NationStates Jolt Archive

It appears that with the price of crude Oil continuing to rise due to various factors, including tensions in the Middle East, inflation and the volatile nature of global markets, and the whims of Middle Eastern leaders and businessmen, there may, in Britain, be a repeat of the fuel price protests that caused chaos in that country in 2000. The Farmers (whose fuel expenses are subsidised), the Truckers (who have had many concessions made after the first strikes of almost 4 years ago) and the general motorist (who is probably just out for cheaper fuel for the hell of it) might once again bring the country to a standstill, with repercussions to be felt throughout Europe and possibly elsewhere.

Given that the price of fuel, in real terms, is now cheaper than it was in the 1960s or 70s (and there were no such protests then), it seems a little callous of some people to try to stir up the resentments of 2000, it also seems strange that the Tories are apparently attempting to attach themselves to this 'noble cause' without making any promises as to what they would do if they were in charge (as usual). But aside from the domestic issues, doesn't it seem that we in the West rely a little too much on the Oil-rich Middle East, whose leaders we call corrupt, whose people we call fundamentalist and primitive, whose ideologies we seek to replace with our own liberal free-market democracy? Do we rely on them or do they rely on us, or both? Why should issues in the Middle East be allowed to threaten the status of a Prime Minister in the UK (Gulf War III aside) without his direct interference in it, and what long-term effects will George W Bush's status as an 'Oilman' have on relationships between Western states and the likes of Saudi Arabia? Any thoughts?

As far as I'm concerned once I go off to college I'll just bike my way around everywhere to save gasoline and oil . . . . WE NEED ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES NOW!!!!

Doesn't it seem that we in the West rely a little too much on the Oil-rich Middle East, whose leaders we call corrupt, whose people we call fundamentalist and primitive, whose ideologies we seek to replace with our own liberal free-market democracy?
We do all those things, and yet we in the industrialised world remain a prisoner of our hunger for oil. Thus in spite of the criticisms we make, in some cases rightly so, we must deal.

Do we rely on them or do they rely on us, or both?
Both. Without oil, the industrialised world is little better than the third world. We need it for transportation, for chemical feedstocks, and to fuel our militaries. Our ascendancy is inextricably linked to our increasing use of oil. Without an extremely stable, high volume supply at a reasonable price, industrial civilisation is fatally wounded.

On the other hand, oil is the only significant source of foreign cash many of the Middle East supplier countries have. If they had no oil to sell, their export economies would probably be tiny and centred on agriculture. Thus it is a symbiotic relationship.

Why should issues in the Middle East be allowed to threaten the status of a Prime Minister in the UK (Gulf War III aside) without his direct interference in it?
Because that's life. Globalisation cuts both ways. The world order we have set up needs that oil, needs the compliance of the countries which are significant producers of oil. Globalisation has given us untold wealth and trade opportunities, but also exposes us to new risks. One cannot have one without the other. If we wish to enjoy the vast benefits of trade with the Middle East, we must be prepared to accept enormous costs.

What long-term effects will George W Bush's status as an 'Oilman' have on relationships between Western states and the likes of Saudi Arabia?
I think he has dangerously undermined the relationship between the West and the Middle East. The oil trade is, let's face it, a pact with the devil. The price of having this irreplacable commodity is dealing with those nations. Having Bush bringing the deal into question is not something the world needs.

It works both ways. We need the oil to power our economy, and they need the money to live. I think, however, we need energy independence. Of course, you probably know of my hypothesis if oil becomes irrelevant. It'll lead to barbarism, which I explain in another thread. However, the Middle East will probably have the same results if they run out of oil. I think, however, that an alternate energy source would be better for Asia and the West because then we have a very good chance at fighting them, while still maintaining our economies.

It works both ways. We need the oil to power our economy, and they need the money to live. I think, however, we need energy independence. Of course, you probably know of my hypothesis if oil becomes irrelevant. It'll lead to barbarism, which I explain in another thread. However, the Middle East will probably have the same results if they run out of oil. I think, however, that an alternate energy source would be better for Asia and the West because then we have a very good chance at fighting them, while still maintaining our economies.
That goes without saying. If a genuine oil replacement comes along, they are screwed, while the West is saved. If it does not come along, with the depletion of oil, both the West and the Middle East will decline and fall in tandem. So the energy independence thing is a pressing concern. However, it has been debated in the US since the 1973 Crisis, and it is far more dependent on oil today than it was then.

It works both ways. We need the oil to power our economy, and they need the money to live. I think, however, we need energy independence. Of course, you probably know of my hypothesis if oil becomes irrelevant. It'll lead to barbarism, which I explain in another thread. However, the Middle East will probably have the same results if they run out of oil. I think, however, that an alternate energy source would be better for Asia and the West because then we have a very good chance at fighting them, while still maintaining our economies.
That goes without saying. If a genuine oil replacement comes along, they are screwed, while the West is saved. If it does not come along, with the depletion of oil, both the West and the Middle East will decline and fall in tandem. So the energy independence thing is a pressing concern. However, it has been debated in the US since the 1973 Crisis, and it is far more dependent on oil today than it was then.
I do realise that. Thankfully, it's slightly cheaper than in the seventies, but that won't happen forever. I'm sure you see that the current surge in prices is due to short supplies.

