For the time being Russian oil is protecting us from OPEC attempts at blackmail but afuture blackout risk can be avoided by relaunching nuclear energy The world’s hunger for energy is growing and its already great demand can only increase when overpopulated countries such as China, India and Indonesia will be completely modernized.
No industrialized nation can be sure of its future without an adequate and reliable energy supply. Theoretically speaking we can draw from many sources, both renewable and non-renewable. The most important and most exploited renewable source is hydroelectric energy, followed at a great distance by the power supplied by the wind, the sun and the tides, which require a great initial investment. Oil and methane head the non-renewable list, but coal too is going strong despite its polluting features.
There is then a category in the middle - raw materials that are consumed but are virtually inexhaustible (i.e. nuclear energy which has reserves of uranium for thousands of years to come, or electricity produced by the combustion of waste, which humanity will always produce in a great quantity, whatever happens).
The energy requirements connected with mobility – that is land (partially excluding the railway), air and maritime transport – can however be met only by burning hydrocarbons, at least till scientists perfect the long awaited hydrogen engines. For this reason oil is a silent presence behind many great international events, from the Gulf war to recent agreements between the West and Russia. War is hardly ever fought officially in its name, but the industrialized world’s need to hold prices within reasonable parameters without losing control of the oil fields represents no doubt a key factor in international politics.
The great oil game has known many ups and downs during the past thirty years. After a long “easy energy” phase during the colonial and post-colonial period, the dance began with the famous 1973 shock - the oil taps were partially closed by the OPEC nations. Prices soared in no time at all from less than two dollars to thirty dollars (of the time) a barrel of oil, triggering an economic crisis that affected the industrialized world for many years.
During the second crisis which followed a few years later, the price of a barrel even reached forty dollars, giving rise to a wave of panic - it seemed that the OPEC countries, and their Arab members in particular, had the power to strangle the West and that wealth was destined to shift from Europe to the Middle East. Instead, the market gradually settled down again.
There appeared new important producers such as Mexico and Norway who refused to marry OPEC policies and despite staying out of the organization, they succeeded in maintaining stable prices even during moments of tension. Then, leading international oil companies intensified their research, influenced by the prospect of greater proceeds and they even opened new oil fields that were harder to access than the ones in the Middle East (ie. Alaska and the North Sea), with drilling and transport costs that were ten times greater but which assured a constant flow.
Despite remarkable fluctuations in times of a great crisis in the Middle East or during war (ie. operation “Desert Storm”), the price of crude oil has not created major problems to consumers for the past fifteen years. It has instead made things hard for exporters, used to princely incomes, when the price dropped below twelve dollars a barrel for a short time. At this point the OPEC countries rebelled and, overcoming the diverse opinions that often paralysed the organization, they agreed to cut production.
The price immediately rocketed - it doubled in a few months.
This was when we paid petrol 2.300 of the old lira, and electricity and heating costs kept rising.
However on this occasion too the crisis did not last long - Russia, ever hungry for currency, increased its offer, the demand decreased when the international economy slowed down, the usual Saudi Arabians acted as mediators and even the OPEC hawks, lead by the Iranians and the Venezuelan president Chavez, had to realize that keeping prices artificially too high in a moment of near recession would have killed the hen that laid the golden eggs. Hence, since summer 2001, the price of a barrel of oil has fluctuated again between 25 and 30 dollars - this is considered acceptable both by consumers and producers, especially those in the Gulf whose drilling activities cost more or less one tenth of their revenues. In the midst of general astonishment, this price range did not waver even after September 11th and the American attack on Afghanistan.
The incidents of the past year have however left a series of after-effects. Investigations on Al Qaeda have thrown light on the close bond existing between the terrorist organization and Saudi Arabia, the main oil producer and holder of the most conspicuous international reserves of crude oil, and the subsequent weakness of the country’s higher powers.
At the same time, these incidents have increased the tension between the United States and other two important members of the OPEC, Iran and Iraq, included by president Bush in the famous “axis of evil”. The short and long term certainty of Persian Gulf supplies, which meet almost half the world’s requirements, is thus enveloped by a heavy cloud of doubt.
Some maintain that, however hostile a country may be towards the West in the name of Jihad, it cannot afford to practice oil boycotting for long as it could not survive without the proceeds of crude oil. But other analysts are increasingly convinced that, if Bin Laden’s men should really succeed in upsetting the Saudi monarchy and in establishing a fundamentalist system of government in Riyad, the oil taps would be closed long enough to bring the industrialized world to its knees (or to force it to take military action, which on the other hand could cause the destruction of a large number of wells and a general upheaval in the Islamic world).
Hence the keyword is once again the search for sources that are alternative or at least additional, as in the ’70s.
This has, for instance, moved Bush to request that oil drilling operations should be taken up again in Alaska - they had been suspended time back due to the pressure of ecologists and leading companies who promoted a greater exploitation of oilfields in countries that are geologically and politically more stable such as Ecuador and Angola. It has remarkably accelerated the race towards Central Asia’s immense reserves of hydrocarbons and the total amount of oil pipelines that should carry it to the western markets.
