Journal of Geographical Sciences ›› 2015, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (3): 369-384.doi: 10.1007/s11442-015-1174-y
• Orginal Article • Previous Articles
Mengchen GU1,2(), Limao WANG1,*(
)
Received:
2014-01-24
Accepted:
2014-07-20
Online:
2015-03-15
Published:
2015-03-15
Contact:
Limao WANG
E-mail:gumengchen89@163.com;lmwang@igsnrr.ac.cn
About author:
Author: Gu Mengchen (1989-), Master, specialized in resource economics and resource security. E-mail:
Supported by:
Mengchen GU, Limao WANG. Assessment of oil and gas geopolitical influence[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2015, 25(3): 369-384.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks
Table 1
Assessment framework for the formation of O&G geopolitical influence"
Process | Mode of action | Indicator |
---|---|---|
Basis of gestation | Geopolitical environment | Geopolitical environment advantage C1 |
Territory scale | Territorial scale effect C2 | |
Resource reserves | Domestic O&G reserves C3 | |
Economic strength | Economic capacity C4 | |
Means of transformation | Military intervention and control | Naval power C5 |
Cross-border M&A and investment | Production by O&G corporations C6 | |
Energy diplomacy | [Included under C11] | |
Technological innovation | Potential O&G and alternatives C7 | |
Major construction projects | New sea-lanes and pipeline expansions C8 | |
Formation of power | Possession of—and/or control over—major O&G production regions | Net import/export of O&G C9 |
Possession of—and/or control over—critical O&G transportation routes | Control over key transportation routes C10 | |
Exercising power | Government’s involvement in international politics | Diplomatic capability C11 |
Ability to control risks in the international market | O&G import/export concentration C12 | |
Support from stable domestic environment | Domestic stability C13 |
Table 2
Geopolitical environment advantage"
Grade | Description | Ranking | Score |
---|---|---|---|
Complex | Has many neighboring countries, both big and small; has past and present disputes with some of these countries; homeland security costs are extremely high. | Ⅴ | 2 |
Relatively complex | Has several neighboring countries, both big and small; has past and present disputes with some of these countries; homeland security costs are relatively high. | Ⅳ | 4 |
Moderate | Has 1-2 strong neighboring countries and a few small neighboring countries; relationship with these countries is relatively good despite past disputes; a certain amount of homeland security costs is expected. | Ⅲ | 6 |
Relatively simple | Has one strong neighboring country and maintains a relatively good relationship with the neighbor; or only has small neighboring countries; natural barrier(s) is present; homeland security costs are relatively low. | Ⅱ | 8 |
Simple | No threats from any strong neighboring countries or interference from problematic countries; natural barrier(s) is present; almost no homeland security costs. | Ⅰ | 10 |
Table 3
World naval power"
Grade | Description | Representative country(s) | Ranking | Score |
---|---|---|---|---|
Global control | The navy’s core is large aircraft carriers; has large number of nuclear submarines | USA | Ⅰ | 10 |
Global challenge | The navy’s core is cruisers and destroyers supplemented by large aircraft carriers; has large number of nuclear submarines | Russia | Ⅱ | 8 |
Global presence | The navy’s core is aircraft carriers, with destroyers as escorts; has nuclear submarines or submarines | France, UK | Ⅲ | 6 |
