mk.ru
Low Oil Prices Threaten Russia's Budget and Global Stability
A British agency report warns that prolonged low oil prices, similar to the 1970s, risk increasing US shale oil production and triggering an OPEC+ collapse, sharply reducing Russia's budget revenues which were \$189 billion in 2024 and \$15.77 billion in January 2025.
- What is the primary global risk highlighted by the report regarding sustained low oil prices?
- A report by a British agency draws parallels between current oil market conditions and the 1974-1985 period of high oil prices followed by an 18-year price slump. This earlier period contributed to the Soviet Union's economic crisis, Cold War defeat, and eventual collapse. Today, a sustained oil price drop might boost shale oil production in non-OPEC countries, increasing global supply.
- How might increased shale oil production in the US and non-OPEC countries affect global oil prices and Russia's economy?
- The report, finalized in February, highlights increased risks due to Trump's tariffs, global economic slowdown, and reduced demand. Russia's 2024 oil export revenue reached \$189 billion, dropping to \$15.77 billion in January 2025. The Bank of Russia is concerned about macroeconomic stability given this volatility.
- What are the potential consequences of OPEC+ disintegrating and what measures could Russia take to mitigate the impact of a sharp oil price decline?
- While a repeat of the Soviet scenario is partially possible, the US context differs. High production costs in US shale oil make it unprofitable below \$60 per barrel. OPEC+ instability, however, poses a significant threat; a price drop to \$40-50 could trigger a surge in production and an extreme price crash to \$30. Russia's budget, predicated on a \$69/barrel Urals price, is negatively affected by the current lower price and stronger ruble.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the situation primarily through the lens of potential risks and negative consequences. The headline (if there was one) likely emphasized the dangers of falling oil prices. The repeated focus on potential economic crises and budget shortfalls reinforces a negative outlook. While expert opinions are included, the overall narrative leans heavily towards a pessimistic view.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, but phrases such as "serious losses," "turbulence," and "drastic reduction in budget revenues" contribute to a negative tone. While accurate descriptions, these word choices could be replaced with less emotionally charged alternatives. For instance, "substantial decrease" instead of "drastic reduction".
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the potential negative impacts of falling oil prices on Russia and the global economy, but gives less attention to potential positive impacts or alternative perspectives. For example, lower oil prices could benefit consumers and stimulate economic growth in some sectors. The article also omits discussion of potential policy responses beyond devaluation or foreign borrowing that Russia might employ.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy between the potential for a drastic oil price drop leading to economic crisis and the maintenance of the OPEC+ agreement. It doesn't fully explore the possibility of a moderate price drop or other scenarios that might fall between these two extremes.
Sustainable Development Goals
A sharp drop in oil prices could significantly reduce Russia's budget revenues, potentially impacting social programs and increasing poverty if not mitigated effectively. The article highlights the depletion of Russia's National Wellbeing Fund, leaving limited resources to weather economic downturns and support vulnerable populations. This aligns directly with SDG 1: No Poverty, specifically target 1.1 which aims to eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere.