BS: Its Americas' oil?

Subject: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 12:08 PM

Interesting news today .
It seems that in the early seventies after the Gulf war ,when oil supplies to the West were interupted,America was preparing to attack the Middle Eastern oil producing states, to safeguard the oil supply.
I wonder if Mudcatters think this would have been acceptable behaviour if the embargoe had continued and serious damage done to our economy.
Or could it be classed as terrorism...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 12:22 PM

"...in the early seventies after the Gulf war"?

First Gulf War 1980-88.
Second Gulf War 1996
Third Gulf War 2003 - ?

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 01:09 PM

We've been attacking some of them overtly (see McGrath's post above), and the rest, we've sabotaged covertly. In either case, we've been quite successful in securing "our" oil supply against the heathen hoards.

None of this is new news. It's just that we've been so successfully brainwashed, we don't know about the atrocities our government has been committing in our name for more than one hundred years.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: smallpiper
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 01:39 PM

The 1st gulf war would be the one between Iran and Iraq I believe. And the USA's attack had it hapened would have been criminal IMHO

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Gareth
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 01:39 PM

Mmmm ! I fear the attitude of some Mudcatters would have depended upon which President. Early 70's, was that not Nixon ? Or possibly Ford ?

Answers on a post to this thread !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 01:44 PM

The thing I find most disturbing regarding the industrial world's insatiable appetite for oil is that the supply is finite. We aren't researching alternate power supply and use to the extent we should be, and subsequently we aren't leaving tomorrow's children a helluva lot of hope. We are going to leave them precious little petroleum.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 01:52 PM

They're all guilty, Gareth. Every single one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,Van
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 02:43 PM

Brucie
tomorrows children will have to sort out their own problems - our forebears didn't sort our problems out. It's having to sort out problems that keeps us going - when we can't the chimps or some such will take over.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 03:50 PM

I was wondering if akenaton was thinking of the OPEC price increase in 1970, which was at least presented as being related to Israel/Palestine issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 04:02 PM

Science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle is a thoroughly grounded scientist, and when he lived in Seattle during the late Fifties and early Sixties (before I knew he was even interested in writing science fiction) we had many an interesting discussion while bending our elbows and wetting our noses in the notorious Blue Moon Tavern near Seattle's University District.

Jerry made the comment back then that "when you consider, first, all of the things that are made from petroleum . . ." (he then enumerated a long and surprising list of everyday products and necessities: everything from life-saving pharmaceuticals to the barrels of ball-point pens) ". . . and second, how limited petroleum reserves are—when it's gone, it's gone—and third, all the possible alternatives, it is a crime against the future to burn petroleum simply to provide energy."

I remember the Arab oil embargo back in the early Seventies, sitting in the gas lines and being allowed to purchase no more than a few gallons at a time. U. S. oil resources were simply insufficient to meet the domestic demand. I had a Toyota Corona back then. About 25 mpg. I have a 1999 Toyota Corona now. About 30 mpg. And it only has about 12,000 miles on it. If folks are going to keep running their SUVs, the U. S. must have Middle East oil. In the meantime, I have a friend with a Toyota Prius (hybrid). He fills the tank with an eye-dropper, gets incredible mileage. Neat little car. He loves it! He can drive five to eight times as far on a gallon of gas as someone with the average SUV.

As Jerry said, "When it's gone, it's gone!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 04:09 PM

GUEST,van: What?

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 04:11 PM

McGrath Im sorry Iv got my facts screwed up again..But to me the important part, was that America was prepared to start a war and kill possibly thousands for financial reasons. What interests me is how many of us see this as being acceptable.
There is a school of thought that maintains any thing is acceptable if it safeguards our "way of life"
A situation similar to this may arise through our support for the "war on terror",where a war against Islam may became inevitable to preserve our economic system ....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 04:12 PM

The idea that the US economy, or any other economy for that matter, is dependent on petroleum products, either for fuel or for anything else, is a very cleverly promoted lie. The only thing that petroleum can do that other substances such as hempseed oil, or soybean oil, or hydrogen (or conservation of resources) can't do is enrich the petroleum industry.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 04:13 PM

Gareth, a long time ago I voted for Lyndon Johnson because Goldwater sounded like a radical warmonger.

The joke was on me. And the rest of the country. Johnson used the Tonkin Gulf incident, which did not happen, to get us deeply into that Vietnam mess. A damned lie, as outrageous as any of Bush's. Since then my custom has been, generally, to wish a plague on both their houses.

But Lyndon's damned lie does not excuse George's. And Lyndon's good civil rights deeds do not excuse his own misdeeds.

This isn't a game. I don't support any man because he wears my team's colors.

No matter what they tell you, son, it's the man, not the uniform.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Gareth
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 04:30 PM

Clint refreshing views - for my own part I have been enjoying watching on this forum those who condemn any actions of GWB Jnrs, because they are the actions of GWB Jnr, and not on the general morality of those actions, twisting and turning, ducking and weaving when comparing the actions of GWB Jnr with, say, JFK's.

Or indeed comparing the legality of JWB Jnrs actions with the untruths etc. of FDR.

I may also say that on the Eastern side of the pond FDR's ilegalities, and misrepresentations are still held in the highest regard.

I think Clint you might be wrong over LBJ - I am not convinced that Viet-Nam was not in fact Kennedy's war. LBJ was tragically wrong in the way he tried to end it.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: The Stage Manager
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 05:34 PM

Safeguarding oil supplies?   This is an interesting idea. Forgive me, but this would seem to assume that the West has some sort of moral right to oil situated in other sovereign states? I'm sure nobody can possibly think this.   In the bad old days of Empire this would have meant propping up some sympathetic but ruthlessly autocratic regime or oligarchy that had no respect for human rights. Thank goodness we live in more enlightened times.

I'm also delighted by the idea of creating a democracy in Iraq. Could someone just remind me how many of the other oil producing gulf states are currently liberal democracies?   Just at the moment their names seem to have slipped my mind.