Global dispatch | The navy’s core is cruisers or frigates, with universal destroyers as escorts; has considerable number of submarines | Japan, Germany | Ⅳ | 4 |
Regional | The navy’s core is destroyers; has a large number of frigates; has a small number of submarines | South Korea | Ⅴ | 2 |
Table 4
Potential O&G and alternatives"
Grade | Description | Ranking | Score |
---|---|---|---|
High | Revolutionary increase in O&G production arising from technological progress or significant discoveries of O&G fields; extremely high O&G reserve-production ratio | Ⅰ | 10 |
Relatively high | Significant increase in O&G production arising from technological progress or significant discoveries of O&G fields; relatively high O&G reserve-production ratio | Ⅱ | 8 |
Moderate | Small- and medium-sized O&G fields are being discovered gradually; relatively high investments in the renewable energy sector | Ⅲ | 6 |
Relatively low | Limited potential for the increase of O&G or its alternatives; certain amounts of investment in renewable energy | Ⅳ | 4 |
Low | No sign of activities in the increase of O&G or its alternatives | Ⅴ | 2 |
Table 5
New sea-lanes and pipeline expansions"
Grade | Description | Ranking | Score |
---|---|---|---|
High | Transit hub country with a number of major multinational O&G pipelines under construction | Ⅰ | 10 |
Relatively high | Has some control over several major O&G pipelines that are under construction or the future Arctic route | Ⅱ | 8 |
Moderate | Has major multinational O&G pipelines in production or is a country that surrounds the Arctic Circle | Ⅲ | 6 |
Relatively low | Major O&G pipelines under construction pass through the country, or it is in proximity to potential new routes | Ⅳ | 4 |
Low | No sign of O&G pipelines under construction or any new route being established in the surrounding area | Ⅴ | 2 |
Table 6
Control over key transportation routes"
Grade | Description | Ranking | Score |
---|---|---|---|
Strong | Has relatively strong control over various key O&G transportation routes globally | Ⅰ | 10 |
Relatively strong | Has relatively strong control over major regional O&G transportation routes or pipelines | Ⅱ | 8 |
Moderate | Has sufficient usage rights and partial control rights over 1-2 surrounding major transportation routes | Ⅲ | 6 |
Relatively weak | Close to 1-2 major transportation routes, but has relatively weak control capability | Ⅳ | 4 |
Weak | Does not possess or control any O&G transport routes | Ⅴ | 2 |
Table 7
Diplomatic capability"
Grade | Description | Ranking | Score |
---|---|---|---|
Strong | Vigorous global diplomatic activities; has global influence and control | Ⅰ | 10 |
Relatively strong | Actively promoting global diplomacy; has some global influence and control | Ⅱ | 8 |
Moderate | Global diplomatic efforts are being carried out; has some global influence | Ⅲ | 6 |
Relatively weak | Focus is on regional diplomacy; does not have deep involvement in international mechanisms; does not have global influence | Ⅳ | 4 |
Weak | Focus is on diplomacy with surrounding countries; is often in passive diplomatic positions | Ⅴ | 2 |
Table 9
Domestic stability"
Grade | Share of key channels | Ranking | Score |
---|---|---|---|
Stable | Regime with stable foundation; sound legal system; strong continuity of policies; regime changes do not affect its economy, finance & trade, and foreign relations | Ⅰ | 10 |
Relatively stable | Some minor instabilities; no impact on overall political situation | Ⅱ | 8 |
Moderate | Major emerging industrial countries and some of the original socialist countries in Eastern Europe that have substantially completed their transition from a planned to a market economy | Ⅲ | 6 |
