Oil Price Infographic

Have you ever wondered why energy prices have It increased by 200% since 2002? I certainly have, and since I spent the afternoon crunching statistics I thought I might share my findings with you.

In the infographic below I have plotted the monthly spot prices for Brent crude oil and the UK quarterly figures for gross domestic product per capita. I have added a simple analysis tool, line of the peaks and line of the troughs, used by traders to estimate when a commodity is approaching its upper and lower price limits.

Until 2002 the oil price appears to be the product of a mature commodity trading market. The oil price is relatively stable showing a gradual increase in the peaks, but a stable floor to the price. GDP per capita in the UK grew throughout this period at a rate comfortably above the growth rate in oil price. The two exceptions to this are the 1990 recession, coinciding with a peak in price triggered by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the Asian financial crisis which triggered a collapse in oil prices as supply outstripped the demand. Then there is another peak followed by the dotcom bubble. Co-incidence?

Don’t ask me what happened to change the nature of the oil market in 2002, I have no idea: I hope someone does, it looks like a completely new paradigm. Again using the lines of peaks and troughs we can identify trigger points. You can probably find other fits, but since the market appears to be starting afresh with nothing to go on it is likely to have been a volatile time. Nevertheless we can see how our economy has become increasingly sensitive to oil price. Not only that, but now oil prices are rising at a much faster rate than GDP. That must mean that we are in for trouble.

Data from the UK Office of National Statistics and US Energy Information Administration

Hooray for Capitalism

The recent announcement that BPs quarterly profits were down as a result of providing for the Gulf of Mexico disaster hid the fact that BP is still making huge annual profits by anybody’s standards. Following this thought I looked up some financial results for other oil companies.

The top 10 oil companies in the world, on average in 2007/2008, cleared profits of around 0.25% of world GDP! This is even when you allow some adjustment for inaccuracy in reported figures for the Chinese and Iranian state owned oil companies. If you extrapolate these figures to total world oil production and include some guesswork for coal and gas then the global profits from fossil fuels could possibly be around 1% of world GDP. Anyway it is in that sort of region.

Now in his review, Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that the ultimate cost of living with a changed climate could be 5% – 20% of world GDP, but that the cost of mitigating climate change would be of the order of 1% of world GDP. Notice any similarity between these numbers?

From my brief investigation it looks a lot like the cost of paying for remediating the climate damage done by our thirst for fossil fuels is about the same as the profit that the oil companies make from it. So the answer has been there all the time, if we had re-invested the profits from fossil fuels in cleaning up the atmosphere over the last century we might well not be in this fix. Unfortunately the profits of a global resource have not been used to benefit mankind, but have instead lined the pockets of a few – hooray for capitalism.

Speed Kills

A roadside information sign exhorting me to slow down because ‘Speed Kills’ made me think today about how we communicate issues that perhaps people don’t want to confront, such as climate change and peak oil. We see exhortations such as this all the time, yet they don’t seem to be affecting people’s behaviour. Maybe this is because the message isn’t just wrong, it is patently so: speed evidently does not kill. There have been no recorded cases of motorists suddenly expiring as they pass the speed limit. No, it is suddenly stopping that kills most motorists.

I think it is the same with peak oil. It’s no use telling people to reduce their energy consumption, which they’re quite comfortable with, because of a possible future problem. It isn’t the present condition, but the change, that’s going to knobble us. The issue is that it will be so much worse if we don’t start preparing for the inevitable now. Like speeding in a car, it’s not the present rate of economic progress that is the problem, but what will happen when that progress is suddenly halted and we hadn’t prepared for it by slowing down.

When we are communicating messages about future risks we must avoid over-simplification and blatant fallacies or we will just be totally ignored.

I’m going to think about this and write more when I have made some connections.