Is Saudi Arabia ready to play hardball with Iran?

Are the Saudis prepared to constrain oil prices to weaken Iran? It's an intriguing possibility that, if implemented, could have major implications for U.S.-led efforts to curb the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.

...The Saudis have said that $75 per barrel is an appropriate target price. This week, a Saudi government advisor told the press that, at over $80 per barrel, prices had reached "the high end of our range" and any further rise could prompt the Kingdom to further tap its unused capacity -- which currently stands at approximately 4 million barrels a day.

The Saudis have publicly explained their effort to moderate prices as a function of their desire to protect a fragile global economy. But it's hard not to notice that the Saudi strategy also has the side benefit of pinching Iran. Specifically, while the Saudis in 2009 require an average oil price of about $51 a barrel to cover their budget, Iran needs an average price in excess of $90. If the price holds steady at the Saudi-designated range of $70-$80 for the rest of this year, the Saudi treasury could come in with a slight surplus. The Iranians, by contrast, have reportedly been forced to consider phasing out food and energy subsidies in an attempt to battle their looming fiscal problems.

The Age - Global oil supply 'far worse than admitted'

THE world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, says a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the United States has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oilfields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

Scoop.co.nz - International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook

It is now clear that an unchanged energy policy - the IEA’s ‘business as usual’ scenario - will lead to catastrophic climate impacts and a temperature rise of about 6°C. While the IEA’s rhetoric on climate change improves every year, it still offers no solution. The proposed energy mix in the IEA’s ‘climate scenario’ - the 450ppm scenario - continues to rely on unproven technology, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) for coal-fired power stations, and nuclear power.

Your Neighbor's Saving Energy; Why Aren't You?

We all know carpooling is good for the Earth. So highway departments build high-occupancy vehicle lanes and companies offer prime parking spaces for employees who share rides.

But carpooling is unlikely to save the environment. It's too hard.

So say scientists who have studied how people confront environmental and energy challenges. Carpooling, they say, has low "plasticity" -- that is, people are unwilling to do it -- so its "reasonably achievable emissions reductions" are low, as well.

Unfortunately, that is not how U.S. policymakers see it.

"We tend to fund efforts that appear to have, on the surface, the greatest potential emissions reductions," said Mike Vandenbergh, director of Vanderbilt University's Climate Change Research Network. "A real value is in looking not just at potential emissions reductions, but also at plasticity. Because otherwise, you'll be frustrated."

This year's Petroleum Geology Conference in London included the following item on the agenda:

Peak Oil: Advancing the topical debate over the timing of peak oil & gas

The aim of the Geological Society's Peak Oil evening meeting is to further discuss and debate the timing and impact of Peak Oil & Gas. Have we become so efficient at exploring and producing petroleum resources that we are we already there as Colin Campbell (ASPO) would argue? Or will technology solutions and a move to more unconventional deposits save the day as Mike Daly (BP) and Glen Cayley (Shell) would suggest? And let's not forget gas. Malcolm Brown (BG Group) sees a longer future for gas but will the progressive use of gas as a substitute for oil hasten its decline? Lots of questions, but do we really have the answers? Come along to the Geological Society . . . and join in the debate. Our four invited speakers will present their case, to be followed by a panel discussion.

The debate took place in the plenary session, with a change in speakers from the original announcement. BP chief geologist David Jenkins argued for the motion that peak oil is "no longer a concern," and Jeremy Leggett argued against, incorporating the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security conclusions into his case. At the end of the debate, approximately five hundred oil-industry geologists voted. Only about a third voted in favor of the motion "Peak oil is no longer a concern." The debate has been written up in November's issue of Petroleum Review.

In this post, I ask Jeremy Leggett a few questions about how he interprets his experience.