Relatively unstable | Civil unrests; violent political struggles; frequent changes of regimes; some states may even be at war with one another | Ⅳ | 4 |
Unstable | In a state of chaos and war; continuous terrorist incidents in all or most parts of the country | Ⅴ | 2 |
Table 1
0 Selection of O&G geopolitical influence of representative countries"
Region | Representative Countries | ||
---|---|---|---|
Import countries | Export countries | Transit countries | |
North America | US, Canada | ||
Europe | UK, France, Germany | Ukraine | |
Asia Pacific | China, Japan, India, Turkey | Malaysia, Indonesia | |
Central Asia-Russia | Russia, Kazakhstan | ||
Middle East | Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq | ||
Africa | South Africa | Libya | |
S.&Cent. America | Brazil | Venezuela |
Table 1
1 Statistical analysis of the main factors affecting O&G geopolitical influence"
Factor | Non-rotated | Orthogonal rotation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eigenvalues | Contribution rate (%) | Cumulative contribution rate (%) | Eigenvalues | Contribution rate (%) | Cumulative contribution rate (%) | |
F1 | 4.619 | 35.533 | 35.533 | 4.384 | 33.722 | 33.722 |
F2 | 3.172 | 24.398 | 59.931 | 3.124 | 24.027 | 57.749 |
F3 | 1.565 | 12.042 | 71.973 | 1.523 | 11.715 | 69.465 |
F4 | 1.265 | 9.733 | 81.706 | 1.407 | 10.824 | 80.289 |
F5 | 0.972 | 7.481 | 89.187 | 1.157 | 8.898 | 89.187 |
Table 1
2 Loading matrix of the main factors affecting O&G geopolitical influence"
Type of variable | Name of variable | Loading of individual factor | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
Basis of gestation | Geopolitical environment advantage C1 | 0.159 | 0.021 | 0.026 | 0.151 | 0.957 |
Territorial scale effect C2 | 0.571 | 0.530 | 0.252 | -0.066 | 0.006 | |
Domestic O&G reserves C3 | -0.183 | 0.936 | 0.090 | -0.086 | -0.099 | |
Economic capacity C4 | 0.966 | -0.048 | -0.068 | 0.086 | -0.004 | |
Means of transformation | Naval power C5 | 0.908 | 0.141 | 0.144 | 0.212 | -0.008 |
Production by O&G corporations C6 | 0.325 | 0.758 | 0.024 | 0.450 | -0.140 | |
Potential O&G and alternatives C7 | 0.203 | 0.904 | 0.001 | 0.093 | 0.119 | |
New sea-lanes and pipeline expansions C8 | 0.355 | 0.185 | 0.849 | -0.166 | -0.132 | |
Formation of power | Net import/export of O&G C9 | -0.490 | 0.716 | 0.087 | -0.158 | 0.122 |
Control over key transportation routes C10 | -0.267 | -0.004 | 0.825 | 0.355 | 0.178 | |
Exercising power | Diplomatic capability C11 | 0.947 | -0.017 | 0.056 | 0.144 | 0.071 |
O&G import/export concentration C12 | 0.123 | 0.020 | 0.076 | 0.935 | 0.157 | |
Domestic stability C13 | 0.864 | -0.057 | -0.073 | -0.188 | 0.321 |
Table 1
3 O&G geopolitical influence of representative countries"
Country | Composite result | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ranking score | Ranking score | Ranking score | Ranking score | Ranking score | Ranking score | |||||||
US | 1 | 1.426 | 1 | 0.781 | 4 | 0.239 | 3 | 0.166 | 1 | 0.100 | 1 | 0.140 |
Russia | 2 | 1.069 | 2 | 0.474 | 1 | 0.415 | 1 | 0.184 | 10 | -0.011 | 8 | 0.006 |
China | 3 | 0.399 | 3 | 0.406 | 8 | 0.081 | 9 | -0.005 | 2 | 0.045 | 20 | -0.128 |
Canada | 4 | 0.352 | 4 | 0.310 | 7 | 0.094 | 9 | -0.005 | 21 | -0.121 | 2 | 0.073 |
Brazil | 5 | 0.314 | 5 | 0.222 | 9 | 0.078 | 18 | -0.103 | 2 | 0.045 | 2 | 0.073 |
Saudi Arabia | 6 | 0.165 | 12 | -0.209 | 2 | 0.383 | 6 | 0.007 | 2 | 0.045 | 14 | -0.061 |
UK | 7 | 0.159 | 6 | 0.214 | 11 | -0.070 | 18 | -0.103 | 2 | 0.045 | 2 | 0.073 |
France | 8 | 0.030 | 6 | 0.214 | 13 | -0.107 | 16 | -0.072 | 10 | -0.011 | 8 | 0.006 |