I'm also gratified to think that a democratic oil producing state might vote not to sell its oil to the West, and everybody would now think this perfectly acceptable behaviour and respect the decision of a sovereign state.   


My starting point for discussions of this nature is a belief that while there is a child on the planet that does not have enough food, clothing or shelter, and is without access to education and medicine, then all our political systems are failing that child and urgently need to change in a direction that will address these needs.

I would hate to think that any vested interest in the West would for a moment stand in the way of extending such basic humanitarian needs to all, regardless of nation, race, or creed.   After all, this is not what liberal democracy is about, and if this were allowed to happen, it would probably lead to all manner of indiscriminate backlash....


I mourn the passing of the "Angry Young Men"   and the vociferous Protest and Civil Rights Movements. I miss Trade Unions that that could seriously rattle and embarrass big corporations, governments and individual ministers. The world was a better place for them.   I fear the dispassionate non-involvement of so many of the younger generation that I find around me. It seems to me the death knell of real democracy, a rolling over and acceptance of defeat.   

It's not anger I would like to see, or even rage.   Some blind incandescent fury and a useful way with words would be a useful starting point right now.

SM

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 06:13 PM

Top Stories - AP

Britain: U.S. Planned '73 Arab Invasion   
Thu Jan 1,10:52 AM ET Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By BETH GARDINER, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - British spy chiefs warned after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war that they believed the United States might invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi to seize their oil fields, according to records released Thursday.

A British intelligence committee report from December 1973 said America was so angry over Arab nations' earlier decision to cut oil production and impose an embargo on the United States that seizing oil-producing areas in the region was "the possibility uppermost in American thinking."

Details of the Joint Intelligence Committee report were released under rules requiring that some secret documents be made public after 30 years. The report suggested that then-President Nixon might risk such a drastic move if Arab-Israeli fighting reignited and the oil-producing nations imposed new restrictions.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=7&u=/ap/20040101/ap_on_re_eu/britain_nixon_4

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 06:35 PM

Thanks Ebbie...These were the facts I screwed up on,hope McGrath reads your post....Hes a stickler for accuracy.
Stage Manager, I agree very much with the main thrust of your message ,in fact its really inspiring ,but Im afraid the angry young men, of which I hope i was one,have been ground down by the advance of materialist greed.
The point I was trying to get across, is that all this talk of "democracy " and "human rights" is meaningless, if governments are going to ignore them if they see them as against "National interest", as the politicians say.
Its even more meaningless,if the people themselves see any crime as permissable, if its in their short term interests...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 06:38 PM

British spy chiefs warned after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war that they believed the United States might invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi to seize their oil fields

Which (ironically?) was the reason Bush senior waged war on Iraq, and was one of the major justifications the US government used for waging war on Iraq (Saddam) last March. Because Saddam invaded Kuwait and seized their oil fields.

Of course, it's perfectly ok if we invade countries like Kuwait and seize their oilfields. Might makes right. Right?

Subject: RE: BS: It's America's oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 06:44 PM

The thing about oil supplies is that you can't really safeguard them - there's only a limited amount of the stuff, and when it's gone it's gone.

The existing supplies of fossil fuel, laid down over millions of years, and squandered in a century and a bit, provide a window of opportunity during which we can organise for the fast-approaching time period when we'll be getting along without it.

That should mean non-fossil fuel - solar energy, tidal and wind energy, and biomass, together with energy saving, by more efficient engines and more efficient lifestyles. It shouldn't mean nuclear fission, because that just stores up horrendous problems of waste. If the technology that allows economic non-polluting nuclear fusion shows up some time, maybe it will have a part to play. But relying on that to save us is a gamble. There's already a wonderful nuclear fusion plant pumping out energy we can use - the Sun.

But desperately scrabbling to get oil to last a few more years is a blind alley. And Jerry Pournelle there quoted by Don Firth was quite right - our limited supplies of oil are far too useful to waste this way.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 06:51 PM

Carol ....Answering these questions requires extreme honesty.
If it became a straight choice between stealing some states oil reserves, even with the resultant loss of life,or the loss of our comfortable lifestyle ,how many would do the right thing.
These question are uncomfortable for "democratic" people like us to answer ,but I feel answers will be required sooner rather than later.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 06:53 PM

Of course Gareth is quite right to point out that Vietnam was Kennedy's war - but then so was the Bay of Pigs, and one way and another Kennedy avoided getting trapped into a Cuban invasion. Perhaps he'd have had the sense to get out of Vietnam in time to avoid catastrophe. Johnson had some good points, but he very clearly didn't have the wisdom to do that.

Perhaps, in the words of a more modern leader closer to home, he didn't have a reverse gear. And any politician who doesn't have a reverse gear is a disaster in the making.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 07:05 PM

The problem as I see it, akenaton, is that we are being presented with a false choice. Did you know that there are peole who run their cars on cooking oil that has been recycled from deep fat fryers from fast food restaurants? The fact is that the only reason we rely to the extent we do on petroleum and not on any of the other, perfectly good alternative fuels, is because the petroleum industry has a large and powerful lobby, and we have been convinced that petroleum is the only cost-efficient choice.

But if we factor in the cost in terms of the wars that we've fought for oil, and the environmental and health costs, and all of the government subsidies the US tax payers have provided the petroleum industry, I think we can say that petroleum is most definitely not the most cost-effective choice of fuels.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 07:10 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 07:27 PM

Carol... I understand your point about alternative forms of energy, In fact we were using solar panels to heat domestic water on contracts thirty years ago .Im sure the technology has moved on a lot since then,but obviously the vested interests hold things back.
To my mind Capitalism has one obstacle after another to overcome if it is to remain successful in its exploitation of people and resources and energy is no longer the biggest problem.
Islam and its opposition to Western materialism is what worries America most ,as they require global markets to continue their expansion....But the ethical questions still remain.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: DougR
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 07:28 PM

Akenaton: well if the alternative was to ground all airplanes, have no fuel for vehicles of all types, etc., yes, I would say so. I would guess that there would have been no problem building a coalition so that we would not have to go it alone. I don't think the oil producing nations would let it come to that though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 07:30 PM

sorry about that.