However, I'm not worried too much if oil really does deplete. For one, I could care less if I die. And two, I know what'll happen. The public will be scared in to conserving what oil is left, and the West and Asia will be fine. In the mean time, one of the Western governments--probably a coalition of them--will bring physicists, biologists, and whoever else can help together to somewhere that relies on wind, solar, or geothermal power. I'm a firm believer that if something like a Manhattan Project for energy happened, then a viable, economical source of fusion could be developed in a few years. So the West will be in an oil crisis for maybe ten to fifteen years, but then it'll emerge out of it. But I know you don't see human nature that way.

I'm a firm believer that if something like a Manhattan Project for energy happened, then a viable, economical source of fusion could be developed in a few years. So the West will be in an oil crisis for maybe ten to fifteen years, but then it'll emerge out of it. But I know you don't see human nature that way.
That's exactly what Matthew Simmons (he was on Cheney's Energy Task Force thingy, and is an advisor to Bush), who is predicting Saudi Arabia's oil output to fall 30% 5 years from now, is calling for. The mother of all energy system reconstruction projects. But as you have pointed out, the way to achieve this is government leadership. The private sector simply cannot work together on that scale for that length of time. So far, with a couple of exceptions, there are few signs of any government being willing to dedicate itself to something this ambitious.

And yes, the oil price surge is basically from Saudi Arabia operating at full capacity and record low inventories in the US. They say they have cut output recently, but really they have hit capacity limits again, like last year. No-one in the Middle East takes the cuts seriously, they all agree to them in principle, but need the money too much.

I'm a firm believer that if something like a Manhattan Project for energy happened, then a viable, economical source of fusion could be developed in a few years. So the West will be in an oil crisis for maybe ten to fifteen years, but then it'll emerge out of it. But I know you don't see human nature that way.
That's exactly what Matthew Simmons (he was on Cheney's Energy Task Force thingy, and is an advisor to Bush), who is predicting Saudi Arabia's oil output to fall 30% 5 years from now, is calling for. The mother of all energy system reconstruction projects. But as you have pointed out, the way to achieve this is government leadership. The private sector simply cannot work together on that scale for that length of time. So far, with a couple of exceptions, there are few signs of any government being willing to dedicate itself to something this ambitious.

And yes, the oil price surge is basically from Saudi Arabia operating at full capacity and record low inventories in the US. They say they have cut output recently, but really they have hit capacity limits again, like last year. No-one in the Middle East takes the cuts seriously, they all agree to them in principle, but need the money too much.
Such a project will certainly come if their is urgency for it. Right now, the threat isn't clear and present. But it soon may be just that way.
Now I'm not sure if this describes you or not, but most believe that governments are heartless enough that they'll do nothing as long as the politicians themselves have enough energy. I don't. I believe that at the very least, the governments of Western nations want to keep their civilizations alive. Such an event will certainly happen. The thing we don't know is when it will happen: tommarow, a few years from now, or when the world has actually run out of oil, but it will happen.
However, I'm sorta wondering if such an event is necessary. The private sector has plowed ahead with alternative energy research in the past few years, and new wind mills and solar panels are going up faster than ever. And besides, heard of sonofusion? There's a lab in California that claims a cheap, viable test reactor of this stuff can be built by decade's end. Could you please tell me that I'm wrong, since this may be a false hope? Of course, it'd be better if you said that such an event is a possibility.

Now, back to governments. When describing Mr. Simmons as Bush's advisor, you used past tense. It indicated that he's still an advisor, and contrary to what some people like to think, not a completely greedy, oil-guzzling ass. Besides, in the energy field, he's done better than Clinton. At least Bush is addressing certain energy problems, and funding them as well. Clinton relied on the strategy of trying to negotiate with OPEC for lower prices. Bush has done far better, and may continue the track record if reelected. Frankly, however, I'm not sure what Kerry's energy plan is, or even if he has one.

I will have to look up the new fusion thing and see how likely it is this time around.

You say that governments will surely not stand by and watch the civilisation they are tasked with maintaining collapse. Of course they would not want to see such a disaster come to pass. But I worry that if they wait for the clearest signals to manifest themselves, until the onset of physical shortage, they will have left it too late. Better act early, I think, than too late. And every passing year without a unified policy is a year spent just cruising along.

I agree, Bush does seem to have consulted the right people, and is obviously looking at the options. In contrast, it appears that Kerry has no energy policy. But the danger with someone like Bush is that he would pursue the wrong energy policy. Conquest of remaining oil resources, rather than total commitment to alternatives. So far, his endorsement of alternative energy research has fallen well short of the magnitude of his military efforts in that direction, if a comparison were to be made.

I will have to look up the new fusion thing and see how likely it is this time around.

You say that governments will surely not stand by and watch the civilisation they are tasked with maintaining collapse. Of course they would not want to see such a disaster come to pass. But I worry that if they wait for the clearest signals to manifest themselves, until the onset of physical shortage, they will have left it too late. Better act early, I think, than too late. And every passing year without a unified policy is a year spent just cruising along.

I agree, Bush does seem to have consulted the right people, and is obviously looking at the options. In contrast, it appears that Kerry has no energy policy. But the danger with someone like Bush is that he would pursue the wrong energy policy. Conquest of remaining oil resources, rather than total commitment to alternatives. So far, his endorsement of alternative energy research has fallen well short of the magnitude of his military efforts in that direction, if a comparison were to be made.
Have the physicists spirited away to Iceland or something. They rely on geothermal power, no?
Bush hasn't given funding to alternative fuels as much as is needed. However, it is better than any president before him. As journalist Ken Silverstein notes, Bush helped engineer a revival of nuclear fission in this country, and as I've noted, work on new reactors is starting. Of course, for someone like me, it's still open to debate whether or not his administration has funded oil based initiatives as much, through the military at least. But really, I fail to see how it can hurt to find a few new billion barrels of oil. And if Iraq does become the next Saudi Arabia, what's wrong with that? Research on alternative energy sources will still advance in labs and universities, regardless of how much oil there is. And most physicists agree that a hot fusion reactor can work by 2050. I'm sure that you may even think that oil may not run out by that time, even if it is extremely expensive.

