, friends and relatives will increasingly become a luxury, with most meetings taking place via three-dimensional “telepresencing”.
Foresight, the Government’s science think-tank, consulted 300 transport experts when drawing up its vision of how travel will have changed by 2055. Its report concludes that the growing demand for greater personal mobility is unsustainable and based on false assumptions.
NI_MPU('middle');
Congestion should be tackled by making more intelligent use of existing capacity rather than by building roads and other transport links.
It states: “We cannot presume that we will have cheap oil for the next 50 years, [or that] we can respond to increasing demand by building more capacity, [or that] we will continue to have the right to move as and when we please.”
It proposes that people should be forced to pay the true cost of their journeys, including compensating for the environmental damage they cause. Charging for trips by the mile or selling “slots” for journeys “would make people aware of the real costs of travel”.
Foresight also calls for debate on the more radical option of giving each individual a carbon allowance “which would apply to all their activities, not just travel”.
It gives warning that people will find the shift to a less mobile society painful, adding: “Travel is embedded within long-established patterns of life and this can make change difficult.”
The report offers four scenarios for 2055, with the world’s willingness to adapt and ability to find technological solutions dictating which comes true.
In the bleakest scenario, an acute oil shortage and lack of affordable alternative energy source trigger a global depression. Economies collapse as businesses can no longer afford to move goods and people. People survive in increasingly isolated communities that have to learn to become self-sufficient, with most journeys made by bicycle or horse.
The most optimistic scenario envisages that a cleaner alternative to oil is available in abundance, allowing the present trend towards greater globalisation to continue apace.
Introducing the report yesterday, Sir David King, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, was cautious about finding a cheap replacement for oil.
“I think it is very likely that as we move forward, the implications of energy provision mean we are going to see less demand for transport,” he said. People could not count on being able to travel in 2055 as much as they did today and would have “to find other ways to have satisfactory lifestyles”.
Stephen Ladyman, the Transport Minister, is chairing a group that will assess progress towards resolving the issues raised by the report. “We have two choices,” he said. “We can stumble into the future in the hope it turns out right, or we can try to shape it.”

Repsol YPF se desploma en Bolsa tras recortar sus reservas un 25%

CincoDias.com -


Javier L. Noriega / MADRID (27-01-2006)
Publicado en: Edición Impresa - EmpresasRepsol YPF rebajó ayer el nivel de sus reservas probadas de gas natural y petróleo en 1.254 millones de barriles equivalentes de petróleo (bep), es decir, el 25% del total, lo que tendrá un impacto aproximado de entre 170 y 180 millones de euros en la cuenta de resultados de la compañía en 2006. La noticia provocó que las acciones de la petrolera cayeran un 7,7%.
La mayor parte de las revisiones se corresponden con las reservas de gas natural (71%) y se concentran principalmente en Bolivia (el 52% del recorte) y Argentina (41%), debido a cambios en el marco legal con incidencia en la rentabilidad de los proyectos, así como a las dudas sobre la futura continuidad de algunas concesiones. Los recortes supondrán una caída en la producción prevista por la compañía para 2009 del 9,2%, que se situaría finalmente en los 1,18 millones de bep diarios.
Así, las incertidumbres derivadas de la nueva Ley de Hidrocarburos en Bolivia han llevado a Repsol YPF a reducir en 659 millones de bep sus reservas, con un impacto del 20% sobre la producción prevista hasta 2009, que era de 275 millones de bep.
En el caso de Argentina, la reducción fue de 509 millones de bep, principalmente reservas que han pasado a considerarse 'posibles' o 'probables' tras analizar la viabilidad técnica y económica de determinados proyectos. Además, Repsol YPF también ha optado por descontar 67 millones de bep que se habían contabilizado al dar por hecho la prórroga de determinadas concesiones en el país a partir de 2017, y sobre las que ahora existen 'dudas razonables', en palabras del presidente de la petrolera, Antonio Brufau. La consecuencia de esta revisión es un descenso del 4,4% en la producción prevista en Argentina, que era de unos 1.000 millones de bep.
A estas reducciones en la estimación de reservas hay que añadir las de Venezuela (52 millones de bep), como consecuencia del nuevo modelo de sociedades mixtas para explotar los hidrocarburos impulsado por Hugo Chávez, que hace que Repsol YPF pase a controlar sólo un 40% de los proyectos que ahora opera. Además, hay reducciones menores el yacimiento argelino de Tin Fouye Tabankort (17,7 millones de bep).
Brufau calificó de 'relativamente moderada' la incidencia de este recorte en los resultados de la empresa, afectados por un incremento de las amortizaciones de los activos producidos. La repercusión sobre las cuentas de 2005 no llegará a los 50 millones brutos, de forma que Repsol YPF espera que el cierre del año alcance niveles de beneficio récord.
El máximo ejecutivo de la petrolera justificó la revisión de las reservas, llevada a cabo por un grupo de control interno y dos auditoras, por su compromiso con la transparencia y la necesidad de ajustarse a los criterios que exige el regulador de mercados estadounidense (SEC).
Aunque quiso 'desdramatizar' las modificaciones realizadas, Brufau admitió que la noticia es un 'trago duro' por el que ha tenido que pasar, máxime cuando no hace ni un año que la petrolera dio por cerrada la auditoría trianual de los activos de su libro de reservas, que ya supuso una reducción del 4,1% de sus reservas probadas. El Comité de Auditoría y Control está investigando 'la calidad' de este análisis, encargado por el anterior equipo gestor de Alfonso Cortina.
Brufau dijo estar 'tranquilo' tras la nueva revisión y descartó acometer una nueva reclasificación de reservas 'de la misma magnitud', aunque reconoció que si hay cambios como los que han tenido lugar en Bolivia, la compañía tendría que alterar sus estimaciones.Nueva investigación
Brufau no quiso responsabilizar públicamente al anterior equipo gestor de Alfonso Cortina de una posible sobreestimación de las reservas en Repsol YPF y se remitió a la Comisión de Auditoría, que investiga 'las circunstancias' de la reclasificación de reservas.Unos 400 millones congelados en Bolivia
La nueva situación legal y política en Bolivia no sólo ha llevado a Repsol a reducir la estimación de sus reservas en el país sino que también ha provocado que paralice, de forma temporal, inversiones por valor de 400 millones de euros, la mitad de las contempladas en su Plan estratégico hasta 2009.Brufau confirmó el interés de la compañía por invertir, 'y a muy largo plazo', en Bolivia pero subrayó que primero 'hay que clarificar las reglas del juego'. Por este motivo, apostó por impulsar una actitud de diálogo 'franco y honesto' con el nuevo Gobierno de Evo Morales para tratar de lograr que tanto el Ejecutivo como las petroleras instaladas en el país, 'que se necesitan', alcancen acuerdos beneficiosos para ambas partes y para el pueblo boliviano.Asimismo, el presidente de Repsol YPF restó importancia a la decisión del Ejecutivo boliviano de revisar la inscripción de las reservas de gas natural realizada en la Bolsa de Nueva York. A su juicio, el problema no es tanto la titularidad de las reservas, que suele corresponder a los Estados productores, como que el Gobierno de Morales ponga en duda la capacidad de las empresas de anotarse los activos que explotan de cara a los mercados bursátiles.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Decline in Oil Output Dims Iraq's Recovery - Los Angeles Times

