Soviet Energy Industry in a Continued Cold War

Delta Force

Banned
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Former Soviet Republics went on to become major exporters of coal, electrify, natural gas, petroleum, and uranium. This has made those nations very influential in the international energy markets, especially Russia, as it is a major exporter and owns and operates pipelines, rivers, and other energy export infrastructure. This has obviously given Russia disproportionate influence on world affairs, especially European affairs, as it can use energy as a weapon.

If the Cold War had continued, how would the Soviet energy industry have developed? Would the Soviet Union export energy to Europe and Asia going into the 1990s, or would it fail due to the political and security difficulties involved? How long could the West remain independent of Soviet energy exports before it would become economically prudent to do so?

Also, might the Soviets try to move domestic industry to coal and natural gas to free up petroleum for export, since it's easier to export? Natural gas requires pipelines and/or liquified natural gas terminals and tankers, which are some of the most complex, expensive, and dangerous facilities and ships ever built. In contrast, petroleum (and coal too) can be transported by trains, trucks, and ships, and is more easily transported overseas.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Any thoughts on this? What if the Soviets stabilize Afghanistan enough to allow for pipelines and other infrastructure to be built, and export Central Asian petroluem and/or natural gas through India or perhaps even a more pro-Soviet Pakistan?
 
One of the reason for the Soviet economical collapse was the collapse of oil prices following the Gulf War of 1991. Oil was exported by Soviet Union in massive amounts and was the main way to obtain the necessary convertible currency to buy things on the global market - while USSR pretended to live in autarky, it wasn't. Since advanced oil-producing equipment could not be exported to the Soviets, their production prices were significantly higher than elsewhere.
 

Cook

Banned
One of the reason for the Soviet economical collapse was the collapse of oil prices following the Gulf War of 1991.

No not really, the Soviet Union was already a busted flush well before Saddam drove his tanks into Kuwait to trigger a very temporary spike in the world price for crude oil.

oil-prices1.jpg


The real problem was simply that the Soviet military had spent the nation into bankruptcy; the military controlled its own industries and was exempt from both civil oversight and attempts at cost cutting. Officially, Soviet military spending during the 1980s was around 15% of GDP, but in reality it was considerably more, and the civil government had no idea exactly how large; Gorbachev's advisor Alexander Yakovlev says that the military were deliberately deceiving the Central Committee as to exactly how much of the national economy was devoted entirely to the military, and that in his opinion it was 70% of the entire economy. By comparison, US military spending was around 6% of GDP for most of the 1980s and the rest of NATO averaged around 4.5% of DGP.
 
Last edited:
Of course they were, but much of that was in the form of heavily subsidized sales to Eastern European nations and other allied and friendly nations.
Subsidized? Czechoslovakia for example invested shitload of money in Soviet oil industry in 50-ties or 60-ties as a part of deal to get prices they got.
 

All true but just the same, oil was the largest source of international currency reserves. It wasnt the gulf war in 91 that did them in. It was the steady decline in oil prices from their peak in 1981ish that did them in. Also, they had old technology and were running their wells very, very inefficiently.

So, in short, the primary driver of their economy declined substantially in price while they continued to spend a ton on the military. Rather bad combo.

To the OP, the Soviets could always sell oil on the open market at prevailing prices. China and India, to name two, would have been eager purchasers. But the biggest issue is they would need money for infrastructure projects, particularly ones that crossed borders. And they were running short on dollars as the price of oil declined.
 

Delta Force

Banned
What if the Middle Eastern crises of the 1970s and 1980s had been worse, leading to a reduction in petroleum exports from the region instead of simply a move towards a greater share for Saudi Arabia? Could the Soviet Union pick up the shortfall? What would a sudden infusion of energy revenues do for the Soviets?
 
What if the Middle Eastern crises of the 1970s and 1980s had been worse, leading to a reduction in petroleum exports from the region instead of simply a move towards a greater share for Saudi Arabia? Could the Soviet Union pick up the shortfall? What would a sudden infusion of energy revenues do for the Soviets?

In the long run it makes the economic malaise worse. Putting off reform killed the USSR. Oil money would prolong the regime at the expense of a greater crisis during the next collapse in oil prices.
 

Delta Force

Banned
In the long run it makes the economic malaise worse. Putting off reform killed the USSR. Oil money would prolong the regime at the expense of a greater crisis during the next collapse in oil prices.

On the other hand, it could reduce tensions between Western Europe and Japan and the Soviet Union. It could potentially butterfly the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, if you assume that it was partially an attempt to gain access to the Indian Ocean.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Not to mention the environmental cost.

There would probably be less petroleum consumption than what happened historically if the Middle East situation deteriorated enough for the Soviets to gain market share. It could lead to issues if the Soviets bring new fields online though.
 
Top