To get back to the thread, I don't think the US has any more right to attack another nation to preserve its standard of living than I have to attack my next-door neighbor to preserve mine.

He makes more money than I do, and I've had heavier than usual expenses this year, but still I somehow feel I should restrain myself.

But during the first Bush-Iraq war I was talking to a man who thought the war was about oil, and that was fine with him. He figured those people against the war would sing a different tune when we ran low on petroleum.

He was a PhD, on the WSU faculty, and he had a son in action in Iraq. An educated & somewhat respected man, and apparently totally selfish.

Anybody remember "War is good business; invest your son?"

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 07:35 PM

But there are no "oil-producing nations" - leaving aside the cooking oil. There are oil-extracting nations. The oil-production took place back in Cretacious times and so forth.

That isn't a quibble, it's the frightening truth we collectively refuse to face.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 07:57 PM

CarolC is entirely correct...

Our energy policy is based on as much consumption of oil as we possibly can figure out how to consume under our watch on Earth.

Instead of conserving, it's consume, consume, consume. And why? To make oilmen richer than their wildest dreams...

Take the 8 mpg Hummer, fir instant. With a sticker of roughly $70,000, Bush and Cheney have put into a place where you can own one fir as little as half that. How? By being able to write it off. Who pays for that gas guzzler? The average working stiff who's driving a 15 year old VW Jetta that gets 35 mpg, that's who... Meanwhile, rich folks get rewarded for narsisitic consumption!!!

Hmmmmmkm, Part #46,536...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 08:48 PM

Islam and its opposition to Western materialism is what worries America most...

Another red herring. What the Islamic countries who oppose the policies and practices of the US and "the West" object to isn't how we practice materialism in our own countries. What they object to is the ways the governments of the countries of the industrialized West trample upon the human rights of the Islamic people of the Middle East, in their own countries. In other words, they have something we want. We think, because we're stronger then them, that we have every right to do whatever is necessary in order to get what we want.

Clint Keller's point is a good one. We're no better than common criminals. If our neighbor has something we want, we just take it. It doesn't matter to us how many people we have to kill, or how many lives we have to destroy (our own people as well as theirs) in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 07:25 AM

Quite correct Carol, the point I was making ,is that Western materialism destroys cultures in a slow ,insideous way. Replacing them with the "shitheap of greed and ignorance " which I mentioned earlier.
Islamic clerics know this only too well,and also dont wish to lose their own power base.So things could get very messy for the West

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 10:47 AM

Interesting point, akenaton. I think China might provide the market that the West will need for its growth for several years, if not decades, so for now, my guess is that the only issues that will matter vis. the Middle East in the near future will be oil and Israeli expansionism.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 11:04 AM

"..America was prepared to start a war " *sigh*...no, one administration official was found to have raised the question of 'whether' America should consider certain actions. That is FAR from "...prepared to start a war..."
There is ALWAYS someone who will raise these issues in almost every country, but 'usually' they don't get quoted and publicized. (and, in some ways, it is important that such questions BE considered, even if it is only to generate discussion and expose them as BAD ideas!) It WAS rejected, you notice.

We all know that the world will soon be faced with some major decisions about how to deal with declining oil reserves, but hyperbolé and exaggeration will not help.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 11:17 AM

Yes Bill.. but we dont know on what grounds it was rejected.Im sure morality didn't come into it!!
The idea of war on Iraq was not rejected.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 11:18 AM

Bill, I think a good case can be made that the US and other Western countries have been at war (either overtly or covertly, or through proxies) almost continuously in the Middle East over petroleum, pretty much since someone figured out that petroleum could make people rich.

We might have rejected that one idea at that particular moment in history, but that hardly means that we haven't been using our might to have our way with the people and resources of the Middle East for the last century or so.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: pdq
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 11:44 AM

McGrath's point that...

"there are no "oil-producing nations" - leaving aside the cooking oil. There are oil-extracting nations"

...is brilliant. With a commodity that has been under production by nature for sixty million years really be owned by an ephemeral government like that of Saddam's, which was in power for about 23 years? Trees and cattle and goats, they are property with definite ownership rights. Oil? Hmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 12:11 PM

Air and water and soil have been around longer than that, pdq, and no 'owner' has ever had trouble asserting the right to his portion of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: pdq
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 12:27 PM

Water never goes away, it simply relocates or changes form. Air moves around all day long. Trees grow and are harvested. All of these commodities present different problems, but oil and land are not replaceable. As a biologist with a minor in conservation, I feel very protective of land and consider those who permanently damage it for no reason are criminals. Same for wasting oil. Saddam should swing at daybreak just for setting 1500 oil wells on fire, separate from his other atrocities.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 12:31 PM

oh, sure, Carol..there is always manuvering and struggling among nations to get what they think they need, whether it be oil, water, land, minerals...etc...but this was a suggestion that we were CLOSE to invasion and taking over. This may be tempting to 'some' administration officals, but cooler minds usually prevail upon reflection of how messy that could be.

(and I wish I could remember the name of the scientist who claims that oil is NOT a finite supply left over from millions of years ago, but rather is being produced deep in the earth. I'd like to read more about this.)

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 12:43 PM

Interesting point, Bill. But as far as I can see, the result is the same. The strong prevail over the weak, at the expense of both.

pdq, when the West takes oil from a country like Iraq, it's not taking it from Saddam. It's taking it from the Iraqis; the people who have been inhabiting the region for longer than Europeans have been inhabiting North America. Your argument is certainly one of "might makes right".

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 01:04 PM

" The strong prevail over the weak"....funny, I don't FEEL like we are 'prevailing'...yet, anyway. I do NOT trust this administration to not try to change that, but I don't see us trampling about with impunity so far. I guess perceptions differ, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 01:10 PM

I'm sorry but you're basing this thread on what the British intelligence service reported to its handlers. Not on documents released from our own U.S. Gov't. Not that I put it out of the realm of what the Nixon administration might have considered.