Decline in Oil Output Dims Iraq's Recovery - Los Angeles Times

As U.S. financial aid winds down, concerns grow, with no quick turnaround in sight.

BAGHDAD — Iraqi oil production fell by 8% last year, calling into question the nation's ability to support itself and fund reconstruction efforts as U.S. assistance is scaled back.A sharp decline near year's end left average daily production at half the 3 million barrels envisaged by U.S. officials at the outset of the war in 2003. Prospects for improvement this year are slim, many experts say.
ADVERTISEMENT
Reasons for the shortfall include the poor state of the nation's oil fields, a creaky infrastructure, poor management and ongoing insurgent attacks, particularly on pipelines in the north-central region that are meant to export oil through Turkey."There is no instant turnaround," said Paul Horsnell, energy analyst with Barclays Capital in London. "It could take five years, six years or seven years." As of last month, Iraq was pumping a million barrels a day less than in early 2003, shortly before the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein from power. In advocating the war, Bush administration officials had predicted that a strong Iraqi oil industry could help pay for the nation's postwar recovery. To prime the effort, Congress approved a three-year, $20.9-billion reconstruction package, of which about $2 billion was dedicated to restoring Iraq's oil production.Instead of production steadily increasing, average output fell last year to 1.83 million barrels a day, including a sharp decline during the final quarter resulting in a December dip to 1.57 million barrels daily.The latest production figures from the International Energy Agency compare with the 2.5 million barrels a day Iraq was pumping just before the war, a level it nearly equaled in March and April 2004. Officials said last month's output was affected by bad weather and a scarcity of tugboats at Persian Gulf marine terminals, in addition to the violence and poor facilities and management.Oil revenue contributes 94% of the fledgling Iraqi government's budget, and a drop in global oil prices from their current high levels could wreak havoc if the nation's output remains depressed.Financial stress was evident last week when Turkey suspended shipments of gasoline and other fuels to Iraq, saying its refiners were owed $1 billion. Although Iraqi officials said the nonpayment was the result of a short-term budget shortfall, the incident served as an example of how stretched this country's finances are.The most serious and pressing problem is the lack of adequate security, said Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington.Insurgent attacks on pipelines — more than 300 since the March 2003 invasion — have not only cost the country billions of dollars in export sales but have diverted U.S. funds and manpower that otherwise would have gone toward oil field recovery and expansion. Because of the pipeline attacks, exports to the Turkish port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean Sea via Iraq's northern pipeline averaged only 40,000 barrels a day in 2005, compared with an 800,000-barrel-a-day average reached during some months before the war. In July, Iraqi officials said attacks had cost the nation $11 billion in revenue. Kidnappings and killings of oil officials — the oil minister barely escaped an assassination attempt in October — and of oil field workers has cooled the pace of repairs. Two German engineers were reported kidnapped Tuesday from the Bayji refining complex 125 miles north of Baghdad."We don't see any foreseeable improvement in security this year," said Neil Partrick, senior analyst at Economist Intelligence Unit in London.At the same time, authorities acknowledge, the security situation has been calm around Iraq's southern oil fields near Basra, which generally accounts for more than two-thirds of the nation's oil output."Even though the southern oil fields are benign, the overall security affects the perception of the government and institutions," a U.S. official said. "If the capital is under siege, as this one appears to be, then it's difficult because you have to come here and talk to people to make those investments." Compounding the problems, experts say, are years of neglect and damage to Iraq's oil infrastructure. "It's taken a lot longer than we thought [because] the problems were greater than what we thought coming in," the U.S. official said. "I didn't realize the underlying infrastructure was as weak as it is." The weaknesses include a lack of crude oil storage facilities, many of which were destroyed in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and never rebuilt, and refineries that decayed during a decade-long period of economic sanctions against Iraq. The former problem forces Iraq to pump oil back into the ground when pipelines are blown up or tankers are delayed, damaging the long-term viability of the reservoir. The latter means that the nation must import nearly half its gasoline and kerosene from Turkey, Iran and Kuwait.

