Petroleumworld`s
Opinion Forum:
viewpoints on issues in energy, international
politics & civilization.
Sunday
Feature
What Is Energy Security?
( Part III)
Economic Reserch Council

By
A F Alhaji
Difficulties And Challenges
The
energy literature and numerous statements by officials of
oil-producing
and oil-consuming countries indicate that
the concept of energy security is elusive. Definitions of energy
security range from uninterrupted oil supplies to the physical
security of energy facilities to support for bio-fuels and
renewable energy resources. Historically, experts and politicians
referred to “security of oil supplies” as “energy
security”. Only recently policy makers started worrying
about the security of natural gas and LNG supplies.
The
literature is divided between those who believe that energy
security
is a real issue in response to which governments have
to devise polices, and those who believe that energy security
is “an empty concept used to perpetuate bad, self-serving
public policy.”1 Even though there may be some truth
in them, the claims of the first group do little to define
the concept of energy security. Instead, they add to the confusion
and raise more questions. For example, should governments intervene
in energy markets to ensure energy security? Or should they
adopt other policies in which they leave energy security to
market forces, since markets are more efficient in allocating
resources than governments? Experts who believe in government
intervention do not agree on how and why. Experts who believe
in market forces do not agree whether governments should interfere
during energy crises or not. They also do not agree on the
extent to which government should become involved in the promotion
of competitiveness in energy markets. Therefore, it is difficult
to find a clear definition of energy security in the literature.
It is also challenging to draft one.
Is Energy Security For Consuming Countries Only?
Historically,
researchers and politicians have limited the concept of energy
security to consuming countries. However,
the concept has evolved in recent years. Several major drivers
have convinced experts and policy makers that energy security
is the responsibility of both consumers and producers. These
drivers include political unrest and violence in several oil
producing counties, the increased cooperation between oil-producing
and oil-consuming countries, international and multinational
oil companies’ investment in the oil-producing countries,
the politicization of capacity expansion in the oil producing
countries, the reserves-booking controversy, and the possibility
of an oil production peak in some oil producing countries.
Politicizing The Concept Of Energy Security
Nothing
hurts energy security more than politicizing it. The differences
in opinion cited above make the concept of energy
security diverse and elusive. However, a quick review of the
energy security literature indicates that the division among
experts cuts along political and philosophical lines. Therefore,
any definition of energy security is self-serving, even for
those who believe that it is an “empty concept”.
The
Saudis once defined energy security as “maintaining
and enhancing access to where the oil exists in such obvious
abundance.”2 In this case, “obvious abundance” refers
to Saudi Arabia since it has the largest reserves in the world
and the lowest extraction costs. Some members of the US oil
industry have their own views that serve their interests: “US
energy security is best maintained by ensuring that the United
States is, and is perceived to be, supportive of free trade
and of the use of market forces on global scale.”3 The
oil industry does not like heavy-handed governments. They like
less regulation, fewer trade barriers, and lower taxes.
The
Bush administration’s view is summed up in the title
of its 2001 energy report, “Reliable, Affordable, and
Environmentally Sound.”4 Almost all OECD countries have
designed their energy policies around three dimensions: security
of supplies, the environment, and economics.5 However, the
statements and actions of various countries indicate that there
is more to the concept of energy security than these three
dimensions.
To reach an acceptable concept of energy security, researchers
and policy makers have to think about it within the framework
of energy security vs energy insecurity, independence vs interdependence,
energy security vs reciprocal energy security, energy security
vs national security, energy security vs economic security,
energy security vs environmental security, foreign investment
vs formalization of dependence, secure areas vs insecure areas
for imports and investments, market prices vs administered
prices, and high prices vs low prices. Researchers must also
investigate the link between energy policy and other policies
and decide whether energy policy, and therefore, energy security,
is a subset of economic, environmental, foreign, and social
policies or a policy of its own. Regardless, it is very clear
that every nation needs some form of integration among these
policies to achieve energy security, especially given that
policy contradictions are among major threats to energy security.