In 2050, the world will be producing oil at a quarter of the rate at which it is producing it today, and falling. In addition, production globally will be limited to less than half a dozen countries in the Middle East Gulf. The price can only be guessed at. By that stage, we will be using it for chemicals only, not fuel.

Iraq's potential for new discoveries is pretty limited. Indeed, many of the existing fields there have been permanently damaged by gas production, which has lowered reservoir pressure and hence maximum achieable flow rates and the ultimately recoverable resource. It will be a case of making up for what has been lost, I think.

the 5th option should be, "Nuke their ass, take their gas"

Let Israel loose, let them kick the crap out of the Arabs, purchase oil from the Western-friendly Israeli Empire.

Let Israel loose, let them kick the crap out of the Arabs, purchase oil from the Western-friendly Israeli Empire.

That's nice. It's interesting that you feel that way. Being a Christian and a humanist, however, I must respectfully state that you're a bloody looney and I hope to God that nobody that thinks like you ever gets into office.

Okaaay . . . enter n00bs who know f*ck-all about energy resource politics . . . :roll:

Let Israel loose, let them kick the crap out of the Arabs, purchase oil from the Western-friendly Israeli Empire.

That's nice. It's interesting that you feel that way. Being a Christian and a humanist, however, I must respectfully state that you're a bloody looney and I hope to God that nobody that thinks like you ever gets into office.
Well, as a history major and Israel sympathizer, the Arab nations would have it coming to them. They've tried to destroy Israel by surprise with no declaration of war twice now, and both times they've been beaten. If Israel were to return the favor, I really don't think they'd be able to do much about it. Sure, there would be heavy resistance, but considering the relative efficiency of the Israeli government, especially if they were given sudden oil revenues, I could see living conditions in middle eastern nations improving significantly and relatively quickly, perhaps offsetting their hatred of the jews.

Let Israel loose, let them kick the crap out of the Arabs, purchase oil from the Western-friendly Israeli Empire.

That's nice. It's interesting that you feel that way. Being a Christian and a humanist, however, I must respectfully state that you're a bloody looney and I hope to God that nobody that thinks like you ever gets into office.
Well, as a history major and Israel sympathizer, the Arab nations would have it coming to them. They've tried to destroy Israel by surprise with no declaration of war twice now, and both times they've been beaten. If Israel were to return the favor, I really don't think they'd be able to do much about it. Sure, there would be heavy resistance, but considering the relative efficiency of the Israeli government, especially if they were given sudden oil revenues, I could see living conditions in middle eastern nations improving significantly and relatively quickly, perhaps offsetting their hatred of the jews.

As the living conditions in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip have improved? Please, as a history major you should know that. And in case you didn't notice, the United States is already encountering solidifying resistance in Iraq, a nation whose citizens started out mostly sympathetic to us and which has enjoyed some substantial material gains from our occupation. How much worse would it be elsewhere? I think you need to switch majors ;-)

Whether they "have it coming to them" or not is irrelevant. Whether they'd be able to do much about it (they wouldn't) is also irrelevant. Revenge is a tool for barbarians and fascists.

I would also point out that the Arab nations have remained mostly quiescent. There is no acceptable reason for war at this time.

The Palestinians believe there is hope for their independence. When your nation is invaded, your army is routed, your resources are taken, and you are told you are part of an Empire now, it generally takes a while to recover the spirit needed to resist, especially if your lives improve. Look at the areas Rome and Britain ruled for hundreds of years.

We're encountering unhappy fundamentalists in Iraq, the same people Hussein dealt with himself, they did hate him you know. Once they die off, or once the people learn to reject their message, things will quiet down. Their citizens are still sympathetic by the way, maybe you should do some more reading beyond michaelmoore.com?

Revenge makes the world go round. Without petty, violent, unhappy people, things don't happen. Look at the U.S., petty, unhappy, loud instead of violent politicians, and nothing chances. If they started killing eachother off, we'd be better off.

You mistake my opinion for blind patriotism, it's actually studied cynicism. I've looked at enough history to have very little faith in humanity and government, and generally cheer wars as something for me to study and analyze at a later date.

The Palestinians believe there is hope for their independence. When your nation is invaded, your army is routed, your resources are taken, and you are told you are part of an Empire now, it generally takes a while to recover the spirit needed to resist, especially if your lives improve. Look at the areas Rome and Britain ruled for hundreds of years.

The Roman areas were much less stable than is frequently believed or reported in textbooks deriving in whole or in part from Gibbon's Rise and Fall, particularly in Britannia, Hispania, Iudea, and Germania. I'd also point out that the Romans made many of their territorial gains via diplomatic infiltration- see the Iudean area.

We're encountering unhappy fundamentalists in Iraq, the same people Hussein dealt with himself, they did hate him you know. Once they die off, or once the people learn to reject their message, things will quiet down. Their citizens are still sympathetic by the way, maybe you should do some more reading beyond michaelmoore.com?