Mismanagement of oil fields by Iraqi and U.S. officials since the war began may have made a bad situation worse. To maximize oil revenue, analysts say, U.S. and Iraqi operators "stressed" the reservoirs by continuing poor practices from the Hussein era such as injecting unused crude and refinery wastes back into the fields. "I don't think the Americans deliberately mismanaged it, but they were in a difficult position of wanting to get the oil economy going after the war, to get all the revenues coming in that they could," said former IEA economist Antoine Halff, now of New York-based Eurasia Group. "So in practice, they continued to operate under conditions not that different than Saddam did under sanctions."
ADVERTISEMENT
= 4)
{
ShockMode = 1;
}
else if (navigator.userAgent && navigator.userAgent.indexOf("MSIE")>=0
&& (navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Windows 95")>=0 navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Windows 98")>=0 navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Windows NT")>=0)) {
document.write(' \n');
document.write('on error resume next \n');
document.write('ShockMode = ( IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.4")))\n');
document.write('if ( ShockMode \n');
}
if ( ShockMode ) {
document.write('');
document.write(' ');
document.write(' ');
document.write(' ');
document.write('');
document.write('');
} else if (!(navigator.appName && navigator.appName.indexOf("Netscape")>=0 && navigator.appVersion.indexOf("2.")>=0)){
document.write('');
}
//-->

on error resume next
ShockMode = ( IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.4")))
if ( ShockMode



Efforts have lagged to repair the Qarmat Ali water pumping complex, needed to inject water into Iraq's southern fields, after more than $225 million in U.S. funds has been spent. Injecting water into wells to fill the void created by the extraction of gas and oil is crucial to maintaining an oil reservoir's life. Although the plant near Basra is 75% operational, the pipeline grid that takes water to the wellheads is leaky and unreliable. As a result, some of the nation's largest fields are in the grip of a deteriorating trend that U.S. officials say is probably irreversible in the near term."Just about everything that could have gone wrong has," said Jamal Qureshi, an oil analyst with PFC Energy in Washington.Improvements in performance of Iraq's three major oil refineries have been outstripped by continued attacks on pipelines that feed them, as well as on the pipelines and truck convoys that deliver the refined fuels to the consumer, said a U.S. official who asked not to be identified.By the end of this year, the United States will have spent $2 billion in its three-year effort to get the Iraqi oil industry back on its feet. Navy Capt. Michael Sherbak, who is attached to the Iraq Project and Contracting Office, the agency leading the oil sector reconstruction effort, said the 3-million-barrel-a-day goal was to leave Iraq at "a self-sustaining level that is adequate to help them invest in equipment and help them make their oil production more efficient." But reaching that level will require much more money and several more years, experts agree. The World Bank estimated it would take $8 billion in funding, public or private, to restore Iraq to 3 million barrels a day, which it last exceeded in 1979, and as much as $35 billion to reach 5 million barrels of daily output.Those goals appear out of reach now not just because of security issues but because of an unsettled political and legal landscape that is also worrisome to private investors. Companies are put off by the vague and at times confusing laws governing oil investments emerging from Iraq's new democratic government. The nation's new constitution, ratified in October, seems to favor provincial governments over the national oil company, giving the governments in largely Kurdish and Shiite Muslim regions more power. That leaves the few companies that are interested in investing in Iraq wondering whether they should deal with the national government or the regional entities, said Michelle Billig, political risk director at PIRA Energy Group in New York. The Kurdish region's signing of drilling deals with two Turkish and one Norwegian firm last year — without the participation of the central government — added to the confusion."Who has the authority to sign a deal? Even if you get the security situation under control and the companies start feeling comfortable, which they don't right now, you have to clarify this legal ambiguity," Billig said.She said regionalizing jurisdiction over Iraq's oil assets could add "bureaucratic obstacles" to oil development and to ethnic tensions that the emerging government must address if the insurgent violence is to recede. The Shiite and Kurdish factions want regional jurisdiction, because the biggest fields are in areas they dominate, whereas the Sunni Muslim Arabs want more federal authority, Billig noted.Issam Chalabi, an oil minister under Hussein who is now a consultant in Amman, Jordan, said the constitution must be amended to strengthen the state oil company's hand or the situation will exacerbate divisions between the have and have-not regions. "Iraqi oil law as it stands is a recipe for national disintegration," Chalabi said.

