This week Mr David Jessop in his column ‘The view from Europe’ (page 21) revisited in some detail the topic of global energy sources, this time expanding on the consequences of changes currently under way. He referred to the fact that the United States “was moving faster than anyone had previously thought to become first energy self-sufficient, and then a net exporter of natural gas” because of novel methods of drilling and a relaxation of environmental controls. Inevitably this will, as he pointed out, cause major changes in the power balance in the world, and affect geo-strategic relationships in a fundamental way.
He wrote that by 2016 the US will become a net exporter of natural gas, and by the following year would become the leading global oil producer, surpassing Saudi Arabia.
Mr Jessop went on to say that by 2035 the US was forecast to achieve energy self-sufficiency, be a net exporter of oil and natural gas and have returned to “robust economic growth.”
It should be added here that a recent ‘60 Minutes’ programme explored the trend in the US of the use of robots in manufacturing, which is much cheaper than human labour, and which interviewees predicted would mean the repatriation of many manufacturing industries from the Far East. While labour costs are currently low there, they cannot compete with robots in cost of production terms. Incidentally, it would suggest, they said, that while this development was good for the economy, there was no quick fix to the unemployment problem in the United States – but then that is another story.
What all of this might indicate in geopolitical terms is that contrary to earlier assumptions that eventually America would become primus inter pares in world affairs, it will reassert its position as the leading world power, along with China. Mr Jessop wrote that the last-named state has “invested billions of dollars in US companies involved in fracking,” (a method of oil recovery from shale) and effectively a new bi-polar world would be created.
In fact, he went on to elaborate on the shifts which would occur if some hitherto unlikely energy producers emerged as a consequence of the new technologies for oil and natural gas recovery. He cited experts as naming French Guiana, France proper, Ukraine, Brazil, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Israel, Kenya, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tanzania and Uganda as included in their number. As far as this region is concerned, he forecast that the emphasis would move to what he called the “far southern Carib-bean,” if Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana began to produce oil in any quantity.
He even touched on concessionary oil arrangements, saying some had suggested that the US over time could develop concessionary energy programmes providing natural gas “alongside regional renewable energy programmes.” Venezuela under President Hugo Chávez has used its oil wealth with some generosity over the past few years, and while one of the objectives was to bring the Caribbean basin under its sphere of influence, at the same time PetroCaribe has saved several of our sister territories from financial crisis. Given the current situation in our neighbouring state to the west, however, it would be a mistake to assume that these concessions will survive very far into the future, and the government here would be advised to undertake some contingency planning.
One suspects, however, given what goes on in other areas of government, that the administration has done little if any contingency planning for fundamental changes in the Venezuelan political firmament, so it would hardly be expected that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would have some think-tank sitting by to look at even longer term changes in our regional and global environment over the next ten or twenty years. However, that is what a small, vulnerable country like this one should be doing. Global shifts are occurring so quickly, that if one is not to be constantly buffeted by winds from unheralded quarters, one needs to keep abreast of likely global trends, and assess how these potentially might affect the country and the region in the longer term and not just the short term.
If the analyses Mr Jessop cites are correct, then we can assume that the biggest player on the hemispheric block will continue to be the US, although its focus will be on the east and it may possibly reduce its interest in the south, a development which is already apparent under President Obama. And even if too, we do eventually become an oil producer, a great deal of long-term planning would need to be done at all levels − especially obviously, the economic one in the first instance − and how this might affect our geopolitical situation and relationships with our neighbours.
The world is not standing still, and neither should Guyana.
