Conclusion
The oil industry can no longer rely on its monopoly of the transport market. The vehicle industry is replacing oil with more efficient vehicles, and biofuels are replacing oil products as liquid fuels. This is driven both by the increase in oil prices since 2005, and by government policies limiting carbon emissions. Since 2011 all major importing countries have adopted strong policies on carbon emissions and vehicle efficiency. These secure markets for efficient automobiles, rather than for oil. As current policies are unlikely to achieve their aims, it is probable that stronger policies will be introduced. The result will be to flatten and reverse growth in the use of petroleum in transport in developed countries, and slow its growth in developing countries.
The major private-sector oil companies have a legacy of refineries and distribution networks in the ‘no-growth’ markets. Companies will not invest in modernizing them for a short and uncertain future except where there are strong continuing circumstances. Refineries will close, brands will disappear, and more products will be imported. Governments will be less able to rely on major international companies to secure supplies. The traditional model of integrated oil companies cannot easily be recycled into downstream markets which are more and more being broken up by advantages for local resources and the impact of local regulations.
Upstream, ‘peak oil’ is proving a misleading idea. The foreseeable problem is not finite resources but the rate at which these very large resources can be converted into reserves for potential production. Technologies are developing which are creating new reserves of ‘unconventional’ oil, as they have already done for gas. Reserves of oil and gas have both more than doubled since 1980 – faster than the increase in production. These technologies have more places to go: many of them outside the existing oil-exporting countries. These new areas are opening a field of growth for private-sector companies that was not foreseen a few years ago. The companies also still have opportunities for collaboration with state companies, in half the world’s current oil reserves, provided they meet each country’s terms and conditions. Technology is the master key to both sets of opportunities: downstream affiliations are not.
These factors combined lead us to conclude that there is no long-term escalator for oil prices, with demand vulnerable to other industries and supply growing from ‘unconventional’ sources and new areas. There is no clear trend; all depends on investment by competitors for the transport market and on the creation of new reserves. Investment in expanding production by some state companies, where their economies depend on oil exports, is problematic. Their governments may choose to keep oil in the ground to gain time to diversify their economies.
There is scope to expand the use of gas in most parts of the world, but in each country this depends on government policies for power generation, coal, nuclear and renewables, rather than on factors intrinsic to the gas industry. The industry needs to find prices both to expand demand and increase supply. Gas cannot rely on a golden age beginning now.
This report has also considered the industry from outside. For investors who look for growth in value or volume, many private-sector companies seem configured for the last era and not the next; their public strategies look recycled, not renewed. Growth in volume is challenged, especially downstream. Upstream growth of volume or value depends on the terms offered by state companies and the success of new technologies.
Few companies seem to question the arguments for vertical integration. There is a legacy of implied obligations to ‘meet demand’ as in the previous status quo. Choices are emerging within the industry in which some companies become energy conglomerates while some become focused upstream or downstream companies.
The energy security problem has moved to Asia. Asian markets now absorb all the oil the Middle East can supply, and will absorb more. This changes the security of supply problem. For Western countries, the risk is price, not supply. For most Asian countries, continuity of supply is also a risk and there is no international mechanism (similar to the IEA) to manage that risk.
This raises a political question: how far will the US go to defend sea lanes which mainly benefit Asian countries, and will Asian countries seek to provide their own protection, individually or collectively?
Oil and gas is a special industry, but it cannot isolate itself from broader trends which challenge its markets and present new opportunities. All who are in the industry or who deal with it need to share clear thinking and say what they mean to do in this changed future.
In conclusion the results of the research which has detailed consideration of oil and gas terminology on the material of English and Kazakh languages. It has a great interest due to the fact that the studied languages are typologically and genetically different.
The structure of oil and gas industry's term system stands internally organized set of interrelated and interdependent units. Its' specific is shown in the structural and semantic organization and methods of formation. Terminological lexicon of English and Kazakh languages is not uniform. It is divided into two different categories: scientific terminology is always associated with the concept definitions, and professional terminology which has the nomenclature character. Research suggests that terminology is non-uniform in the stylistic relation, namely: scientific terminology finds out a pronounced tendency to a stylistic neutrality that is reflected in a certain selection of word-formation; professional terminology includes both stylistically neutral and the expressional lexical units. It should be noted that certain terms are only expressive as members of all dictionary.
Formation of new terms promotes information transfer which finds the unambiguous contents and expression in different languages. Connection of two ways of term formation - lexical and semantic is observed in the process of term formation when there is a borrowing of foreign language-word of terminological unit and the multicomponent term with concept. Terms of a particular industry or science are formed according to the existing word-formation models, based on the word terminologization of common language, its semantic transformation - narrowing or expansion of meanings, changing of word meanings, borrowing or calquing of term units.
Emergence of foreign-language terms origin is caused by processes of a certain period in society, causing the transitional nondurable phenomena in language which change by other processes of forming and functioning of terms because language is constantly in development. Terminological word formation in oil and gas branch, as a whole, is based on system of common-literary word formation. At the same time, distinctive features are produced in term formation practice which give features autonomous subsystem to term formation.
In general tasks of oil and gas terminologization in English and Kazakh languages include: the formation of cross-industry fund terms used in geology, mining, processing and transportation of oil and gas, the creation of multilingual terminological dictionary on oil and gas, improving the quality of translation of terms and term combination in lexicographical sources.
The direction of research is creation of English-Kazakh, Kazakh-English dictionary of oil and gas terminology. Task of the bilingual dictionary are introduction and distribution of the standard and verified lexicon which will use translators in the future.