Germany | 9 | -0.055 | 9 | 0.153 | 17 | -0.181 | 13 | -0.023 | 10 | -0.011 | 8 | 0.006 |
Venezuela | 10 | -0.061 | 14 | -0.240 | 3 | 0.256 | 16 | -0.072 | 10 | -0.011 | 8 | 0.006 |
India | 11 | -0.145 | 8 | 0.169 | 16 | -0.152 | 13 | -0.023 | 10 | -0.011 | 20 | -0.128 |
Iran | 12 | -0.211 | 17 | -0.291 | 5 | 0.200 | 6 | 0.007 | 17 | -0.066 | 14 | -0.061 |
Kazakhstan | 13 | -0.222 | 11 | -0.205 | 12 | -0.100 | 4 | 0.086 | 10 | -0.011 | 8 | 0.006 |
Indonesia | 14 | -0.270 | 13 | -0.233 | 15 | -0.143 | 11 | -0.012 | 2 | 0.045 | 2 | 0.073 |
Iraq | 15 | -0.303 | 21 | -0.420 | 6 | 0.174 | 15 | -0.042 | 2 | 0.045 | 14 | -0.061 |
Malaysia | 16 | -0.325 | 17 | -0.299 | 14 | -0.132 | 11 | -0.012 | 2 | 0.045 | 2 | 0.073 |
South Africa | 17 | -0.341 | 14 | -0.240 | 18 | -0.226 | 6 | 0.007 | 2 | 0.045 | 2 | 0.073 |
Japan | 18 | -0.384 | 10 | 0.096 | 20 | -0.251 | 18 | -0.103 | 17 | -0.066 | 14 | -0.061 |
Turkey | 19 | -0.393 | 14 | -0.245 | 21 | -0.261 | 1 | 0.184 | 10 | -0.011 | 14 | -0.061 |
Libya | 20 | -0.573 | 20 | -0.357 | 10 | -0.054 | 18 | -0.103 | 17 | -0.066 | 8 | 0.006 |
Ukraine | 21 | -0.632 | 17 | -0.299 | 19 | -0.245 | 5 | 0.037 | 17 | -0.066 | 14 | -0.061 |
1 | Anca Costescu Badea, Claudio M RoccoS, Stefano Tarantolaet al., 2011. Composite indicators for security of energy supply using ordered weighted averaging.Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 96(6): 651-662. |
2 | Andreas Löschel, Ulf Moslener, Dirk T G Rübbelke, 2010. Energy security-concepts and indicators.Energy Policy, 38(4): 1607-1608. |
3 | Andreas Löschel, Ulf Moslener, Dirk T G Rübbelke, 2010. Indicators of energy security in industrialized countries.Energy Policy, 38(4): 1665-1671. |
4 | Benjamin K Sovacool, 2011. Evaluating energy security in the Asia Pacific: Towards a more comprehensive approach.Energy Policy, 39(11): 7472-7479. |
5 | Benjamin K Sovacool, Ishani Mukherjee, 2010. Conceptualizing and measuring energy security: A synthesized approach.Energy, 36(8): 5343-5355. |
6 | Bert Kruyt, van Vuuren D P, de Vries H J M, et al., 2009. Indicators for energy security.Energy Policy, 37(6): 2166-2181. |
7 | BP, 2013. BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2013. London. . |
8 | Ding Shixun, Fu Xin, 2011. Transnational mergers and acquisitions and overseas energy investment.Journal of PLA Nanjing Institute of Politics, 27(3): 24-27. (in Chinese) |
9 | Du Dong, Pang Qinghua, Wu Yan, 2005. Modern Comprehensive Evaluation Method and Case Selection. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press. (in Chinese) |
10 | FAO Database: 2001 Monthly Bulletin of Statistics. United Nations. March, 2001. . |
11 | Gail Cohen, Frederick Joutz, Prakash Loungani, 2011. Measuring energy security: Trends in the diversification of oil and natural gas supplies.Energy Policy, 39(9): 4860-4869. |
12 | Gao Shuqin, 2009. The factor “natural resources” in the transformation of global geopolitics and geo-economy.Resources Science, 31(2): 343-351. (in Chinese) |
13 | He Jinyi, 2005. Development and problems of comprehensive evaluation activities in China.Academic Research, (1): 1-4. (in Chinese) |
14 | Hu Zhiyue, 2008. Interpretation of the strategy of Goldman. Economics PhD Forum in Beijing. , 2008-10-20. (in Chinese) |
15 | IEA, 2012. Key World Energy Statistics 2012. Paris: OECD. |
16 | Jin Canrong, 2008. Change of international geopolitical pattern and its impact on China.Modern International Relations, (5): 12-14. (in Chinese) |
17 | John R Mcneill, Ge Fei, 2008. Resource empire: Fossil fuel and geopolitics since 1580.Academic Research, (6): 108-114. (in Chinese) |