I have been to michaelmoore.com twice in my life. Once to read his response to a rebuttal of his film Bowling for Columbine, which I have never seen, and once when it was hacked by his ideological opponents. I read from the AP Wire and Reuters, the BBC, WorldNetDaily, the Washington Post, Newsmax, the Weekly Standard, and other sources. You can stop speculating groundlessly about where I get my information from, thank you very much.

You also groundlessly oversimplify the makeup of the resistance forces in Iraq. Not only are we dealing with the fundamentalist Shiite majority, but we are also encountering resistance from Sunnis, Sunni secularists and Ba'athists. The opposition is intensifying, and positive impressions of Americans are declining, even amongst those who came out of the war with a favorable impression of us.

Revenge makes the world go round. Without petty, violent, unhappy people, things don't happen. Look at the U.S., petty, unhappy, loud instead of violent politicians, and nothing chances. If they started killing eachother off, we'd be better off.

We may not be changing quickly enough to suit your tastes, but this nation has seen many changes over the last forty years. Ask yourself what this nation was like during the 1960s and what it's like today; the changes should astound you. You may not like it, but we've changed, and managed not to have mass killings while we were at it.

You mistake my opinion for blind patriotism, it's actually studied cynicism. I've looked at enough history to have very little faith in humanity and government, and generally cheer wars as something for me to study and analyze at a later date.

I mistake your opinion for no such thing; I consciously ignored your statement that you are an Israel sympathizer because I felt it was mostly irrelevant. I did not even know until this post that you lived in America. I responded to your post on the basis of what you said, not on the basis of your nationality.

I'm not oversimplifying. People are simply creatures. Again, most of them are petty, unhappy, and violent. This applies all over the world. When the U.S. turns control of Iraq over to the locals, they'll be just as violent, except this time fellow Iraqis will feel their wrath a little more than they are now. The opposition is no worse than it was immediately following the war, or a month ago, it is a constant nuissance, but only that.

The 1960's saw plenty of petty violence, I recall civil rights activists being beaten by mobs of racists and segregationists.

I'm not buying your last statement, purely because i'm paranoid and this forum leans towards the anti-U.S. perspective.

I'm not oversimplifying. People are simply creatures. Again, most of them are petty, unhappy, and violent. This applies all over the world. When the U.S. turns control of Iraq over to the locals, they'll be just as violent, except this time fellow Iraqis will feel their wrath a little more than they are now. The opposition is no worse than it was immediately following the war, or a month ago, it is a constant nuissance, but only that.

Are you blind or just forgetful? More Americans died in April than died in the entire first month of the war. They have more weapons, more support, more recruits, better training, better tactics. While certainly Iraq is no Vietnam at this point, the fact of the matter is that things are getting worse, and the United States is losing a diplomatic war it cannot afford to lose.

While your misanthropism may be comfortable, I would point out that the majority of Iraqis have not joined the resistance, that the majority of people commit no violent crimes, and that anti-war fervor is at its strongest globally since after World War I. While we have had many wars, most people have not taken part in them, and most people don't commit acts of violence. I find your lack of faith in humanity alluring but ultimately groundless.

The 1960's saw plenty of petty violence, I recall civil rights activists being beaten by mobs of racists and segregationists.

Yes, and their refusal to strike back aided their cause immeasurably. They gained more through peace than their opponents did through violence. I would also point out that there really is no equivalent to the 1960s riots in America now; demonstrations, as a whole, are greeted peacefully, even when the community does not welcome them.

I'm not buying your last statement, purely because i'm paranoid and this forum leans towards the anti-U.S. perspective.

Then the fault lies with you and not with me. It would be difficult for me to be a U.S. citizen and be anti-U.S., though I must confess I see that many people are indeed capable of sharing those two states.

Most people are violent, but their fear of the consequences of that violence keep them from acting on impulses of that nature.

There are also more Americans in the country than there were during the entire first month of the war, counting both soldiers and civilians. Greater numbers means a higher occurence of violence.

Global anti-war rhetoric is merely masked anti-U.S. rhetoric. You don't see millions of people worldwide gathering to protest the slaughter in South Africa, France's military actions in Africa, or Russia's continued fight against rebels in Chechnya, do you? Sure, some do, but not in the sheer numbers that come out in protest of U.S. actions.

The rest of the world, Europe especially, doesn't like anything we do, that's just the state of things. If we were to switch gears and support their agenda, they'd yell at us for not supporting them enough. We're the most powerful country in the world, so no matter how wonderful we are in reality, in the eyes of the masses, we're just a big target for blame.

In 2050, the world will be producing oil at a quarter of the rate at which it is producing it today, and falling. In addition, production globally will be limited to less than half a dozen countries in the Middle East Gulf. The price can only be guessed at. By that stage, we will be using it for chemicals only, not fuel.
So, you do see life after an oil shortage? And the world will produce a quarter of today's oil? I was actually expecting you to say that it'd be even lower.

Iraq's potential for new discoveries is pretty limited. Indeed, many of the existing fields there have been permanently damaged by gas production, which has lowered reservoir pressure and hence maximum achieable flow rates and the ultimately recoverable resource. It will be a case of making up for what has been lost, I think.
I have a little trouble following, but I think you're saying that Iraq's fields are damaged by overproduction, am I right? I'm not saying that was the reason for the war, I'm just saying speculating if finding large oil fields there is a possibility.
I've never heard, however, your take on Russia. Russia's oil sector has grown tremendously in the past decade, and I think they produce more than Saudi Arabia (though they use a greater percentage for themselves). What's your take on Russian oilfields? Might more be discovered? I've heard from quite a few places that if large oil fields are ever found, it's likely to be in Russia.