LukOil finds major oil and gas field in Caspian Sea - Forbes.com

LukOil finds major oil and gas field in Caspian Sea - Forbes.com

LONDON (AFX) - Russian oil giant OAO LukOil said it discovered a major oil and gas condensate field in the Yuzhno-Rakushechnaya structure, in the Northern Caspian, 220 km from Astrakhan. The probable and possible reserves of the new field are estimated at 600 mln barrels of oil and 1.2 trln cubic feet of gas. About 75 pct of the total reserves are estimated to be oil. Preliminary calculations show that the maximum oil production rate at the new field will exceed 5 mln tons and the accumulated production will be about 80 mln tons, it said.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

The Globe and Mail: Merrill raises oil target

The Globe and Mail: Merrill raises oil target

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 Posted at 1:44 PM EST
Globe and Mail Update
keyVal="_UNDEFINED_VALUE_";
esckeyVal=escape(keyVal);
if(esckeyVal.indexOf('%')>-1){newstr=esckeyVal.replace( /%\d\d/gi, "");}
else{newstr=esckeyVal;}
skw=(newstr);
if(skw=="_UNDEFINED_VALUE_"){skw="";}
var szone="rob-hub";
var smode="bn";
var sloc="lower";
var sURL_hub="Business";
var sarena="arena=Business;";
a3=true;aW=300;aH=250;sBoxAd=true;

Merrill Lynch & Co. raised its oil price targets Tuesday, saying that the nuclear standoff with Iran and other supply constraints will keep crude prices at an average $57 a barrel (U.S.) in 2006.
The brokerage's global energy group cited Iran and continued tight supply-and-demand fundamentals as the drivers of the bullish forecast. Merrill raised its 2006 oil target by $5 or 9.6 per cent to $57 a barrel and boosted its 2007 target by $5 or 12 per cent to $47 a barrel. Its 2008 oil price estimate was left unchanged at $42 a barrel.
Oil prices have soared to five-month highs recently amid fears of supply disruptions. Iran, the second-largest OPEC producer, has been at the centre a standoff with the U.S. and its European allies over its nuclear ambitions. The possibility of UN sanctions over its nuclear program has threatened to curtail supplies.
“The challenge for energy investors in 2006 is gauging how much of the good news and rosy outlook for oil and gas pricing is already priced into the shares” of major Canadian oil and gas companies, Merrill analysts Andrew Fairbanks and Kieran McCabe wrote. “We estimate that the companies could start missing 2006 numbers if oil and gas prices sustain below $58 a barrel.”
Advertisements


Crude oil for February delivery dipped 75 cents to $67.35 a barrel Tuesday the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices jumped to $69.20 on Monday, the highest since Sept. 2.
Natural gas for February delivery climbed 14.6 cents to $8.72 per million British thermal units on the Nymex. The consensus 2006 target for natural gas prices — $8.95 per million British thermal units — is already above the current spot price, the Merrill note said.
The Merrill Lynch currency team also forecast a weaker U.S. dollar, which in turn raised their Canadian dollar target to 86 cents (U.S.) in 2006 and 85 cents in 2007, from a previous estimate of 83 cents.
The longer-term forecast for the Canadian dollar rises to 89 cents from 83 cents, which “will offset a portion of the oil price increase as the Canadian Oils' costs are largely Canadian dollar-based, while revenues are U.S. dollar-denominated,” the Merrill report said.
Merrill said it will incorporate its new oil and dollar targets into corporate earnings estimates as companies report their fourth-quarter results. Nevertheless, they expect their 2006 profit targets will remain below the consensus Wall Street expectations.
“Part of this stems from our below consensus natural gas price forecast of $6.75 per million British thermal units, part of it is due to a higher estimate of the pace of operating cost inflation and basis differentials in the industry,” the Merrill report said. “We estimate that the share prices of many companies are implying 2006 prices of nearly $58 a barrel for oil and $10 per million British thermal units for gas.”
If oil prices ease this spring, investors could get hit with “a degree of unease,” a situation that Merrill said could be a good buying opportunity.
In the long run, however, Merrill said there is more room for the energy sector to rise, and that there are select energy companies that remain attractive buys, even at current trading levels.
“We believe that many energy stocks are only partway through a potential 15-year up cycle. Longer-term fundamentals continue to suggest that tight supply-demand conditions will prevail over the next decade,” the Merrill report said. “Nonetheless, we expect there will be mini-cycles within this macro trend and that 2006 could witness weakening fundamentals and earnings expectations, especially if oil prices stop going up for a couple of quarters.”
Its top pick among the Canadian integrated oil companies is Petro-Canada. Shares of Petro-Canada fell $1.10 (Canadian) or 2.07 per cent to $52.08 in Toronto Tuesday. The stock has soared 71 per cent in the last year.