18 | Julien Reynaud, Julien Vauday, 2009. Geopolitics and international organizations: An empirical study on IMF facilities.Journal of Development Economics, 89: 139-162. |
19 | Juozas Augutis, Ricardas Krikstolaitis, Linas Martisauskaset al., 2012. Energy security level assessment technology.Applied Energy, 97: 143-147. |
20 | Lang Yihuan, Wang Limao, Zhang Minghua, 2003. Risk management of transnational exploitation of China’s deficient natural resources: A case study of oil resource.Resources Science, 25(5): 22-27. (in Chinese) |
21 | Larry Hughes, 2012. A generic framework for the description and analysis of energy security in an energy system.Energy Policy, 42: 221-231. |
22 | Liang Gang, 2013. Global O&G reserves and production present overall growth in 2012.International Petroleum Economics, 21(1): 178-181. (in Chinese) |
23 | Liu Xinhua, 2009. The core of geopolitics: Geopolitical elements.World Regional Studies, 18(1): 6-11. (in Chinese) |
24 | Li Yamin, 2006. Energy factors affecting Sino-American relationship. Journal of Beijing Union University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 4(3): 75-79. (in Chinese) |
25 | Lu Junyuan, 2010. The new features of the arctic geopolitical competition.Modern International Relations, (2): 25-29. (in Chinese) |
26 | Malavika Jain Bambawale, Benjamin K Sovacool, 2012. Energy security: Insights from a ten country comparison.Energy & Environment, 23(4): 559-586. |
27 | Mc Crone A, 2012. Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2012. Frankfurt School of Finance and Management, Frankfurt. |
28 | Pan Guang, 2008. China’s energy diplomacy in 30 years of reform and opening-up.International Studies, (6): 29-34. (in Chinese) |
29 | Philippe Sébille-Lopez, 2008. Géopolitiques du Pétrole. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press. |
30 | Shen Jiru, 2006. Reports on International Politics and Security (2006): Comparison among the Major Powers’ Comprehensive National Strength. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press. (in Chinese) |
31 | Sun Xiansheng, Lian Jianjia, Qian Xingkunet al., 2013. 2012 Annual Progress Report of Oil and Gas Industry at Home and Abroad. Beijing: PetroChina Economic and Technology Research Institute. (in Chinese) |
32 | Sun Xiaolei, Li Jianping, Wu Dengshenget al., 2011. Energy geopolitics and Chinese strategic decision of the energy-supply security: A multiple-attribute analysis.Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 18(1/2): 151-160. |
33 | Wang Mengmeng, , 2009-01-05. (in Chinese) |
34 | Zhang Dajun, 2005. The Basic Analysis on China’s influence on North Korea’s foreign policy: Modes, approaches and resources [D]. Beijing: Renmin University of China. (in Chinese) |
35 | Zhao Jian’an, Li Hongqiang, Lang Yihuanet al., 2010. Study on the comprehensive appraisal index system for energy security risk: A case of coal and oil.Journal of Geo-Information Science, 12(6): 761-766. (in Chinese) |
36 | Vlado Vivoda, 2010. Evaluating energy security in the Asia-Pacific region: A novel methodological approach.Energy Policy, 38(9): 5258-5263. |
37 | Wang Limao, 2002. Influential factors and index system for appraising resources security.Journal of Natural Resources, 17(4): 401-408. (in Chinese) |
38 | Wang Limao, 2008. Index system for appraising national petroleum security.Journal of Natural Resources, 23(5): 821-830. (in Chinese) |
39 | World Bank, 2012. Gross Domestic Product 2011. . |
40 | Zhang Weizhong, Yan Fei, Cai Xinyu, 2013. 2012 world's 50 largest oil companies ranking by American petroleum intelligence weekly.International Petroleum Economics, 21(1): 174-177. (in Chinese) |