So, you do see life after an oil shortage? And the world will produce a quarter of today's oil? I was actually expecting you to say that it'd be even lower.
I am not sure how much cause for optimism there is. Irrespective of any replacement energy systems, the world's oil production will fall by a factor of 4 between now and 2050, in an exponential manner. Every step of the way, we will have to make up for that loss of energy, initially I suspect, through monstrous demand destruction and increased efficiency. But we will very quickly need something new in order for industrial civilisation to survive. That's one hell of a responsibility to face up to.

I have a little trouble following, but I think you're saying that Iraq's fields are damaged by overproduction, am I right? I'm not saying that was the reason for the war, I'm just saying speculating if finding large oil fields there is a possibility.
It's a possibility, but even in ideal circumstances, the exploration to start of production cycle takes a decade. With everything that's happening, any significant increase in Iraqi oil production will come too late to make much of a difference. And if Iraq ends up being a source of wider instability in the region, we lose out big time.

I've never heard, however, your take on Russia. Russia's oil sector has grown tremendously in the past decade, and I think they produce more than Saudi Arabia (though they use a greater percentage for themselves). What's your take on Russian oilfields? Might more be discovered? I've heard from quite a few places that if large oil fields are ever found, it's likely to be in Russia.
Russia has been thoroughly explored. The communists were not limited in their initial phases of exploration by economic considerations, such as the sensitivity of investors to risk. They drilled everything systematically from the beginning, even the high-risk (of zero return) areas. It is pretty unlikely that there are more large oil fields to be found. The one promising area, the Caspian Sea, has turned out to be a disappointment.

The Former Soviet Union is now the world's #1 oil producer. However, this is mainly a result of long overdue maintenance, and not an expanded resource base. The production peak reached in 1988 will not be exceeded. And as the Russian economy continues to recover, it will use a larger share of its production. As things stand, the gains in FSU production have barely offset non-OPEC non-FSU decline. Those gains will be swallowed up within Russia in the event of a sustained economic recovery. The message from analysts is definitely not to rely on Russia for anything but a short-term fix.

So, you do see life after an oil shortage? And the world will produce a quarter of today's oil? I was actually expecting you to say that it'd be even lower.
I am not sure how much cause for optimism there is. Irrespective of any replacement energy systems, the world's oil production will fall by a factor of 4 between now and 2050, in an exponential manner. Every step of the way, we will have to make up for that loss of energy, initially I suspect, through monstrous demand destruction and increased efficiency. But we will very quickly need something new in order for industrial civilisation to survive. That's one hell of a responsibility to face up to.

I have a little trouble following, but I think you're saying that Iraq's fields are damaged by overproduction, am I right? I'm not saying that was the reason for the war, I'm just saying speculating if finding large oil fields there is a possibility.
It's a possibility, but even in ideal circumstances, the exploration to start of production cycle takes a decade. With everything that's happening, any significant increase in Iraqi oil production will come too late to make much of a difference. And if Iraq ends up being a source of wider instability in the region, we lose out big time.

I've never heard, however, your take on Russia. Russia's oil sector has grown tremendously in the past decade, and I think they produce more than Saudi Arabia (though they use a greater percentage for themselves). What's your take on Russian oilfields? Might more be discovered? I've heard from quite a few places that if large oil fields are ever found, it's likely to be in Russia.
Russia has been thoroughly explored. The communists were not limited in their initial phases of exploration by economic considerations, such as the sensitivity of investors to risk. They drilled everything systematically from the beginning, even the high-risk (of zero return) areas. It is pretty unlikely that there are more large oil fields to be found. The one promising area, the Caspian Sea, has turned out to be a disappointment.

The Former Soviet Union is now the world's #1 oil producer. However, this is mainly a result of long overdue maintenance, and not an expanded resource base. The production peak reached in 1988 will not be exceeded. And as the Russian economy continues to recover, it will use a larger share of its production. As things stand, the gains in FSU production have barely offset non-OPEC non-FSU decline. Those gains will be swallowed up within Russia in the event of a sustained economic recovery. The message from analysts is definitely not to rely on Russia for anything but a short-term fix.
As always, TG, you never fail to ruin my day. But I feel it's a safe bet that, should something like this happen, then there'd be a scramble for a new energy resources, and maybe a little something like the Manhattan project for a new resource, while our governments force us to conserve like hell. But I've talked with you about this countless times.

Let's go on to your points. Iraq will be tough to search in, well I'll give that a maybe. There's a probability of a lot of things happening in Iraq. But a nice, stable country is still possible. I personally feel that the current situation will iron itself out, and maybe even this insurgency will die down. It's not extremely large to begin with, and there's a good chance of it not sustaining popular support. In any case, I don't think it'll really hinder Iraq's ability to pump from existing wells too much.
Now, as for Russia. The country may have been searched, yes. Sakhalin Island, however, seems like a popular new place to drill, with oil and natural gas reserves abound. It may not be overly large, but it gives us reason to hope. As for the rest of the FSU, there's a chance of recovering more resources. Take, for example, Central Asia. Kazhakstan is just developing its resource base. Turkmenistan may have oodles of oil and natural gas, though to be honest, no one knows: that Turkmenbashi figure isn't too interested in resource exploitation, it seems. I wouldn't exactly bet on anything in the way of providing oil reserves (as I'm not the expert in the field, you are), but I'd personally say that all hope shouldn't be lost for finding anything in the FSU.

