What if the Norwegian citizens had had the chance to manage their own individual oil funds or share of oil revenues?

Sir, I refer to David Sheppard’s “Norway fund to sell off oil shares” November 17

At first sight we are of course all impressed with that the Norwegian Oil Fund has been able to accumulate US$200.000 per Norwegian. 

The question is though, had the Norwegian oil revenues been paid out to and invested directly by the Norwegians, would they in average have more or less than US$200.000, and would the Norwegians, in average, have been stronger citizens as a result of having to take on that responsibility on their own?

And when we read that what we always thought as the Norwegian Oil Fund or the Norwegian Government Petroleum Fund, is now known officially as the Government Pension Fund Global, the natural question we have is if all that money is now only to go to pensioners? If I was a young Norwegian with ideas of my own and in need of capital, I am not sure I would look too favorably at that possibility.

And let’s be honest about the results. Much of it, or perhaps even most of the financial returns obtained, which are perhaps more than the oil proceeds injected, have been direct consequences of US and Europe having kicked the 2007-08 crisis can down the road, injecting huge amount of liquidity with QEs which, together with the ultralow interests maintained, have inflated all financial assets.

Sir, I was appointed the first diversification manager of the Venezuelan Investment Fund created in 1974, basically a fund very similar to the Norwegian Oil Fund. It took me only two weeks to become convinced it would not work, and so I left.

All this sort of centralized accumulations of wealth sooner or later loose contact with the final beneficiaries and with their original purpose and fast (Venezuela) or little by little (Norway) begin functioning more in terms of the wants and needs of those managing it.

When we now start reading about how that Norwegian fund begins to assign more and more value to issues like sustainability and ethics, which of course is good, we do wonder though how much of that is more based on managerial show-off than on a real mandate from its final beneficiaries.

Again, if I was that young Norwegian in need of capital, or just wanted to construct my own retirement nest, I can easily hear me saying… Great, you do all that but, before you start, give me my share. 

And let’s face it. One reason Norway’s government have been able and willing to set aside oil revenues in the fund is that they receive other type of compensations, like gas/petrol consumption taxes. Norway has the highest gas prices in the world, about $2.40 per liter (Venezuela less than $1 cent per liter)

I hear you Sir. “Here is just a Venezuelan being envious of the $200.000”.

Of course I am envious but, believe me when I say, that as a defender of oil revenue sharing, I would much have preferred my fellow citizens to have only a tenth of that amount, but in the process have learned more of how to stand on their own, and freeing themselves from having to depend on redistribution profiteering governments or fund managers.

PS. What about the Norwegian Fund selling off oil shares? Sounds reasonable but their current 6 per cent invested in the oil and gas sector is not that exaggerated either. Can you imagine what the Norwegians would say if Norway runs out of oil and the Fund stands there with no investments in oil?

@PerKurowski

Red lights will not do

Sir Robert Wright when reporting in “The wrong line from London to Caracas” February 24, about the quid-pro-quos that Ken Livingstone should be planning in appreciation of Hugo Chavez’s (not Venezuela’s) petrol gifts to London and that will allow to cut the transport costs for its poor (and rich?), he mentions that Transport for London, the transport authority, might help to provide Caracas with good traffic lights. Forget it! Traffic lights amounts to a too indecent mirrors-for-pearls gift in a country where the price of petrol is less than 3 cents of US dollars per liter and therefore the traffic is unstoppable, and also its President is running amok after and through any red light he sees.

It is still the same old petrol though

Sir, in your editorial comment “Unconventional oil”, February 22, you express some doubts about the quality of oil produced from shale and sands. Don’t worry, at the end of the day smell it and you will not be able to differentiate it from any petrol produced by the sweetest light Saudi crude. That the crude itself is of a lower quality is just a cost factor, and thankfully not at all like as if the grapes had gone bad.

And even in terms of its final price, in Europe at least, there would be more than ample space to sell this new-same-old petrol at its current prices, but of course then the taxman would have to reduce some of his enormous current take.

In fact from another perspective it is even a better quality crude…it generates more jobs and less curse for the producer.

Which green is best for the environment and our pockets?

Sir, on January 8 FT carried on the same page stories about GM’s plug-in car and Toyota’s hybrid petrol-electric car, both of which have a market niche primarily because they are environmentally friendly, though in fact no one really knows how friendly they really are or how much that friendliness really costs. A world that is in so much need of sounder environmental behavior, which costs money, also urgently needs some truly neutral environmental advise to help it navigate and pick among all the green tonics that are currently peddled. Perhaps the best thing an environmental conscious motorist could do is to buy himself a traditional car and invest whatever he saved by not buying a green into something that is in environmental and economic terms, more efficient. The World Bank could perhaps have a role to play as that wise green arbitrator, of course as long as it can avoid being captured itself by windmill and solar panel-producers.

hybrid plug-in petrol environment global warming