Economic And Political Dimensions
To avoid the political fault lines that divide the various
concepts of energy security and to gain a deeper understanding
of energy security, it might help to understand the relationship
among energy security, energy crisis, and the various threats
to energy security. Energy insecurity does not mean energy
crisis, and it does not necessarily lead to an energy crisis.
The existence of threats to energy security increases the risk
of an energy crisis, but does not necessarily lead to one.
An
energy crisis is “a situation in which the nation
suffers from disruption of energy supplies accompanied by rapidly
increasing prices that threaten economic and national security.”6 Therefore, an energy crisis has two elements: a decline in
GDP growth, usually a recession, and a threat to national security.
While the first element is very clear and can be measured,
it is difficult to determine the second or to measure it. Does
a threat to national security means a reduction of energy supplies
needed to fight a war or defend a country against foreign aggression?
Or does it mean restrictions on foreign policy options? The
US considers any decrease in oil exports that limits US foreign
policy options to be a threat to national security. For example,
a decrease in Nigeria’s oil exports might limit US foreign
policy options in dealing with the current government of Iran.
If the US has four ways to deal with Iran’s nuclear program,
the fact that Iran is a major oil producing country might limit
the US options to two. This reduction in options is viewed
as a threat to national security even if the US does not act
on it. The question is, can other countries such as China,
India, and Japan use this concept? If not, then what is the
connection between energy security and national security for
these countries? Will the call for “energy independence” in
those countries have less merit than the call for it in the
US?
The
concept of energy security remains unclear even if we strip
it of
its national security dimension. Some experts define
energy security as a “reliable and adequate supply of
energy at reasonable prices.”7 The term “adequate
supplies” is very clear: it means “uninterrupted
supplies.” But what are “reasonable prices”?
Are they from the consumers’ point of view or producers’ point
of view? In fact, the only way that reasonable prices can enhance
energy security is when they are high enough to guarantee adequate
return on investment for oil producers and low enough to stimulate
economic growth in the oil consuming countries. Low oil prices
are as dangerous to energy security as high prices.
Experts
who believe that market forces are the best guarantee for
achieving energy security say that considerations of reasonable
prices should not be part of the equation, especially given
that prices, high or low, are the results of these forces.
In fact, it is unclear how “reasonable prices” can
enhance energy security when most OECD countries impose hefty
taxes on petroleum products.
Thus, the only clear dimension of energy security is the economic
dimension. But what about the other dimensions? Can the principles
of energy security that various OECD countries employ help
us understand the concept of energy security? Almost all industrial
countries, especially the US, base their energy policies on
four principles:
Diversity of energy supplies
Diversity of oil imports
Reduced dependence on Middle Eastern oil
Low oil price volatility
The above principles show that policy makers have historically
limited the concept of energy security to oil. This should
not come as a surprise since oil is the most tradable energy
resource. However, the increased trade in natural gas and LNG
has already brought those two commodities into recent discussions
of energy security, especially after the cut-off of Russian
natural gas to Europe and the expected increase in LNG trade.
“Reasonable Prices” Or “Price Stability”?
Unique
about the principles of energy policy above is that they
focus on the availability and vulnerability of supplies,
but do not consider “reasonable prices.” Rather,
they consider price volatility. Low price volatility, while
appearing to be a straightforward concept, requires “reciprocal
energy security.” The only way to lower price volatility
is through cooperation between energy-exporting and energy-importing
countries to ensure security of supply and demand simultaneously.
Reciprocal energy security implies paying a fair price for
the resource so producers can continue to invest and production
grows to meet rising demand. In other words, “low oil
prices” or “reasonable prices” from the consumer’s
point of view will not ensure steady supplies and will increase
price volatility. All these principles apply to European and
Asian countries, with certain differences. For example, Asian
countries may wish to maximize their energy security through
diversification of oil imports, but their location may force
them to diversify regionally but not globally. In other words,
imports from the Middle East will be an integral part of their
energy policy. Geography limits their goals of “energy
independence”.
The above mentioned four principles ignore several important
issues that have become the focus of energy policies around
the world such as the environment, energy poverty, the energy
gap, and social tensions between the energy rich and the energy
poor.