Pricey oil is deflationary, not inflationary threat

Reuters Business Channel Reuters.com

By Jeremy Gaunt, European Investment Correspondent
LONDON (Reuters) - Oil prices are rising again, but the threat to global investments is not what you might think -- deflation of the global economy rather than inflation of consumer prices.
Investors are generally calm about the prospect of spiking crude prices working their way into broad-based inflation and expect interest rates to stay low as a result.
They worry rather that higher prices will drag on economic growth and weaken company profits, in effect deflating relatively robust global economic performance.
"The action is on the economic side of the argument rather than the price side," said Philip Barleggs, head of allocation at Britain's Insight Investment.
One inference of this is that rising oil prices -- U.S. light sweet crude is trading around $67 a barrel -- could be more of a threat to equities, tied as they are to corporate profit growth, than to inflation-sensitive bonds.
Indeed, oil's price rise -- more than 10 percent so far this year -- has been a factor in recent global equity market weakness while helping demand for bonds whenever stocks decline.
"I wouldn't expect it to have a negative impact on bonds, rather the opposite if it were to increase further," said Christel Rendu de Lint, senior fixed income manager at Switzerland's Pictet Asset Management.
"The market is more looking at higher oil prices as a drag on growth rather than being inflationary," she said.
Slowing economic growth would tend to raise demand for safe-haven, fixed-income investments. By contrast, it risks dousing the fire of corporate activity and weigh on equities.
BREAK ON THROUGH
The main reason for the rather laid-back approach to the inflationary side of the ledger is that there has been little sign of it.
Although oil is up sharply over the past few years, inflation in leading countries remains benign and there has been scant carry over from oil to other prices.
At the same time, oil's lack of impact on inflation can be seen in the relative performance of its price and that of the yield on long-term government bonds.
Since the beginning of 2004, the cost of a barrel of light sweet crude has risen around 110 percent. Yields on euro zone debt, by contrast, have fallen and those on U.S. bonds stayed relatively level given the U.S. Federal Reserve's tightening.
Inflation, in other words, is not being priced by investors into long-term interest rates despite the rising oil price.
Like many things, the explanation is globalization. Although higher oil prices act like a tax on both workers and employers, neither is in a position to do much about it.
Industrialized country workers, who in the past would have demanded higher wages as costs rose, find themselves competing with far cheaper labor in China, India and eastern Europe.
Indeed, some of the stellar performance of equities over the past few years has been as a result of wage restraints and labor force reductions prompted by this competition.
But enhanced global competition has also stopped companies from passing on costs to consumers.
"When oil prices rise it adds to the cost of companies while at the same time they cannot increase their selling prices. This hurts profit margins," said Klaus Wiener, head of asset management research for Italy's Generali Group.
"That's why the oil price today works (at) deflation not inflation."
STRANGE DAYS
Another factor keeping investors relatively calm about inflation is the rather contradictory belief that monetary authorities will act to snuff out price rises if they do start breaking through from energy into second-round costs.
"We are pretty sure that inflation is not going to rise because the credibility of central banks is so strong," said Benjamin Melman, head of strategy at Credit Agricole Asset Management.
In this vein, some analysts detect a recent change among European Central Bank officials about oil.
"(ECB policymakers) have put their emphasis on the linkage between inflation or price stability risks and oil prices rather than the growth side," said Alessandro Tentori, bond strategist at BNP Paribas.
That could mean higher rates -- not good news for bonds or equities.
And just because all these factors have combined to keep the inflationary impact of higher oil prices in check so far does the mean that will always be the case.
"The lack of pass through has been amazing, but we have to remain careful," Melman said.
The rub is that higher oil prices, by threatening the very global growth that has kept them going strong, could be sowing their own deflationary demise.
"If prices are sustained around $100, oil demand would probably go negative," said Leo Drollas of the Center for Global Energy Studies.
Not much comfort to investors for now.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Oil, conflict and the future of global energy supplies

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Saudi Arabia May Tap Rising Demand for Oil in China, India