I have to go and eat, so I will get back to you on this, but I will say that Central Asia as a whole is natural gas country. There is relatively little oil there, the geology is for the most part wrong.

I have to go and eat, so I will get back to you on this, but I will say that Central Asia as a whole is natural gas country. There is relatively little oil there, the geology is for the most part wrong.
I need, as well. It's getting late here. Nice talking to you, though, and feel free to respond. Ciao!

Most people are violent, but their fear of the consequences of that violence keep them from acting on impulses of that nature.

There are also more Americans in the country than there were during the entire first month of the war, counting both soldiers and civilians. Greater numbers means a higher occurence of violence.

Global anti-war rhetoric is merely masked anti-U.S. rhetoric. You don't see millions of people worldwide gathering to protest the slaughter in South Africa, France's military actions in Africa, or Russia's continued fight against rebels in Chechnya, do you? Sure, some do, but not in the sheer numbers that come out in protest of U.S. actions.

The rest of the world, Europe especially, doesn't like anything we do, that's just the state of things. If we were to switch gears and support their agenda, they'd yell at us for not supporting them enough. We're the most powerful country in the world, so no matter how wonderful we are in reality, in the eyes of the masses, we're just a big target for blame.

A superpower with a victim complex is a very dangerous thing in my mind, most wars seem to be started by people who claim to be acting out of defence. Sometimes this is true, yet I find the antithetical nature of such a position a little tricky. Anyway that's all waffle, except perhaps the 1st line.

Perhaps if conflicts such as Chechnya and Kashmir received the kind of media coverage that has been the case with Iraq your comparison would bear more weight. As it is a lot of people have probably never even heard of some of these places, let alone know what's going on over there.

Your argument that greater numbers generally equate with a higher rate of casualties ignores the reason why greater numbers of troops were necessary - the deterioration of the security situation in Iraq. To argue that the attacks are of no major signifiance runs in contravention with the facts that they make for an instable political climate, undermine Iraqi and Middle Eastern confidence in the coalition, hamper rebuilding, construction adn the re-establishment of vital infrastructure and provide a flashpoint the basis of which is being used as a recruiting ground for terrorism.

Admittedly there are some whose prejudices against the U.S lie so deep that they will not be effect by rational arguments and dialogue, but to tar any criticisms the world might make towards the U.S as simply being uneducated anti-Americanism is symptomatic of precisely the kind of blinkered arrogance that leads so many people to dislike the U.S.

It seems that the natural response to those advocating that the U.S can do no right is to argue that it is "wonderful" and can do no wrong. Clearly both arguments are mistaken and the only way a rational discussion concerning the U.S and its foreign policy can be established is through the elimination of both extremes - such as the nationalistic isolationism adopted by yourself.

My arguement is not that the U.S. can do no wrong. My arguement consists of two parts:

A. The U.S. is not the only one doing wrong, and until everyone gets the axe at teh same time, we shouldn't be singled out.

B. Whether we do wrong or right, we will be criticized, because we're the most powerful country in the world, a natural target for criticism. So, in the area of international relations, it doesn't matter what we do. It's like Germany after WW2, no matter what, everything was their fault, and they were never to think in a way that was displeasing again. If the U.S. rolls over and starts licking the U.N.'s boots, they'll just kick us in the face and tell us we're doing it wrong. So, what do we do? Whatever serves us best.

A lot of people don't realise something about oil.

Oil IS a fuel cell. We didn't make it, but we could if we invested the energy to do so. The only problem is that right now we are in a net energy deficeit. We simply consume more energy than our planet absorbs (the only way our planet gains energy is thru solar radiation). So basically we're using the stored energy of previous times which was painstakingly converted over to natures fuel cell, oil.

Lots of things can replace oil, but none of them can be dug up and put into your gas tank at the moment. We have to make other fuel cell sources, and due to the law of thermodynamics any energy resource we create will have a net energy shortfall. Basically we can convert to nuclear, but that only buys us time. The only real way to get out of the energy crunch is to create microwave power transmitters and beam solar power back to earth. As long as we're digging up energy resources we'll always be suceptible to their inevitable downfall and collapse when those finite resources run out. Thus the need to tap the suns solar output, when that runs out we'll have signifigantly more problems than at present.

Either that or find a way to manipulate the 'God' particle.

My arguement is not that the U.S. can do no wrong. My arguement consists of two parts:

A. The U.S. is not the only one doing wrong, and until everyone gets the axe at teh same time, we shouldn't be singled out.

B. Whether we do wrong or right, we will be criticized, because we're the most powerful country in the world, a natural target for criticism. So, in the area of international relations, it doesn't matter what we do. It's like Germany after WW2, no matter what, everything was their fault, and they were never to think in a way that was displeasing again. If the U.S. rolls over and starts licking the U.N.'s boots, they'll just kick us in the face and tell us we're doing it wrong. So, what do we do? Whatever serves us best.

It is true that regardless of how the U.S acts it will be criticised by some, yet that is true of any nation. The power of the U.S exasperates this but does not make it essentially different.

Lets also point out that a significant portion of criticism of the U.S is rational and not based on any power-based anti-Americaism. On the other hand, there are many people openly admire the U.S for its cultural, economy and so on (the Conservative party in Britain for example).