An inside note; there was no "oil shortage" in any of the previous shortages. Talk to any merchant marine working tankers at the time and they will tell you that the ships were ordered to sit of shore fully laden until the owners got the price they wanted for the oil.

Should we just take? No! Not the American way to my thinking. We don't need foreign oil if we would just turn to electric vehicles that can be recharged from the plant or from solar panels in the skin of the car. The other industries that actually use oil in the process could refine it from all of the tire dumps that have been building for years along with domestic production.

What's really scary? I went to a conference not too long ago where an economist claimed that conservation hurt productivity and the economy. The only one that gets hurt by conservation is the oil industry. If they would invest in research for alternative sources they could transition quite easily. Lord knows that the execs from Enron were not bankrupt. If just some of the money that they siphoned off had been dedicated to such research we could probably give the middle east the finger and say "have done with ya".

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: pdq
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 01:13 PM

Carol C...you must not be reading posts before you comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: DougR
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 01:30 PM

Sounds pretty close to a "quibble" to me, Kevin.

Akenaton: "Expansion?" What expansion?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 03:05 PM

I guess perceptions differ, huh?

I reckon so, Bill.

Carol C...you must not be reading posts before you comment.

Obviously I'm not, pdq, or I'm sure I would agree with everything you've said.

All sarcasm aside, I have been reading all of the posts. If I have misunderstood any of yours, don't you think it would make more sense to tell me in what way I've done that than to make snide little personal attacks?

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: pdq
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 04:14 PM

Carol C...please re-read 12:27 and see if there is anything about taking oil from other people by force or "might makes right". If there is, I'll buy you a bottle of Scuppernong wine. As Bill D says, *grin*.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 04:39 PM

Quite frankly, I can't really get a firm sense about what you're trying to say in either of your posts taken separately, but this part:

With a commodity that has been under production by nature for sixty million years really be owned by an ephemeral government like that of Saddam's, which was in power for about 23 years? Trees and cattle and goats, they are property with definite ownership rights. Oil? Hmmm.

...looks to me like you're suggesting that oil should be for whoever takes it from the ground, and your 12:27 post looks like it's in support of your 11:44 AM post.

If this is not the point you were trying to make, I would love to have a better understanding of what your point actually was.

Subject: RE: BS: It's America's oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 06:27 PM

Sounds pretty close to a "quibble" to me, Kevin.

Whatever it sounds like, it isn't. Extractive industries are always in the business of using up a resource that isn't being replaced. They are not manufacturing that resource. It won't last for ever - and in the case of oil it appears pretty clear that it won't last very long. There's that famous quote about how the stone age didn't end because of a shortage of stone, but oil is in much shorter supply than stone ever was.

Twenty years? Fifty years? One hundred years? The lifetime of the children of children being born today? Not a chance, even at the present rate of use. That's just a heartbeat away.

That's the crisis. Not fantasies about keeping hold/grabbing hold of dwindling supplies for one nation rather than another, just to hold off the inevitable for just a few years longer.

There are alternatives, and the longer it takes adjusting so as to use them, the harder it is going to be. If there is something about the economic system that makes that kind of adjustment difficult, because of short-term profit considerations, that needs fixing too.

Of course the problem is that short-term considerations dominate politics even more than they do business, if anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Gareth
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 07:25 PM

Hmmm ! The problem is finding an alternative resource _

Nuclear Power ? Me thinks there are many 'Catters who will scream agin that.

Wind Power - My oh My - Not in our backyard please !

Hydro Schemes - "Your drowning our Valley !!" - "This might damage the breeding ground of the Ouzalum Bird"

And so it goes on.

And if yer think I'am cynical - Well yes I am.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: It's America's oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 08:52 PM

Precisely because it's such a problem, as Gareth says, is why it has to be tackled seriously and consistently. And it won't be easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 12:58 AM

People are developing the alternatives as we type. They're already here. Many are on the market right now. Many others will be put on the market very soon. And the people who are in the process of marketing these energy alternatives will be laughing all the way to the bank at the bunch of sluggards who clung so tenaciously to fossil fuels for so long... those energy dinosaurs who will be left out of the new economy, their silly heads spinning, wondering what that whistling noise was that just zipped past their ear. The sound of change that they tried so hard, unsucessfully, to prevent. Just wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,MAG at work
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 01:49 PM

Wind farms are sprouting like mushrooms out here, and we love 'em. Of course they are not being build close to residential areas as they are quite noisy. In fact, if they prevent the spread of housing developments onto any more prime farmland, I'll buy a few more dollars of the Blue Sky program.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 05:55 PM

If only there was the same rate of tax on petrol - gasoline - in the USA that we have in the UK, half the world problems would be solved.

The non-fossil fuel alternatives would move into the mainstream overnight, and so would the fuel-economy technology; and much of the pressure to expand and preserve oil production would fall away, with the risks to world peace and stability that can involve; and it could save us from a situation where, while overall global warming devastates the world, here in the British Isles we'll have a climate more like Labrador, because the Gildf Stream will have shut down.

But I imagine there'll never be a government in Washington with the nerve to do that, or a voting public with enough love for their children and grandchildren to allow it.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jan 04 - 06:08 PM

Problem is they love their SUV's MORE than they love their kids & grandchildren.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Wotcha
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 02:10 AM

President Jimmy Carter (remember him?) established the modern US doctrine in the Middle East stating that attacks or threats (remember too at that time there was a Soviet Threat) to oil supplies would be an attack on US national security interests ... it's been a cornerstone of US policy ever since. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In Germany (Europe in general) diesel fuel is used more extensively: while diesel engine technology has cleaned up considerably over the years and gives great mileage and torque, it is still emits particulates that do not meet US standards (so don't bash America too much my Euro pals) especially that new Austrian State West of Arizona ... California.


Alhamdillolah

Brian

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 03:16 AM

Here's a hopeful bit of news going in the right direction:

January 3, 2004
By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer

BIRDS LANDING, Calif. - Environmentalists say the dozens of turbines that rise more than 300 feet over wheat fields and herds of sheep here represent the future of wind energy — and a model for overcoming the shortcomings that have kept wind from threatening the dominance of fossil fuels.

