There will be many VIP's here in Doha, Qatar this week for the Gas Exporting Countries Forum. Among the countries being represented are Iran, Algeria, Qatar, and Russia. The reason for concern in some quarters is that the parties could emerge from the forum with an implicit, if not explicit, agreement to form a gas cartel:

Industry analysts said the session could result in a decision to form a cartel that would control gas supplies to the West. "If created, such an organization would be dominated by Russia, which is the world's largest reserve holder, producer, exporter, and transiter of gas," the Washington-based Jamestown Foundation said in a report. "As a 'new Saudi Arabia of gas,' Russia could shape a gas cartel's behavior to an extent similar to Saudi Arabia's dominant role in OPEC, though with different methods." The foundation said any gas cartel would not have the same influence over prices as OPEC. Jamestown pointed out that gas supply contracts have usually been long-term.

Russian officials deny that they have any plans to establish a cartel or sign any agreements that result in the creation of a "gas OPEC."

Commentary

I don't have any expertise or deep knowledge in the area of cartels and anti-competitive practices, let alone in anti-trust regulation. My impression is that regulators apply anti-trust laws primarily to companies and industries that, though vital, are not central to national security. Two recent and memorable examples are the trouble that both General Electric and Microsoft ran into with former EU anti-trust commissioner Mario Monti, aka "Super Mario." As readers may recall:

He was vilified in U.S. industry and government circles for blocking the merger of General Electric Co. and Honeywell International Inc. in 2001 after the Justice Department had approved it. And when the European Union directorate he heads ordered Microsoft Corp. to remove a key feature from its Windows operating system, the U.S. antitrust community convulsed again.

But if the industry is an organ of the state, if it provides an organizing principle and the bulk of income for that state, if its existence is a source of national pride and international prestige, and if its customers are states, states that are highly dependent upon the product, then it seems that they are beyond regulation reach of outsiders. I can recall no time when "Super Mario's" visible hand grabbed hold of OPEC. Nor does I sense that his predecessor would considering doing the same to a "gas OPEC."