Downloaded 16 times
![WIJKRAAD EN ONDERNEMERS door Martin Schepers [Compatibiliteitsmodus]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/wijkraadenondernemersdoormartinscheperscompatibiliteitsmodus-1290720817512-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Peak oil
- 1. PEAK OIL How doesthe theory of declining global oil production affect the large integrated oil companies? Chris Tringham | Dan Fisico
- 2. FADING INDUSTRY? • Cheaper alternatives • Higher prices • Government intervention • UK April 1 petrol duty increased, $1.89 per litre
- 3. WHAT IS IT? •Peak oil theory • Proposed by Dr. Hubbert in 1956 • Predicted US production would peak in 1970 • Replacement rate not sufficient (<1)
- 4.
- 6. PROVE IT * BespokeInvestment Group
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10. * International EnergyAgency Key Stats 2009 Report
- 11. * International EnergyAgency Key Stats 2009 Report
- 13.
- 14. THE MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES NGO’s Government Owned Supermajors Non “OECD” companies • ExxonMobil • Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabia) • Royal Dutch Shell • JSC Gazprom (Russia) • British Petroleum (BP) • CNPC (China) • Chevron • NIOC (Iran) • Conoco Phillips • PDVSA (Venezuela) • Total S.A. • Petrobras (Brazil) • Petronas (Malaysia) OECD OPEC
- 15. MNE ACTIONS • NGO’shavecondensed as companies merge to benefit from economies of scale and hedge price volatility • Diversification and shift of core competencies • Renewable energy developments • New extraction technologies • Development of alternate fuel sources (biofuels, ethanol) • Prevailing importance of lobbying
- 16. STRATEGIC DECISIONS • Resourceseeking – Resources becoming more scarce, looking for new deposits – prevailing strategy • Strategic asset seeking – Companies favour locations because they benefit from government support. Ex. China in Africa • Efficiency seeking – Development of more efficient extraction technologies and methods
- 17. • Positive Impacts • Encouraging the development of cleaner alternative sources of energy • Developing new technologies that can have applications in other fields • Negative Impacts • Aggressive, self-interested behavior by companies to secure their future • Overstating reserves and overvaluing prices
- 18. PORTER’S 5 FORCES •Threat of suppliers – high – Backward integration has connected directly with natural resources. Can’t move back any further. • Threat of substitutes – high – Alternative energy sources are growing in variety, abundance and efficiency – Total S.A. announced in 2008 they were shifting more focus to nuclear production
- 19. PORTER’S 5 FORCES •Threat of competitors – low to medium – Sharing oligopolistic price-setting powers – Potential Co-operation & mergers increase powers • Threat of new entrants – low – Astronomical start-up and capital costs • Threat of buyers – low to medium – Buyers highly dependent on product, but many efforts underway to reduce dependency
- 20. CHINA IN AFRICA •Cooperation between MNE, host and home nations • China takes little moral responsibility • Necessity because of growth at home? • Confusion in China because of state owned enterprises • Supermajors subject to laws of home country • MNE’swilling to sacrifice morals to agree with host country, but home country is not
- 21. CHINA IN AFRICA •No evidence of long-term sustainability • Aimed at securing natural resources. • Creating mini China’s throughout Africa • Thus hostility among locals • Researchwould indicate exploitation of host nation by MNE is counter productive • Inward investment - Supports local economy - raises labor skill and productivity - Expands scale of production
- 22. CANADIAN IMPLICATIONS Oil asa valuable commodity • Privatization vs. Nationalization • Short-term gains vs. long-term stability • Sinopec – Chinese state companies • Willing to pay premium prices for a stake - 50% partners in Northern Lights Project - 9% stake in Syncrude Canada Ltd. - Several other Chinese investments
- 23.