The High Winds Energy Center, completed in December in the rolling hills between San Francisco and Sacramento, features turbines that can swivel with the direction of the wind, produce energy even if the wind is blowing less than 8 mph and generate 20 times more energy than earlier machines.

This new wind system, along with similar ones being built around the country, promises to produce electricity at competitive prices — all without disturbing surrounding farms and wildlife, two of the obstacles for wind power today.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040103/ap_on_sc/wind_farm

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: pict
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 03:53 AM

When do you think the US will leave Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Metchosin
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 01:17 PM

I'm rather enamored of Moonpower myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 01:35 PM

Tidal energy, solar power, biomass and improved technical and social efficiency are the main ways I'd see of getting out of the mess.

Nuclear fission just winds up very rapidly with a problem of dealing with waste that will be radioactive for thousands of years and has to be put somewhere which we can guarantee will be safe for thousands of years. It's really a non starter. The sun gives us all the nuclear power we need or can possibly envisage using.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 01:54 PM

How about combining tidal energy and windblade energy? Install slim wind turbines in the offshore shallow waters?

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 02:04 PM

I'm reading the book Seabiscuit by Laura Hillenbrand right now, and it's really astounding for me to read about how difficult it was to get people to accept the automobile in the early years of the 20th century. It reminds me a lot of the current situation of getting people to accept the idea of alternate energy technologies. But as we know, the automobile did prevail. It was an idea whose time had come. So, too, with the new, sustainable, energy technologies. They are ideas that won't be stopped. Only slowed down a bit, perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Metchosin
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 02:37 PM

I think the wonderful thing about Hammerfest Strøm's tidal power generation project is that, unlike wind and solar power, tidal currents are constant and predictable, also with little negative environmental impact. Not much help to those countries without a seacoast, but for those of us in northern foggy climes, where solar energy is of little benefit, hurricane and gale force winds are a constant occurence in stormy winter months and hydroelectrical dams on rivers cause major natural and human disruption, this is an incredible alternative. Besides moonpower is romantic. *BG*

From what I have read so far, the cost per KWH for power from this source was calculated at .05 cents US and this cost was given prior to the benefits of mass production of the units.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: DougR
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 04:01 PM

Carol C: I don't think it is so much that people won't accept alternate fuels, it's just that those fuels (like hydrogen for example)is not readily available. I don't think people are in love with gasoline. They just want something that will cause their vehicles to run. Also, there have to be vehicles produced that will run on the alternate fuels.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 04:13 PM

It's not the masses who are resistant, DougR, it's the people who want to wring every last dollar out of the oil industry before they let the new technologies, which are already here and being used by many people, become the standard here in the US. As I said before, though, in the long run, it'll be their financial loss, and someone else's gain.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: pdq
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 04:35 PM

This may be a bit off-topic, but the Iraqui people, under the reign of Saddam, became used to getting gas for 25 gallons per dollar. Yup, gallons per dollar, NOT dollars per gallon. I understand that many Europeans pay $5 to 8 dollars per gallon.
Repeat : 4 cents for some people, 8 dollars for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 05:11 PM

With regard to our treatment of this planet and its resources, I'm reminded of Forrest Gump's words, "Stupid is as stupid does." I don't care who thinks what to do with world economics and geopolitics, because what really matters is the world we leave our children and their children. This place we live was meant for all creatures, great and small, and not for an elite group of people connected with politics or multi-nationals. Spin it any which way, and the lower right had corner shows that we are making BIG mistakes with our home: Earth. Just a general broadside--wasn't aimed at anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 05:16 PM

Round here price is roughly 75p a litre, works out as $6.56 a gallon. That's what I meant by my post about how it would help things along if people in the States had to pay that sort of price.

It was supposed to keep on going up on a regular basis, as part of an effort to push us towards wasting less petrol, but the givernment chickened out on the commitment, because it wasn't too popular with some people.

As see it, it'd be nice to have it cheaper and all - but it's just not fair to our children, and that matters more than present convenience.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 06:25 PM

It's just slight of hand, McGrath of Harlow. We're paying as high a price, or possibly even higher. It's just that we're paying it in taxes for our military budget and corporate welfare, and we're also paying with our health and with the lives and futures of our children. But those are hidden costs and nobody talks about them. So the people in the US think the price at the pump is the actual cost of the gas we use. And even then, we are so spoiled, we think our gas prices are too high. If the average resident of the US knew what the true costs are of the gas they use, I think they would behave differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Gareth
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 06:31 PM

Errr Kevin - Double standards time again ?

(And I have no brief for those facists who want no tax at all on Petrol, even if they are asking for near parity with the cost of UK farmers Derv')

"Some people want a stoppage on the fuel price escalator - That must be wrong !"

"Some people want no part in the removal of Saddam Hussains murderous regime - That must be right !"

"Some people want the restoration of Hanging for murder of a child or policeman - That must be wrong !"

Hmmm !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 06:42 PM

Some people think the moon is made of green cheese; that doesn't make it true. And it wouldn't, even if they were a majority.

On the other hand, when arguing with someone who thought the moon was made of green cheese, pointing out that this is very much a minority point of view would be relevant, though not conclusive.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 07:07 PM

OK, burst my bubble. Since when isn't the moon made from green cheese? (Next it'll be Santa and the Easter Bunny. BE NICE!)

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 09:10 PM

This may come as a surprise to many, but one did not need an automobile to get around the greater Los Angeles area during the Thirties and Forties and for some time after. I remember when I was a wee sprat living in Pasadena during the Thirties. Within five blocks of just about anyplace (easy walking distance for most people) was a "street car" line. Street cars were electric trolleys that ran on rails. Between Pasadena and Los Angeles and other suburbs in the area, the "interurban" ran. The interurban was also electrically powered and ran on rails. It was fast, it was clean, it was convenient, and it was inexpensive. My father worked in Los Angeles, and he took the interurban to and from work. Often one of my aunts, who lived in Los Angeles, hopped the interurban on Friday evening, stayed with us over the weekend, then returned on the interurban Sunday night. Getting around in the area easily and cheaply was taken for granted. Lots of people had automobiles, but nowhere near as many per capita as now. Many people regarded an automobile as expensive to buy, expensive to maintain, and something of a luxury. Besides, you didn't really need one to get around.