Threats And Energy Security
Threats to energy security can help us clarify further the
concept energy security. These include the use of oil weapon
by one or a group of oil producing countries. In this case,
even countries that are not the target of such a weapon will
experience higher oil prices. An embargo that targets the US,
for example, will have a limited impact on other countries.
But if that embargo is associated with a production cut, other
countries will suffer as much as the US, or maybe more if they
cannot afford to pay the highest price in the market. In a
global oil market, supplies will go to the highest bidder.
Threats also include a sudden peak in world oil production,
government intervention, and conflicts among various government
polices. Price controls distort the relationship between supply
and demand and might lead to shortages.
Contradictions among
government policies might sometimes favor, for example, a foreign
policy that leads inadvertently to energy shortages. In fact,
one of the main weaknesses of the energy security literature
is the lack of discussion regarding the impact of contradictory
policies on energy security. Other weaknesses include the lack
of discussion regarding the interactions among various dimensions
of energy security and the weight of each dimension of energy
security in the formulation of energy policy.8
1. From a presentation by Vito Stagliano, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Policy Analysis during the first Bush
Administration, at the Energy and National Security in the
Twenty-First Century conference in 1995. The Institute for
National Strategic Studies, National Defense University.
2. A statement by Hisham Nazer, the former Saudi Arabian Minister
of Petroleum and Minerals Resources, at the 60th annual meeting
of the independent Petroleum Association of America in San
Antonio on 31 October 1989.
3. A statement by long-time Amoco vice President John Lyman
at the Energy and National Security in the Twenty-First Century
Conference in 1995. The Institute for National Strategic Studies,
National Defense University.
4. The report is posted on the White House web site at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/index.html
5. The infamous Japanese 3 Es are: Energy security, Environmental
protection, and Economic efficiency.
6.
Williams, James, and A F Alhajji “Parallels with
earlier energy crises underscore US vulnerability to oil supply
shocks today?” Oil and Gas Journal, Vol 101, No 5, February
2003.
7.
See, for example, “RIS Background Paper on India’s
Energy Security” conducted by the Center for Research
and Information System for Developing Countries, an Indian
government backed organization.
8.
For discussion on the impact of contradictions of US foreign,
environmental , economic, and energy policies on the world
oil market see A F Alhajji, “US Energy Policy Contributed
to Lower Oil Prices”, World Oil, Vol 220, No 11, November,
1999.
A
F Alhajj is
an energy economist and associate professor at the College
of Business Administration, Ohio Northern University (a@a-alhajji.com).
This is the first
of five articles on the theme of energy security by Prof
Alhajji. The remaining four will be published in future weeks.
Editor's
note: This
article was originally written for Middle
East Economic Survey
(MEES) and
publish by MEES, VOL.
L, No 45, 5-November-2007.
The article draws on a chapter entitled “India’s
Energy Security: Concepts and Measures” in “West
Asia in Turmoil,” published
by The Institute for Defense Studies Analysis, New Delhi,
India, 2007. This
is the third of five articles for MEES on the theme of energy
security by Prof
Alhajji and re-publish by Petroleumworld.
The
first was published on 27
October and the
second on 04 November. The remaining
two will be published in future weeks. Petroleumworld
reprint this article in the interest of our readers.
All
comments posted and published on Petroleumworld, do not reflect
either for or against the opinion expressed in the
comment as an endorsement of Petroleumworld. All comments expressed
are private comments and do not necessary reflect the view
of this website. All comments are posted and published without
liability to Petroleumworld.
Fair use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not always been specifically authorized by
the copyright owner. We are making such material available
in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental
and humanitarian significance. We believe this constitutes
a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
All works published by Petroleumworld are in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and educational purposes.
Petroleumworld has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is Petroleumworld endorsed or sponsored
by the originator.
Petroleumworld encourages persons to reproduce, reprint, or
broadcast Petroleumworld articles provided that any such reproduction
identify the original source, http://www.petroleumworld.com
or else and it is done within the fair use as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from
the copyright owner.
Internet web links to http://www.petroleumworld.com are appreciated.