NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a hypothetical situation for you guys to consider. I have my own opinions on this, but I want to know what your opinions are first. The more, the better. If there are enough responses to draw meaningful conclusions, this could be quite an interesting poll.

Suppose there is a nation which was endowed with a given finite quantity of oil or natural gas or a combination of both, and it has been a producer and net exporter of said energy resources for several decades. It has sold or used up somewhere between half and two thirds of the total resource, and since it is finite and past production rates have become unsustainable, it must now plan for the future.

1) Should the nation cease to sell or greatly reduce its sale of those resources on the international market in the interests of conservation for its personal use in the future? Would it be wise to do so?

2) Does it have the right to do so? And should it be allowed to have that right?

3) Do nations in general have any higher responsibility to the world to exploit and sell such resources as rapidly as possible?

4) Does the fact that someone wishes to purchase those resources and has the necessary money or credit, outweigh the wishes of the resource owner if it does not wish to make a sale? In other words, if there is a buyer, does the resource owner have a right to refuse to sell?

When writing your answers, it is best if you numbered your paragraphs for clarity, unless you prefer to write a brief structured essay.

3) Do nations in general have any higher responsibility to the world to exploit and sell such resources as rapidly as possible?


Is "the world" intended to refer to the planet sans people, or to the other peoples/nations of the world?

Very good questions.

1. No, and no. The money can be used to benefit the people in the short run, and over the long run, alternative fuels, such as hydrogen, are being developed.

2. It depends. Normally, Iw ould say yes, but if a 1970s-esque drop in supply occured, then I would say no.

3. No. These resources are certainly not needed for life like water, or food, or anything like that.

4. In a free market system, anyone has the right to refuse making a transaction. So, yes, they do have a right to refuse to sell it. Unless a body they agreed to be part of, ex. UN or WTO, tells them to. In which case, they should either comply or leave.

3) Do nations in general have any higher responsibility to the world to exploit and sell such resources as rapidly as possible?

Is "the world" intended to refer to the planet sans people, or to the other peoples/nations of the world?
I mean the world as the sum of humanity, rather than the environment.

Very good questions.

1. No, and no. The money can be used to benefit the people in the short run, and over the long run, alternative fuels, such as hydrogen, are being developed.

2. It depends. Normally, Iw ould say yes, but if a 1970s-esque drop in supply occured, then I would say no.

3. No. These resources are certainly not needed for life like water, or food, or anything like that.

4. In a free market system, anyone has the right to refuse making a transaction. So, yes, they do have a right to refuse to sell it. Unless a body they agreed to be part of, ex. UN or WTO, tells them to. In which case, they should either comply or leave.
I just have to say, the "hydrogen economy" is a load of bullshit. Without the very extensive use of nuclear power, it's just not economically feasible (though even then, it's much more expensive than oil). However, since the very people in the USA that constantly push for hydrogen power are the same ones who oppose clean, highly efficient nuclear power, it's not going to be the USA that first develops large-scale infrastructure to support a hydrogen economy. I'd guess that it'll probably be (energy-resource poor) Japan or France, possibly Germany, though the morons in their government are killing their nuclear power programs. This all stems from the fact that hydrogen isn't an energy SOURCE at all, it can be used as a medium through which energy can be generated. However, it must first be broken from the elements to which it has bonded, as free hydrogen doesn't exist in large quantities on Earth. When factoring in inefficiencies, it takes much more energy to extract hydrogen than can be gained by combining it with O2.


1) Should the nation cease to sell or greatly reduce its sale of those resources on the international market in the interests of conservation for its personal use in the future? Would it be wise to do so?

2) Does it have the right to do so? And should it be allowed to have that right?

3) Do nations in general have any higher responsibility to the world to exploit and sell such resources as rapidly as possible?

4) Does the fact that someone wishes to purchase those resources and has the necessary money or credit, outweigh the wishes of the resource owner if it does not wish to make a sale? In other words, if there is a buyer, does the resource owner have a right to refuse to sell?

1) It would depend on how economically important to the hypothetical nation oil exports were.
2) Yes, and yes. A nation's only inherent 'right' is its physical ability to do something.
3) A nation's first duty is to itself, no one else.
4) It doesn't matter what the buyers wish, the owners of the oil can do with it what they damned well please. If the rest of the world doesn't like it, they have to do something drastic about it, if they are even able to.

BUMP. :)

Another BUMP. :)

1) If the naton will need those resources for its own use, and it does not know if it will be able to find more then yes, if it wishes, it should take them off the world market. In my opinion it may not be advisable to do so if it is the countries main source of income, as is often the case, until a different source could be found.

2) Most certainly it does, in any international free market if someone does not wish to sell a product they produce they should not feel constrained to do so, however it could have very bad effects so far as diplomatic relations if they do not.

3) Not as such no, many nations can find other resources, etc. If a nation does not wish to exploit its resources it should not be constrained to, it is then up to the nation that wants the resources to decide what to do next. I am well award that this tends to be steal them.

4) If the owner of the resources does not wish to sell them it is their own choice and theirs alone, however if they do not wish to use them it is a little bit 'stupid' if they do not.

You put too many rules down there Tex. Of course it has the right not to sell its oil if it wishes. But the people in the country without oil will also feel they have to right to survive and invade.

BUMPed by a week of rising oil prices. :D