Bloomberg.com: Asia


Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, may direct increased output toward China and India as the world's fastest-growing markets compete for supplies.
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah visits the two most populous nations this week as the global oil rally enters a fifth year. Prices have quadrupled since 2001, partly because of soaring demand from developing economies, prompting OPEC's biggest supplier to pledge higher output.
The kingdom isn't the only exporter focused on Asia. Last month, Kazakhstan started exports through a new pipeline to China. Russia plans to build its own link. Angola has become China's No. 2 supplier and Iran has allowed Indian and Chinese explorers to drill in its fields.
``Saudi Arabia used to be passive, but now it's being more active in its marketing and prices because they have to compete with other sellers,'' said Khan Zhahid, chief economist at Riyad Bank, the country's third-largest lender. ``Saudi Arabia is looking eastward to Asia; to China and India in particular.''
King Abdullah yesterday arrived in Beijing for the first visit by a Saudi monarch to China. He will fly to New Delhi two days later, where he'll be the chief guest at India's Republic Day celebrations on Jan. 26. The touring party, including Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi, will also stop off in Pakistan and Malaysia.
Asia takes 60 percent of Saudi oil exports.
Top Supplier
The Middle East nation produced 9.5 million barrels of crude oil in December, 12 percent more than two years ago, to meet record global demand. State-run Saudi Aramco plans to expand production capacity by 14 percent to 12.5 million barrels by 2009. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, of which Saudi Arabia is the leading member, is pumping oil at the fastest rate in almost 25 years.
Saudi Arabia is the top supplier to China and India, where the mix of booming economies and stagnant domestic output has boosted imports.
In both China and India, the agendas may be dominated by investment in oil refining to help cope with soaring gasoline and diesel sales.
Saudi Aramco declined India's offer last year of stakes in two refinery projects led by state-run companies including Hindustan Petroleum Corp., India's Oil Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar said in Riyadh on Nov. 19. Hindustan Petroleum and Indian Oil Corp. have been invited to bid for a stake in a new Saudi Aramco oil refinery at Yanbu on the Red Sea.
`Want to Participate'
``We want to participate in Saudi Arabia's refining business,'' said Talmiz Ahmad, additional secretary in India's Oil Ministry. ``We want their help in meeting our energy requirement -- there are crisscross interests involved.''
China has had more success with the Saudis.
In March 2004, China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., or Sinopec, signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia to search for gas deposits in an area south of the kingdom's Ghawar oil field, the world's largest. Sinopec was the only Asian company to win the right to explore for gas as Saudi Arabia opened up its reserves to foreign participation for the first time since nationalization in the 1970s.
The Chinese company, in partnership with Saudi Aramco, agreed to spend $300 million over 5 years exploring the area for gas.
Aramco, the world's largest oil company by production, agreed in 2001 to expand a refinery in China jointly owned with Sinopec and Exxon Mobil Corp. at a cost of $3.5 billion. Aramco may also build a second joint venture plant with Sinopec in the northern city of Qingdao, the company's head of refining Khalid al-Buainain said on Dec. 1.
`Already Signed Deals'
``Saudi Aramco has already signed some deals in China; India has to do more to attract Aramco's investment,'' said A.F. Alhajji, energy economist and associate professor at Ohio Northern University. ``Saudi investment in downstream operations in China and India ensures that Saudi Arabia will continue to supply these facilities.''
China's oil consumption, which has doubled since the start of the decade, may rise 6.1 percent to 7 million barrels a day this year, according to the International Energy Agency. Imports will average about 3 million barrels a day. India imported 1.9 million barrels a day in October 2005, 15 percent more than a year earlier, according to the country's information bureau.
India and China are Saudi Arabia's third- and fourth-largest customers in Asia after Japan and South Korea. Russia and Iran ranked three and four as oil suppliers to China in November, according to China's Customs Bureau.
Securing Supplies
India and China have sought to secure supplies by vying for assets in countries that allow foreign investment in oil production.
Cnooc Ltd., China's largest offshore oil producer, this month agreed to pay $2.27 billion dollars for 50 percent stake in a Nigerian oil field. India's government blocked state-run Oil & Natural Gas Corp. from bidding for the asset. The same companies may bid for Nations Energy Co., which produces oil in Kazakhstan.
``With the blistering growth of China and India, the Saudis more than ever are looking east,'' said Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for Analysis of Global Security in Washington. ``Asia is their primary growth market and they hope to maintain their position as primary supplier to the region.''
To contact the reporters on this story:
James Cordahi in Dubai on cherifcord@bloomberg.net;
Will Kennedy in Singapore at wkennedy3@bloomberg.net.