Just because some people are anti-American does not act as an argument that it should do whatever it wants. Firstly I would hope that a nation would aspire to hold itself to a higher set of moral values than basic reciprocation, secondly because the irrational anti-American criticism does not apply to the majority of people, some have legitimate disagreements with American policy and some either admire or are ambivalent about the U.S.

But your "legitimate disagreements" are statements that deny our right to act in our own self interest. We're criticized for removing a dictator in Iraq because we'll benefit from the reconstruction of their oil industry. Who criticizes France and Russia for making illegal deals for oil with said dictator that violated the U.N.'s Food for Oil policy in regards to Iraq? No one who is nearly as loud as the people yelling at the U.S. When a group comes along that hates everyone equally, including themselves, for shady acts, i'll listen, but not till then. Europe does not, and has never, had clean hands. They will not until they act to fix the anarchy they created in the third world with artificial colonial borders and the removal of colonial governments in the 20th Century. They have no right to criticize us, none. Most of the criticism comes from them, so, naturally, we should ignore it until they become the lickspittles to the third world they are demanding we become.

And for The Logarchy:

Not much of a history buff, are we?

What we're seeing in Iraq is nothing compared to the resistance we saw in Germany after WWII. Anyone who collaborated with the allies and gained power because of it was in direct danger of assassination from Gobels' Werwolf.

Do you know what our policy was against individuals in Germany who resisted us? Military tribunal followed by the death penalty. Firing squad. The British had similar policies, but they beheaded their prisoners.

Who spoke out against it then? Underground nazis. Who speaks out against it now? No one. The allies did what they had to do, just as the U.S. must do what it has to do in order to stabilize Iraq. If blood must flow in the streets, then it must.

And for The Logarchy:

Not much of a history buff, are we?

What we're seeing in Iraq is nothing compared to the resistance we saw in Germany after WWII. Anyone who collaborated with the allies and gained power because of it was in direct danger of assassination from Gobels' Werwolf.

Do you know what our policy was against individuals in Germany who resisted us? Military tribunal followed by the death penalty. Firing squad. The British had similar policies, but they beheaded their prisoners.

Who spoke out against it then? Underground nazis. Who speaks out against it now? No one. The allies did what they had to do, just as the U.S. must do what it has to do in order to stabilize Iraq. If blood must flow in the streets, then it must.

But Nazism was not an international movement, Islam is and Islamic terrorism are. The more the U.S are perceived as an imperial power attacking Islam the more opposition and attacks there will be, when you kill and torture indiscriminately not only are you violating the basic human rights of the innocent but by causing my hostility you are failing in the stablisation which you set out to achieve. The comparison to Nazi Germany has no basis whatsoever.

Nations have the right to act in their own interest, but to argue that such a measure should be the only barometer of what is and what is not justified in international affairs is clearly wrong. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait was he acting in the interests of Iraq and thus justified? When Nazi Germany seized the Sudetenland was this okay because Germany benefited from the industry, armaments and lebensraum which were seized - clearly not. Does the economic interests of a country justify foreign intervention, if you answer yes then clearly Hitler did no wrong. Self-interest cannot be the sole determinant of what is justified.

The fact that every country has aspects of their history they are not proud of does not deny them the right to criticise, just as the U.S still has the right to criticise Saddam Hussein for appalling human rights violations despite the fact that until quite recently black people were treated as second class citizens. It is hypocritical not to be aware of your own failings - yes, but they do not invalidate their criticisms of others.

The U.S. only has two options, lick the boots of the U.N., or do as it has done for the past 100 years, act in its own best interest. This practice has worked quite well so far, and resulted in us being the world's first and only hyperpower.

No matter what it does, the U.N. will complain, so, why not act in their own best interest?

Also, it's not as if we only act in our own best interest. We're the largest philanthropists in the world, and provide more humanitarian aid than the second and third largest suppliers of aid combined. The U.N. really has nothing to complain about. We kill dictators, we try to break up the OPEC cartel, we stopped France and Russia's illegal oil deals with Saddam in violation of the Food for Oil program... damn, we're nice.

The Palestinians believe there is hope for their independence. When your nation is invaded, your army is routed, your resources are taken, and you are told you are part of an Empire now, it generally takes a while to recover the spirit needed to resist, especially if your lives improve. Look at the areas Rome and Britain ruled for hundreds of years.
Umm wow, that is one curious statement. Borders on an oxymoron. If your lives improve- why resist???

If your lives improve- why resist???

Nationalism, no one likes to be occupied by a foreign force. Not many cases of it ever working out in the long run either.

Not always true.

When the Turks first took over the Holy Land, the Christians wrote that life was actually better. Far less corruption, more law and order, and they didn't infringe on the Christians from practicing their Religion.

Let's go on to your points. Iraq will be tough to search in, well I'll give that a maybe. There's a probability of a lot of things happening in Iraq. But a nice, stable country is still possible. I personally feel that the current situation will iron itself out, and maybe even this insurgency will die down. It's not extremely large to begin with, and there's a good chance of it not sustaining popular support. In any case, I don't think it'll really hinder Iraq's ability to pump from existing wells too much.
I'm sure its oil production can eventually be brought back up to pre-war levels. But that will take a while, and growing that is likely to prove problematic. It is the most difficult place in the world for the industry to work in right now.

Now, as for Russia. The country may have been searched, yes. Sakhalin Island, however, seems like a popular new place to drill, with oil and natural gas reserves abound. It may not be overly large, but it gives us reason to hope.
It's not that new. It was getting drilled back in the 1970s, and its biggest oil field peaked during the late 1980s, and is down to a small fraction of its former production. There is a lot of activity going on, but they are finishing off the remnants, really. There is not enough left to bring it back to former production levels. That's a pretty common story in Russia, and is one of the reasons why the 1988 peak will not be surpassed.