One of the many urban myths which spread after the Twin Tower attack relates that the incident was a tool used by the White House to turn the Talebans out of Kabul, thus opening the way to the construction of a gigantic pipeline that would link Turkey to the Indian Ocean. In practice, the Afghan route is only one of the many considered and it is not even practicable. At present, not less than seven oil pipelines and gas pipelines are being studied in the region - these should be able to guarantee a regular flow of crude oil and methane despite the extremely complicated political situation. Russia, the leading nation in the area till 1991, is doing its best to get them to pass through its territory, which on the other hand has become unsafe due to the Chechen revolt. The Americans favour the southern routes that pass through Georgia and Turkey, but it is almost impossible to entirely avoid hot areas and the many natural obstacles that increase costs excessively. Hence the factors involved are reliable supplies, heavy investments and sure business because the countries through which the oil pipelines pass will benefit from a sort of lifetime annuity. While waiting for the resources of the area that stretches from the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan to become accessible, Russia is the one who most benefits from the West’s need for diversified sources. It was already known at the time of the USSR that its substratum concealed resources of hydrocarbons that could only be compared to those of the Arabian peninsula. In fact, in the course of the ’60s and ’70s, the USSR became the main supplier of energy to its satellite nations and also to some countries in West Europe, numbering Italy too.
However the Soviet oil drilling techniques were far behind those of the leading European and American companies, with the result that the oil fields could be exploited only up to 60-70 %; the remaining black gold was left underground unused. The situation changed when the Communist system collapsed and Eltsin organized a kind of privatization of the Russian oil industry, opening up to foreign capital and know-how. In recent years Russia’s exports of crude oil have in fact increased by 5-10 % and its productive capacity has grown even more. According to estimates, which are probably a little too optimistic, made by certain experts, if the necessity should arise, Russia will be able to provide the market with 10 million barrels a day, that is two fifths of the amount sold today by the entire OPEC.
The abundance of oil was a real blessing to the Kremlin - the proceeds enabled it to rise, with surprising speed, from the financial crisis that took place in the late twentieth century and to put its public accounts into order; they also enabled the Kremlin to introduce itself to the West as a reliable business partner ready to meet its customers in moments of need. It may be an exaggeration to state that Putin used the reserves of crude oil as a skeleton key to gain access to the greater Council of the NATO and to start a new and more profitable partnership with the European Union, but - as it was openly stated in the comments to the treatise of Pratica di Mare too - these reserves have no doubt facilitated negotiations. From now on Moscow will be the guarantor of stable prices, frustrating the attempts at blackmail made by the Islamic members of the OPEC and giving the economy of industrialized nations a contribution that will no doubt assure - no sooner the technical conditions are met - the longed for membership in the World Trade Organization. If the Russian insurance policy lets us draw a breath of relief, it does not suffice alone to assure an adequate supply of energy for the 21st century.

Though they are still considerable, the ascertained reserves of hydrocarbons are not unlimited and in view both of a further increase in consumptions and the well know greenhouse effect, it is necessary to consider a massive return to nuclear energy; it fell in disgrace following the Three Mile Islands accident in 1979 and especially in 1986, after Chernobyl, but in the meantime it has greatly developed as concerns the safety of plants. Today there are still 440 nuclear power stations operating throughout the world and they supply about 17% of the requirements of electricity - 153 are in West Europe, 126 in North America, 87 in Asia, 68 in East European countries which are preparing to enter the EU, and the territory of the former USSR; the rest are spread out between Australia and Latin America.
Seven countries on fifteen in the European Union, numbering also Italy, have decided to renounce nuclear energy and the other eight have not built a new nuclear power station since 1991. On the contrary, under the influence of the Green Party, Germany and Switzerland, who produce over one third of their electricity from nuclear energy, have decided to gradually close their plants, though they have still to implement the decision.
A month ago there was a first, isolated but equally sensational inversion of trend. With a parliamentary vote of 107 against 92, Finland decided to build a new reactor - the new advanced BWR 90 model developed in collaboration with the Swiss company Asea-Brown Boveri. According to the hopes of nuclear supporters, who have worked desperately against the mainstream for the past fifteen years, Finland could act as forerunner for a great relaunch of the atom both in the EU and in the US where Bush’s energy plan has already opened an important breach in this direction.
The relaunch of nuclear energy is considered essential also in view of the fact that a good part of the plants operating today, besides being technologically outdated, will cease their production between 2010 and 2030 and the construction of a new nuclear power plant takes at least ten years.
The European Union’s White Book of energy states that the choice of new sources must be made on three points: global competitivity, safety in ensuring energy supplies and environmental protection. Well, nuclear energy wins hands down:
1) Despite the heavy initial investment required, in a period of low interest rates such as today, nuclear power stations are cheaper than thermoelectrical ones - the cost of fuel required to feed them is in fact 70% less than that of oil, methane or coal, with a great advantage when it comes to payments. France’s example in this sense is decisive - the country produces three fourths of its electricity with nuclear power and is able to sell it at a great profit to its neighbours.
2) Uranium, as we said before, is plentiful in nature, its storage is easier than that of hydrocarbons and countries that are not under risk produce enogh of it for everyone - let us however mention that one ton of uranium produces the same quantity of electricity as 580.000 tons of crude oil and 83.000 tons of coal.
3) After the Chernobyl disaster, there has been great progress concerning the safety of plants and also in regards to the disposal of waste. If new high temperature reactors were to be built, we would also find a way to profitably make use of the material recovered from the dismantling of Russian and American nuclear arsenals, which was decided at the end of May in Moscow. Furthermore, the return to nuclear power would enable us, even with a short delay, to respect the Kyoto agreement to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases by 8%. The cost leans decidedly towards the atom.
But, before returning to the former course, we need to overcome old fears which have now become groundless.
Traslation by Interpres