When we returned to Seattle in 1940, we found the city had a public transportation system made up of what was then the very latest. "Trackless" trolleys. Rubber tired "trolley buses" that were powered by electricity from overhead wires, but could pull into bus stops at the curb, thus eliminating the waiting platforms out in the street that the rail trolleys required. I never had a problem getting around the city. Here, too, clean, convenient, and inexpensive.

But things began to change both here and in Los Angeles and just about everywhere else in the United States. It wasn't long before the overhead wires were removed and the whole fleet of trolley buses was replaced with gasoline and diesel powered buses. More flexible, they said. Not limited to wires. But I notice that not all that many bus routes have changed since then. It was not long after this that they dug a huge ditch right through the middle of downtown Seattle, paved Interstate 5 into the ditch, and grafted a series of snake's nests composed of on-ramps and off-ramps along its mighty length. And it wasn't long before the city had a distinct aroma of a blend of gasoline and diesel fumes, especially noticeable when you returned after spending a day in the mountains.

An excerpt from a web site I found:—

"A consortium of oil, rubber, and General Motors bought up rail lines worldwide then replaced interurbans and streetcars with GM buses which used oil and rubber tires. By 1961 the last remaining interurban rail line in Los Angeles went out of service and in 1963 the last streetcar line shut down."

Surprise, surprise!!!

Here's the web site. The pictures on the web site show a lot of eye-pollution with all the overhead wires, but back then, very few of those wires actually had anything to do with the trolley or interurban rail system. But it looks like they, like Seattle, have decided to go back to a light-rail system.

Seattle is way behind in light rail. They keep fighting over whether to spend billions of dollars tunneling under the Lake Washington ship canal and then under Capitol Hill or put the bloody thing someplace else. In the meantime, there are a bunch of people who are advocating a far less expensive and much more flexible monorail system. Fixed light-rail promoters who are into tunnels have been fighting the idea of a monorail, and it's bicker, bicker, bicker, bitch, bitch, bitch every inch of the way, and it's been going on for years now. In the meantime, Seattle, washed by soft rains and blow-dried by gentle breezes off the North Pacific, used to be one of the cleanest cities in the world. Now we have frequent "temperature inversions" where a layer of warm air gets trapped under a stratum of cold air, holding the air pollution produced by thousands of automobiles inching their way along the freeways, near the ground where our lungs can get the full benefit of it. There are frequent air pollution alerts, and after a temperature inversion has hung around for a couple of days, the whole city sounds like a tubercular ward and we all start to pray for a walloping good North Pacific storm to clear the crap out of the air (Wheeze! Gasp!).

In the meantime, on the tube, I watch Rick Steves' travel programs, "Europe Through the Back Door," and hear him talk about how easy it is to get around cities in Europe, and Europe in general, without an automobile because public transportation is so good. Lotsa people get around with a bicycle as their only mode of personal transportation.

Would've been a helluva lot better if Los Angeles, Seattle, et al had told the "consortium of oil, rubber, and General Motors" to go take a flying doo-dah and just left things as they were. If we had, maybe the Middle East wouldn't be in the news as much as it is. . . .

Just a few rambling thoughts on a quiet Sunday evening.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 09:41 PM

I'm old enough to have ridden a streetcar and taken the bus to get around Montreal. Nothing beats the subway system in New York. Faster to get darn near anywhere in New York without a car. Good post, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 09:53 PM

Yo Don,

Yer' both ahead... and behind the times...

Me, too.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:41 AM

In "Who framed Roger Rabbit?" the Los Angeles streetcar scandal business featured prominently. Unfortunately in real life Roger Rabbit didn't come along.

We had trolley-buses in London, as well as trams. All gone. That's the kind of thing I have in mind when I get suspicious of people who asay things like "embrace change" as if some changes weren't in fact changes for the worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:47 AM

Oh yes, its all the fault of those big bad International multi-national oil corporations and their vested interest.

A question for those who subscribe to the above:

Who makes the most money out of the oil and gas industry - Governments or the Oil Companies?

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,Davetnova
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 07:47 AM

It always amazes me that we continue to use deisel at all. According to the US dept of energy - alternate fuels all existing deisel powered vehicles can run on a mixture of deisel and biodeisel (made from virtually any vegatable oil source) and those built in the last ten years can be run on pure biodeisel. They put the cost at about $1.50 per gallon for fuel made from new vegetable oil and much less for that made from recycled. Who or what is preventing us using these currently available (renewable) fuels, made with current technology, which can be used by most current deisel engines without modification?

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 09:14 AM

Diesel oil isn't in any meaningful snese an "alternative fuel".

Vegetable oil is likely to be an increasingly important fuel, and it doesn't mess with the environment the way fossil fuels do - but it takes a lot of land to grow biomass fuels like this - I think it's been estimated that it'd be lkkely to take an area equivalent to the United Kingdom to produce enough oil to power all the vehicles we use.

Eectrical-powered, or hydrogen-burning vehicles are likely to be the maoin ones in the future, wiht the elcetricity to drive them and to produce the hydrogen coming from tidal, wind or sun-power.

Arguing whether the blame for the present mess is primarily big business or government rather assumes it is possible to draw a clear line between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 09:53 AM

Who makes the most money out of the oil and gas industry - Governments or the Oil Companies?

I think it could be argued that in the US, at least, the two are, in reality, one and the same.

On the subject of how much land it would take to grow enough oil producing crops, I think that's probably another red herring. If the US (Archer Daniels Midland) would use the corn it grows to produce oil, instead of putting it into every single food source manufactured in the US (thereby making it almost impossible for people with corn allergies like me to find food I can eat), the US could probably reduce its dependence on Middle East oil by a significant percent. Of course, then they would have to lift the tarrif on sugar from non-corn sources, which makes it too expensive for most food manufacturers in the US to use in their products.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 11:33 AM

In the UK when the SNP were banging on about oil revenues BP's profits were something in the region of £350 million pounds, Government revenue from "Scottish oil" was £1 billion pounds. This was the wealth that was going to finance their independent Scotland - what they studiously ignored was that while £1 billion went South to Westminster, £9 billion was sent North from Westminster.