Success is elusive in Iraq's oil fields - The Boston Globe

Success is elusive in Iraq's oil fields - The Boston Globe

Attacks threaten a key industry
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff January 22, 2006
WASHINGTON -- After two years of cost overruns and attacks, American construction workers in Iraq are finally completing a stretch of pipeline deemed the country's most critical piece of oil infrastructure.
But their success is just one small victory in the larger struggle over the fate of the oil industry in Iraq, where sophisticated acts of sabotage are threatening the country's economic survival and eroding the $1.8 billion US investment in Iraq's oil infrastructure, US officials and energy specialists say.
Three years after Bush administration officials predicted that oil revenues would fund the country's reconstruction, the industry is in turmoil. Attacks that knocked out pipelines in the north have combined with bad weather in the south to drive Iraq's oil exports last month to their lowest level since September 2003, in the aftermath of the US-led invasion.
The oil industry, which accounts for about 60 percent of Iraq's gross national product and more than 90 percent of government revenue, has been hit with nearly 300 major attacks since 2003, according to Iraq Pipeline Watch, an arm of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a Washington-based energy think tank. In July, Iraqi government officials estimated that the attacks had cost the fledgling government $11 billion in lost revenue.
In northern Iraq, where pipelines snake like rusty veins from the oil fields of Kirkuk, engineers and insurgents battle daily over pipelines that will determine the future of the country.
''Good guys fix it. Bad guys blow it up. That struggle continues almost every day," said Robert Maguire, a US embassy official in Baghdad who focuses on Iraq's oil sector.
Nowhere is that battle more apparent than at the Tigris River crossing, in the heart of the deadly Sunni Triangle, where a US airstrike during the invasion destroyed the Al Fatha bridge but inadvertently damaged the crucial pipelines that run beneath it.
The crossing connects the oil fields of Kirkuk -- which account for 40 percent of Iraq's reserves -- to Baiji, Iraq's largest refinery. It is also the gateway to a 600-mile pipeline that carries crude to Turkey, one of Iraq's two main channels for export to the West.
When the Army Corps of Engineers discovered the damage, they deemed the crossing ''the most critical piece of oil infrastructure in Iraq," according to a publication by the corps' Restore Iraqi Oil mission.
The corps mended the crossing temporarily but were forced to lay the pipes above ground across the destroyed bridge, making the site a vulnerable target for insurgent attacks. Now, US-funded workers are in the final stages of finishing a $118 million, two-year project to build a fortified conduit for the pipes to cross the river, correcting what US officials describe as the ''weakest link" in the struggle to get oil to Turkey and to Baiji.
US officials hope that the new submerged crossing will make it possible to reopen the pipeline to Turkey, which handled 800,000 barrels of crude a day prior to the invasion but which has been virtually shut down due to sabotage at the Tigris River and elsewhere.
Some of the officials assert that the new crossing will add 200,000 barrels of production capacity per day to the 1.8 million barrel average that Iraq is now producing, mostly from oil fields in southern Iraq. Iraq's oil ministry, which also suffers from old equipment and outdated practices, has consistently fallen short of its goal of 2.5 million barrels per day, the amount Iraq produced under Saddam Hussein.
But US officials acknowledge that increase will only happen if Iraqis can protect the entire pipeline.
''If you could repair it faster than they could destroy it, you'd win the battle. But you can't," said Lowell Feld, analyst with the Energy Information Administration, an arm of the US Department of Energy.
Sabotage has wreaked havoc on domestic oil consumption, as well.
In December, the refinery in Baiji shut down for about a week because the pipeline was down and there was no way to transport the refined fuel to Baghdad, where residents use it for cars, cooking stoves, and electric generators. Early in January, the Iraqi military provided an escort for terrified truck drivers, but insurgents ambushed the convoy anyway, destroying 20 out of about 60 trucks, according to Reuters.
Fuel shortages contributed to eight-hour-long lines for gasoline that sparked riots across the country and further embittered residents who were already angry about state-imposed price hikes on oil.
In addition to costing Iraq billions in lost revenues, the sabotage threatens to permanently damage the Kirkuk fields. Even when the pipeline is cut, the fields must keep pumping -- ''like a heart," Maguire said -- so engineers must put the oil back into the ground, a practice that ruins the oil fields' underground reservoirs.
Amid all the frustrations, the saga of the Tigris River crossing has become an inspirational tale for US officials.
''It's an incredible, heroic engineering story," Maguire said by telephone from Baghdad. ''They beat Mother Nature. They beat the insurgents."
But the project suffered many setbacks.
First, Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., and two subcontractors were hired to dig a hole under the riverbed for the pipes, despite concerns that the gravel-like quality of the soil would make such work nearly impossible, according to a Washington-based US official and Randy Duncan, project manager for A&L Underground, the Kansas-based company eventually brought in to finish the job.
Indeed, it became an engineering nightmare that ran so over budget that the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction conducted an assessment that will be released later this month. A Kellogg Brown & Root spokesman said the soil problems could not have been anticipated and that the rising price of security increased the project cost.
Originally budgeted at $76 million, the US government ultimately paid Kellogg Brown & Root $88 million, but canceled the contract before it had been completed.
In 2004, US officials agreed to pay about $30 million more to A&L to finish the job by digging a ditch across the riverbed and laying the concrete-encased pipes inside it. But workers had to endure continued attacks on their camp and three spectacular sabotage explosions on the pipeline, Duncan said in a telephone interview from the site.
In one case, an insurgent crawled 120 feet inside a newly installed pipeline to set an explosion that took two weeks to fix, Duncan said.
In October 2005, an improvised bomb placed under one active pipeline sparked a massive explosion that lit the river on fire and burned for a week, Duncan said. After that, 38 out of 120 workers assembled from around the world left their jobs because of the danger.
Four more left when they were injured driving over an improvised explosive device, Duncan said. But the firm didn't gave up. A few weeks ago, they finally dragged the last pipes up the other side of the river bank.
In February, if all goes well, Duncan will walk off the site with little fanfare, returning to Texas to celebrate a job well done with a bottle of Jack Daniel's, he said.
But he worries about the pipeline that he will leave behind.
''These insurgents are still around just looking for something to blow up," he said. ''They can't blow it up here, because we have put it in under the river. But I'm sure once they start the pipeline back up, they are going to have problems" with other locations.
Maguire concedes that, as long as attacks continue, oil exports won't dramatically increase. But he says they will rise gradually, perhaps over a period of many years, as Iraqis begin to protect the pipeline more aggressively.
For him, the new crossing is a small but important victory in the war between engineers and assassins, builders and demolishers, those who would protect the pipeline and those who destroy it.
''Chaotic people want to cut that pipe," he said. ''But we have to believe that civilization is going to win. If you believe that, then what you are doing is worthwhile."