As for the rest of the FSU, there's a chance of recovering more resources. Take, for example, Central Asia. Kazhakstan is just developing its resource base. Turkmenistan may have oodles of oil and natural gas, though to be honest, no one knows: that Turkmenbashi figure isn't too interested in resource exploitation, it seems. I wouldn't exactly bet on anything in the way of providing oil reserves (as I'm not the expert in the field, you are), but I'd personally say that all hope shouldn't be lost for finding anything in the FSU.
Well, as I said, the geology of the area is such that it's all natural gas. There are no large oil fields there. The only new resources to speak of are in the Caspian. Back in 2001, they were hoping for 200bn barrels, two years later, it turned out there was only 50bn barrels, and most of it was heavily contaminated with sulphur and heavy metals, which requires special refineries and greatly increases the expense of the operation. Latest word seems to be that only 39bn barrels are recoverable. That this is the only major exploration success for two decades says a lot.

Let's go on to your points. Iraq will be tough to search in, well I'll give that a maybe. There's a probability of a lot of things happening in Iraq. But a nice, stable country is still possible. I personally feel that the current situation will iron itself out, and maybe even this insurgency will die down. It's not extremely large to begin with, and there's a good chance of it not sustaining popular support. In any case, I don't think it'll really hinder Iraq's ability to pump from existing wells too much.
I'm sure its oil production can eventually be brought back up to pre-war levels. But that will take a while, and growing that is likely to prove problematic. It is the most difficult place in the world for the industry to work in right now.

Now, as for Russia. The country may have been searched, yes. Sakhalin Island, however, seems like a popular new place to drill, with oil and natural gas reserves abound. It may not be overly large, but it gives us reason to hope.
It's not that new. It was getting drilled back in the 1970s, and its biggest oil field peaked during the late 1980s, and is down to a small fraction of its former production. There is a lot of activity going on, but they are finishing off the remnants, really. There is not enough left to bring it back to former production levels. That's a pretty common story in Russia, and is one of the reasons why the 1988 peak will not be surpassed.

As for the rest of the FSU, there's a chance of recovering more resources. Take, for example, Central Asia. Kazhakstan is just developing its resource base. Turkmenistan may have oodles of oil and natural gas, though to be honest, no one knows: that Turkmenbashi figure isn't too interested in resource exploitation, it seems. I wouldn't exactly bet on anything in the way of providing oil reserves (as I'm not the expert in the field, you are), but I'd personally say that all hope shouldn't be lost for finding anything in the FSU.
Well, as I said, the geology of the area is such that it's all natural gas. There are no large oil fields there. The only new resources to speak of are in the Caspian. Back in 2001, they were hoping for 200bn barrels, two years later, it turned out there was only 50bn barrels, and most of it was heavily contaminated with sulphur and heavy metals, which requires special refineries and greatly increases the expense of the operation. Latest word seems to be that only 39bn barrels are recoverable. That this is the only major exploration success for two decades says a lot.
Oil production was actually past pre-war levels a few months back. Obviously, that's not the case right now, but at least we know it's possible. As for the other points, I won't argue about them with you. You know far more about this stuff than I do. Didn't you say you were an intern for an energy firm?

Didn't you say you were an intern for an energy firm?
Yes, though one dealing with electricity. I am hoping to do more of the same this summer. :D

Well, we could just drill in Alaska, and ignore the stupid enviromentalist who make up facts (http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2002/041802.htm). That would solve alot of problems, you know.

Well, we could just drill in Alaska, and ignore the stupid enviromentalist who make up facts (http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2002/041802.htm). That would solve alot of problems, you know.
No, it will not, as the unexploited resource base there is very small compared to consumption. The incremental increase in production which might result 10 years down the line will be swallowed up by the ongoing decline of aggregate US oil production.

The most sensible thing to do is to research sustainablealternative resources as soon as possible. Oil will one day run out, and if you're prepared for it, then you wouldn't have to wage war against your allies to fight for oil.

Didn't you say you were an intern for an energy firm?
Yes, though one dealing with electricity. I am hoping to do more of the same this summer. :D
Hopefully, if you plan on going into this field, you see an element of job security.

Well, we could just drill in Alaska, and ignore the stupid enviromentalist who make up facts (http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2002/041802.htm). That would solve alot of problems, you know.
No, it will not, as the unexploited resource base there is very small compared to consumption. The incremental increase in production which might result 10 years down the line will be swallowed up by the ongoing decline of aggregate US oil production.
It may not solve anything in the long run, but I see no disadvantage to drilling there. After all, 99.9% of the wildlife reserve won't be touched, as we have the technology to drill sideways.

The most sensible thing to do is to research sustainablealternative resources as soon as possible. Oil will one day run out, and if you're prepared for it, then you wouldn't have to wage war against your allies to fight for oil.
It's been researched for years, and so far, there's no avail. However, in the past few years, alternative energy research has enjoyed a growth not even seen during the seventies. I'm still a skeptic about what Tactical Grace is saying, but I'll give him credit, as he knows what he's talking about. However, it wouldn't be bad if something else was discovered, preferrably something that'd make electricity too cheap to meter. In the past few years, research into that has been accelerating, plus those of the tried-and-true alternatives, like nuclear.