Governments make money from the oil and gas industry, and every service aspect of that industry, and all the way down the line to those who use its products. It is revenue that they would be hard put to replace if alternative sources were used - but no doubt they would find a way. If you want to find who has the vested interest in keeping things the way they are, look no further than those you elect.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 11:50 AM

If you want to find who has the vested interest in keeping things the way they are, look no further than those you elect.

I think that's one of the major points some of us have been trying to make. In the US, you'd be hard pressed to find a member of the current administration who is not heavily entrenched in the oil bidness in one way or another. Only it's their own pockets they're lining, not the government coffers. In fact, their little adventures are creating the largest budget deficit in the history of the US. It's the taxpayers who are paying for all of this. Hidden costs.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 11:52 AM

Come Come Teribus..The £1 Billion?, that went to central government,was not the total of all revenue.
This spinning of the figures, is not your normal way of argument...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 01:18 PM

Not a red herring, Carol. Vegetable oil and so forth could and should be used instead of fossil oil where possible, and would have a lot of advantages; however, the problem is, there won't be any fossil oil within a couple of generations, and in burning it we'll have done enormous damge to our environment. Other non-polluting energy sources will be needed as well. Fortunately there is no shortage of these, potentially.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:26 PM

Yo, T...

Who spends more building and maintaining the the hundreds of thousands of miles of roads upon which we drive? Big oil or government? Who spends more building and staffing schools? Big oil or governemnt? Who spends more on defense (if you can call it that anymore)? Big oil or governemnt? Hospitals for veterans? Foriegn aid? etc, etc...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:35 PM

the war that triggered the oil embargo against the west was the
1973 Yom Kippur war- when Egypt and Syria attacked Israel and came close to defeating it. The Israeli forces were overrun but held on and then cut off the Egyptian army. It was unlikely that the US would have invaded the region - because the Soviets made it clear that if the US became involved so would they. In fact it was one of the few times since Kennedy's assasination that US forces around the world were put on increased alert.

Of course if the USSR had been involved it would have been WW3.

the Arab oil states who controlled OPEC began the embargo because they were angry at the West's support of Israel and also because of another humiliating defeat of Arab armies (which could have been much worse had not the US and UN stepped in to broker a ceasefire)

the tendency of these discussions is to look at what the US did, but most people here seem to ignore that there was a cold war going on,
and both superpowers played each other off all around the world.

America and the threat of retaliation is the only thing that kept the
Soviets from overrunning the rest of Europe. My father who was in the Czech army had orders to take over German printing plants to print propaganda in the event of an invasion.

I doubt if would have been necessary to invade the Mideast to get a hold of oil as there were other options - namely Nigeria, and Venezuela. (which is precisely why they havent been able to organize another embargo - plus the fact that they need the money)

(aside from alternative energy sources - there are still vast reserves
in the Alberta Tarsands (more than Saudi Arabia) they are just more expensive to extract)

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:48 PM

"vast reserves" - that's just a few more years putting off the inevitable. Far better to face up to it, and adjust to the real world.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 04:40 AM

Apologies Akenaton, I did not make my point clear enough. The £1 billion I mentioned was direct revenue from oil, one of the major companies who had to pay for it's extraction and take on all the risks involved made £350 million.

The Government then continued to gather in revenue in addition to that £1 billion from the sources mentioned in my earlier post.

Yo Bobert,

To fund all those things you mention how many revenue streams are available to Government? The oil company only makes money out of what it extracts and what it invests in, those companies then pay a heafty chunk of that to the Governments they had to buy their licences from in the first place.

Guest petr,
You make some very good points in your post that, as you so rightly say, others tend to forget completely.

MGOH,
Guest petr above mentioned, "vast reserves", to which you responded, "that's just a few more years putting off the inevitable". Petr also mentioned the Alberta Tarsands. Looking at the USA alone, there is an estimated 400 year supply of oil bearing shale in the Rocky Mountains. As Petr rightly points out it is the cost of recovery, that precludes its extraction, plus the environmental impact such extraction would cause.

Originally by using oil production and supply as an economic "weapon", OPEC caused it's own circumvention by the West. It now exists solely to maintain the price and ensure supply to their customers according to their needs. They could never use oil as a weapon again, it was a "one-off" event that was responded to without the use of force. It hurt OPEC more than those OPEC was targeting.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 02:02 PM

The short oil shortage in the 70s has done our economy an awful lot of good in the long run. More efficient energy use, research on new energies etc. I only wish the OPEC would reduce its output more often.

Some here seem to think that the amount of oil reserves is a fixed number which can be depleted completely. In a very crude verbatim sense that is true, but completely irrelevant. If you think about it from the point of view of economy the oil reserves are infinite. The known oil reserves vary largely depending upon which amount of money you want to spend to extract them. What will happen if the cheap reserves are exploited? Then oil gets more expensive, alternative sources of energy become efficient alternatives to oil and expensive oil will only be used for other things than cheap transport. Whenever a resource gets scarce, the price explodes and that, on the one hand, will make alternatives to this resource competitive and, on the other hand, other quarries for that resource exploitable.

The very reasons that make our economy tick will dictate that a resource of the type of oil can never be completely depleted. It only becomes prohibitively expensive for most uses. With animals, the situation is completely different, for several reasons. A species can be "depleted" forever (at least with toda's standards). That worries me much more than oil becoming scarce.

The depletion stand of some here is a bit outdated. Way back in the seventies in all those books (limits of growth etc.) about depletion of resources that type of thinking can be read. I remember a couple of natural resources which only were to last for a shorter time than has passed since the publication of these books.