41 | Zhang Wenmu, 2004. Analysis of China’s National Security Interests in World’s Geopolitical Pattern. Jinan: Shandong People’s Press. (in Chinese) |
[1] | WANG Chengjin, LI Xumao, CHEN Peiran, XIE Yongshun, LIU Weidong. Spatial pattern and developing mechanism of railway geo-systems based on track gauge: A case study of Eurasia [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(8): 1283-1306. |
[2] | WANG Xueqin, LIU Shenghe, QI Wei. Mega-towns in China: Their spatial distribution features and growth mechanisms [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(7): 1060-1082. |
[3] | YIN Le, DAI Erfu, ZHENG Du, WANG Yahui, MA Liang, TONG Miao. Spatio-temporal analysis of the human footprint in the Hengduan Mountain region: Assessing the effectiveness of nature reserves in reducing human impacts [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(7): 1140-1154. |
[4] | CHEN Kunlun, LIU Xiaoqiong, CHEN Xi, GUO Yuqi, DONG Yin. Spatial characteristics and driving forces of the morphological evolution of East Lake, Wuhan [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(4): 583-600. |
[5] | LIU Xiaoyan, DANG Suzhen, LIU Changming, DONG Guotao. Effects of rainfall intensity on the sediment concentration in the Loess Plateau, China [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(3): 455-467. |
[6] | ZHOU Yannan, YANG Yu, SONG Zhouying, HE Ze, XIA Siyou, REN Yawen. Dynamic transition mechanism analysis of the impact of energy development on urbanization in Central Asia [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(11): 1825-1848. |
[7] | ZHOU Qiang, HE Ze, YANG Yu. Energy geopolitics in Central Asia: China’s involvement and responses [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(11): 1871-1895. |
[8] | Liang ZHOU, Chenghu ZHOU, Fan YANG, Lei CHE, Bo WANG, Dongqi SUN. Spatio-temporal evolution and the influencing factors of PM2.5 in China between 2000 and 2015 [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(2): 253-270. |
[9] | Chengjin WANG, Peiran CHEN, Yunhao CHEN. The identification of global strategic shipping pivots and their spatial patterns [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018, 28(9): 1215-1232. |
[10] | Shuqin SHI, Yu HAN, Wentao YU, Yuqing CAO, Weimin CAI, Peng YANG, Wenbin WU, Qiangyi YU. Spatio-temporal differences and factors influencing intensive cropland use in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018, 28(11): 1626-1640. |
[11] | Meng ZHE, Xueqin Zhang, Buwei WANG, Rui SUN, Du ZHENG. Hydrochemical regime and its mechanism in Yamzhog Yumco Basin, South Tibet [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2017, 27(9): 1111-1122. |
[12] | Fengjun JIN, Fengjun JIN, Yuanjing QI, Yu YANG. Evolution and geographic effects of high-speed rail in East Asia: An accessibility approach [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2017, 27(5): 515-532. |
[13] | Kai ZHANG, Lijuan LI, Peng BAI, Jiuyi LI, Yumei LIU. Influence of climate variability and human activities on stream flow variation in the past 50 years in Taoer River, Northeast China [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2017, 27(4): 481-496. |
[14] | Tao SONG, Dadao LU, Yi LIANG, Qian WANG, Jing LIN. Progress in international geopolitical research from 1996 to 2015 [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2017, 27(4): 497-512. |
[15] | Tao SONG, Yi CHENG, Weidong LIU, Hui LIU. Spatial difference and mechanisms of influence of geo-economy in the border areas of China [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2017, 27(12): 1463-1480. |
|