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Kuwait oil reserves only half official estimate-PIW

Reuters Business Channel Reuters.com

LONDON, Jan 20 (Reuters) - OPEC producer Kuwait's oil reserves are only half those officially stated, according to internal Kuwaiti records seen by industry newsletter Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW).
"PIW learns from sources that Kuwait's actual oil reserves, which are officially stated at around 99 billion barrels, or close to 10 percent of the global total, are a good deal lower, according to internal Kuwaiti records," the weekly PIW reported on Friday.
It said that according to data circulated in Kuwait Oil Co
(KOC), the upstream arm of state Kuwait Petroleum Corp, Kuwait's remaining proven and non-proven oil reserves are about 48 billion barrels.
Officials from KOC were not immediately available for comment to Reuters.
PIW said the official public Kuwaiti figures do not distinguish between proven, probable and possible reserves.
But it said the data it had seen show that of the current remaining 48 billion barrels of proven and non-proven reserves, only about 24 billion barrels are so far fully proven -- 15 billion in its biggest oilfield Burgan.
Kuwait has been adding up to 500 million barrels a year at Burgan which means the remaining non-proven reserves of some 5.3 billion barrels will likely be upgraded to proven, according to PIW.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Energy prices boost inflation

Chron.com Energy prices boost inflation

Weekly wages trail rising costs for third straight year
By NELL HENDERSONWashington Post




-->
WASHINGTON - Surging energy prices pushed consumer inflation to a five-year high in 2005, outpacing average wage gains for most American workers, the Labor Department reported Wednesday.


The department's consumer price index, a widely followed inflation gauge, rose 3.4 percent last year, the fastest rate since 2000, largely reflecting climbing prices for fuel oil, gasoline, natural gas and electricity, the department said.
However, workers' average pay rose more slowly. Average hourly wages fell 0.5 percent and average weekly earnings declined 0.4 percent, after adjusting for inflation, in the 12 months that ended in December, the department said in a separate report.
Last year was the third year in a row in which real weekly wages fell, according to department data for the nation's 92 million private production and nonmanagerial service workers, who account for more than 80 percent of the work force.
"We're just not seeing the improvement in living standards you'd expect" in an economy that is expanding at a healthy pace and benefiting from rapid productivity growth, said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank that focuses on labor issues. "It's the biggest problem in the current economy."
Energy was up 17.1 percent this past year, reflecting gasoline prices that for a time exceeded $3 a gallon and oil prices that approached $70 per barrel.
Overall inflation actually declined by 0.1 percent in December, an unexpectedly good performance, after an even bigger 0.6 percent drop in November.
That represented the first consecutive monthly declines in two years, but both months were heavily influenced by declines in prices in gasoline and other fuels that are expected to be reversed in January.
Substantially lower prices for gasoline in the Houston/Galveston area caused overall prices to dip 1.1 percent in November and December, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Area gasoline prices fell 22.7 percent during that two-month period, offsetting increases in the price of electricity.
At the White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan called energy prices "still too high" and said the president was committed to pursuing policies to bring them down.
But Democrats said the earnings decline showed that average American families were falling behind.
In its latest look at regional economic conditions, the Federal Reserve reported Wednesday that the economy was expanding at a moderate pace as the new year began with employment, manufacturing and consumer sales all rising while price increases were described as moderate.
Since June 2004, the Fed has pushed interest rates up 13 times in an effort to make sure that higher energy costs don't become embedded in higher overall inflation as similar oil shocks did in the 1970s.
The survey, based on information collected before Jan. 9 is supplied by the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks. The Dallas district, which includes Houston, said the energy industry "continued to strengthen, although the industry is still cleaning up after the hurricanes." Manufacturing picked up and most real estate markets reported gradual improvement. "Dry weather is straining agricultural conditions, but the 2005 cotton crop was one of the largest ever."
Meanwhile, Wall Street economists were encouraged that the Labor Department's report showed consumer inflation remained tame outside of energy and food prices. So-called core-inflation rose just 2.2 percent last year, suggesting most businesses did not pass their higher energy costs on by raising prices for other goods and services.
"Record high energy prices did not spill over into the rest of the economy," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insight, a financial analysis firm.
The inflation report did nothing to change analysts' expectations that Federal Reserve officials will raise their benchmark short-term interest rate again at their meeting later this month to keep inflation contained.
The Fed is almost certain to nudge the rate to 4.5 percent from 4.25 percent at its Jan. 31 meeting, which will also be Alan Greenspan's last as Fed chairman. And many analysts expect Fed officials to raise the rate at least once more at a subsequent meeting March 28, which probably will be led by White House chief economist Ben Bernanke, who is awaiting Senate confirmation of his nomination to be Greenspan's successor.
Chronicle reporter L.M. Sixel and the Associated Press contributed to this story.