Take for instance Holdren who was then a know figure among environmentalists and still is.
In 1971 (Energy: A crisis in power), he was writing it is fair to conclude that under almost any assumptions, the supplies of crude petroleum and natural gas are severely limited. The bulk of energy likely to flow from these sources may have been tapped within the lifetime of many of the present population.
Recently, he has written The energy problem is not primarily a matter of depletion of resources in any global sense but rather of environmental impacts and sociopolitical risks.

I share the environmental worries of many here, but I find your approach to the problem a bit simple.

I'm all for expensive oil for many reasons. Even for economical. It would do us good. By the way, even the oil companies could profit from expensive oil. I'd rather sell an expensive and scarce product to high prices than a cheap one to low prices.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 02:21 PM

True enough, Wolfgang - talking about oil running out soon is a kind of shorthand. It's a way of saying that, before very long, it will get too expensive to use in the way we use it, so we either have to stop doing the things we use it for, or find alternative ways of supplying the energy we need.

"...within the lifetime of many of the present population", writing in 1971 that means by the middle of this century. That still seems a reasonable estimate for a time by which we will have used up the bulk of the economically available oil and natural gas.

I'd imagine that in saying "The energy problem is not primarily a matter of depletion of resources in any global sense" Holdren might have been taking ointo accountb the fact that there are potentially excellent alternatve sources of energy, even witjhout oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 03:27 PM

petr, some of your account is factually incorrect. These links are for you:

http://www.cactus48.com/1967war.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/israel_and_palestinians/timeline/1973.stm

The key thing to notice in the BBC article, is the fact that the Yom Kippur war was for the purpose of regaining territory that Israel took from Egypt and Syria when it pre-emptively attacked them in 1967.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 04:18 PM

I'm not sure that I buy the argument that the world is running out of oil. If anything, this may be the excuse the giant oil cartels are using to control the price and flow. I think there could be ample supplies if it weren't for Detroit making fuel inefficient cars and the rise of SUVs on American highways.

This fear of depleting oil has been used as a pretext for drilling in the Artic and other natural habitats which would yield comparitively little product. I think that combining the fuel usage with alternative energy sources would result in a sufficient oil supply for decades. I believe that there is a spate of propaganda by the oil producers to jack up the price including Haliburton.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 04:21 PM

ok, egypt and syria attacked in order to get their territories back,
I doubt they would have stopped at the Sinai though.
Which (Egypt)ultimately got back through the Camp David peace agreement along with 5$ billion/year US aid.

and by the way, Im all for cleaner/ renewable energy creation -
I just dont believe it will happen overnight - and what will happen to the economies of the oil producing nations when it does?
(they will need to change with the rest of us.)

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 04:51 PM

"...a sufficient oil supply for decades"I>

That's long term thinking? A child born today is likely to be around for the best part of a century. "Decades" aren't really good enough, even for that single generation.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 07:13 PM

This thread drifted away from the question of morality initially posted,and has turned into a discussion about alternative forms of energy.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: Gareth
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 07:22 PM

Ake' - But then that the Mudcat - with rare exceptions embarrasing questions are met with diversion, and I should know I contributed to this thread drift.

But back to the facts.

A small bet !

Within 10 years the UK will be screaming to reopen the deep mines closed and flooded by M Thatcher - And I suppose they'll be asking for the Welsh to risk life, limb, and health reopening them.

Gareth.

(BTW I'am all for more hydro and barrage schemes, after all these days Water is the major Welsh export !)

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,burke
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 07:29 PM

on the question of morality - why dont we take it one step further
and forget the oil embargo - and just assume that last summers blackout wasnt just on the eastern seabord, but all over - and the power didnt come back on..
what would anyone do?

likely people would pour out of the cities and into the country side - the farms..(and hope that maybe the locals hadnt barricaded themselves in and are willing to share)

but ultimately there isnt enough to support everyone so you either have to make the decision to lay down and die or make some other poor sucker do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 07:43 PM

Thats right Burke..So basically all this civilisation stuff is bullshit, All the human rights,democracy freedom ect ect,all a charade to keep the politicians in a job!!

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 08:04 PM

Population density in the USA is pretty low; there's no reason you shouldn't be able to make out if you pulled together and cut down to basics.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 08:23 PM

Mc grath...Your sense of humour is not usually in evidence,but on this occasion ...    :>)

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 08:24 PM

But the stuff about the practicalities of alternatve sources of energy wasn't drift.

The original post raised the question whether the need for oil of the USA (and implicitly other countries which are heavily depemndant on it)might in certain circumstances justify aggression in order to steal that oil from other countries.

The point of the stuff about alternative energy and limited oil supplies was that such a course of action would neither be necessary, nor, except in the short term, practical. As the saying goes, it would be worse than a crime, it would be a mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jan 04 - 08:32 PM

Mcgrath..I think if you were world president it would be really,quite nice...

Subject: RE: BS: Its Americas' oil?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 07 Jan 04 - 01:21 AM

Regarding the expected longevity of oil and gas discoveries in the North Sea in the early/mid 70's. Most regarded development of North Sea fields as a short term solution. Hamilton Brothers Argyll Field (first to come on stream in the UK Sector) was predicted as being viable for about 15 years, BP Forties about 30 years, in the Norwegian sector Ekofisk was expected to last 50 years. Advances in technology have resulted in all those fields still being in production today. Currently if Norway does not look for any further discoveries, her existing fields will produce for the next 75 years.

The best example in the UK is BP's Wytch Farm field, an on-shore development in Dorset, dating back to the 1920's. In 1992 plans were being made to decommission the production facilities at Wytch Farm. BP used the site for the development and trials of horizontal directional drilling techniques. This meant that initially they had to drill down deeper than the target depth for the original wells. What they then discovered was that the original Wytch Farm reservoir was in fact a seep hole from a much larger reservoir located directly underneath the original field. Decommissioning plans were scrapped and the field became one of BP's best earners in the mid-1990's.

So I think that in making his statement (quoted by Wolfgang) in 1971, Holdren was not referring to babes in arms when he mentioned the present day population.

Halliburton, by the way Frank, does not produce oil.