Is the free trade of oil worth war?

[NavyGrunt]

Your comment doenst make sense because Sudan has considerable natural resources. Their is just to much figting to develop it. A war in sudan might make more sense than in Iraq if the issue is oil. Unless Im reading your pos wrong.

From what I understood, there are some clear acts of genocide happening in Sudan as we speak. If that is true, I am making the point that not one of the developed countried got off their butts and made an effort to intervene. Why? I don't know, no profit or bennifit for them?   But they will sure jump off their butts in any situation if their oil reserve is threatened. Are we really as civilized as we make ourselves out to be? You tell me.

It would be extrememly lucrative to go into sudan set up a nice west friendly government and start the oil production. I dont know why the humanitarian crisis of basically africa as a whole seems to rank so low on the worlds radar- but it not resource specific.

 

[clasper]

I'll tell you what - if either Presidential candidate came out and said we are making the switch from dependency in the next 5 years and here is my plan then they would be guaranteed the election. But who controls both parties pocketbooks. Big Oil.

Actually John Kerry said last week during the convention that he was going to invest in alternate energy sources and eliminate the dependency on Middle East oil.   Not quite the same thing, and he didn't give a time frame.   He's certainly not guaranteed the election (probably because very few people believe he can actually reduce the dependency on ME oil).

To answer the original question posed, yes the free trade of oil is worth war at present, but only because of western dependence on the Middle East for its supply.   The west in general (and the US in specific) needs an energy policy that has a little bit of forethought in it (and this goes way beyond just opening up ANWR to drilling).   Oil is a non-renewable resource, and it will run out eventually.   Many experts (and shills for various lobby groups) disagree about when the oil will run out, but none of them are asking if- only when.   And more petroleum products drive our economy than simple fuel- we build plastics, lubricants, etc.   Our energy policy should strive in the long term to reserve petroleum for applications other than energy.

For an interesting article on this topic, check this out:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-06-27-1.html


[edit for grammar]

 

[karpovage]

Clasper, you are right on. I read that article and here's the main quote I pulled from it:

"And even if they keep the oil flowing, why are we pumping money into the pockets of militant extremists who want to destroy us? Why are we subsidizing our enemies, when instead we could be subsidizing the research that might set us free from our addiction to oil? "

On Kerry, if he made energy alternatives his main presidential focus then maybe I would believe him. But he also said he would be creating 10 million new jobs too if you vote for him. The damn thing is these are feel good statements and not a clear policy direction for the country. Bush, in his State of the Union address also earmarked funding for hydrogen-power research but that was the very last time I had heard of it. Point is the national leaders don't make this a highly visible priority and an attainable goal like putting a man on the moon.

Conversion to alternative fuel sources was a hot topic back in the 70's when Carter talked the talk after the Oil Crisis. But talk is all that has happened. Not until 9-11's major attack that crippled our economy was the point really driven home to relook at the dependency of oil as one of the root causes for the attack.

I support my President in his military strategy and I support him in his economic policies too (these are clearly the two main deciding issues facing voters) however I am perplexed as to why he continues to coddle Saudi Arabia - the source for most terrorist funding, the source for most of the actual terrorists, and the regime that we finance - thus closing the circle.

Kerry does nothing for me. His Senate record speaks for himself. And more importantly what he said and did after he left Vietnam in the 70's and what he markets now as a candidate are two completely two different viewpoints. He clearly said he committed atrocities and he also said his superiors did the same. He then tossed his medals and appeared with Jane Fonda. These actions not only supported the enemy's cause but also discredited his fellow comrades. To now say he is fit to be Commander-in-Chief is dangerously inconsistant with his real personality.

 

[clasper]

To now say he is fit to be Commander-in-Chief is dangerously inconsistant with his real personality.

I might agree with that statement, if I had a friggin' clue what his real personality is.  The spin doctors on both sides have gone into overdrive, and I'm too dizzy to figure out who Kerry really is.  I'm not fond of Bush, but at least I know where he stands.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If you want to get to the truth of it, your question could be rephrased: "Are energy and food supplies worth fighting over?"

Think about what it takes to sustain a modern city.  Fresh consumables don't materialize on grocery store shelves every night.

 

[PTE Gruending]

The problem with the Western World (in particular, North America) is that we are too dependant on oil. Oil is a precious commodity that fuels our nations economy. Post WWII economic booms in North America fueled continued policies on reliance on petroleum. Our entire infrastructures are based on both the energy we can extract from petroleum, and the products (plastics/rubber) that we can make from refined crude oil.

Our cities are entirely devoted to the ideal that every individual has an internal-combustion powered vehicle to do *anything* in their lives, be it; work, play, travel, leisure, even getting kids to school or shopping for groceries. The amount of disposable products that are created, imposes an incredible drain on the petroleum industry. Not to mention all of the pollution that discarded packaging happens to create.

If we really want to stop political turmoil over these natural, UNRENEWABLE resources, we are going to have to ration or reduce our demand. This means cities designed with mass transit in mind, incentives for pedestrian transport, and fines and penalties for over-users. There will always be a need for oil, I do not contend that, but we cannot use it on the scale that we are doing so today. Space travel, military, essential services, etc should always have a supply or have 'first dibs;. What happens in X years when the supply runs out? We may find that our entire countries are so dependant on it for transport, etc, that we will grind to a shutdown, and less developed countries may overtake us. There will be a future shock when the supply runs our or is restricted for some reason (Middle East & WWIII), so why not prepare for the inebidable? In addition to reducing usage, we should invest more resources into finding alternate means of energy.

The scary thing is that many other countries in the world are striving to be like the developed nations. What happens when the largely urbanized countries like India, Nigeria, heck even China, with their large populations, want a car for every person? Shit is really going to hit the fan. If we can lessen the chokehold that countries like Saudi Arabia, and all of their OPEC cronies have over us, the better off we will be.....

my 2cents

 

[jrhume]

Just a note on Halliburton:

Their parent company was awarded an open-ended military contract for just such services as fighting oil well fires and providing logistics well before the 2nd Gulf War -- in 1998 to be exact.  They provided the same services in Bosnia and other areas.  Before 1998 a different company held the contract.  While I don't trust any large organization to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, Halliburton's activities over the last year or so were well within the scope of the original agreement.  Some of the prices the wanted to charge were fairly scandalous and that's one of the reasons the military began bidding for services and supplies, an option they have under the contract.

I suspect that Canadian forces have a similar 'all-in' supply contract with one or more companies, just for such contingencies.  It happened that Halliburton held the US contract when war broke out, but the award was made during Clinton's administration.

As for oil, the US could be much more independent of foreign sources if we simply drilled in the Arctic.  I'm not convinced we need to do that, but the fact that we don't is at our option.  High oil prices would eventually drive us to drill there and would allow profitable exploitation of hard-to-reach oil within the US.  We don't do that now because the international oil market provides the oil at reasonable prices.  

Remember, Canada and the US can ignore the world market in oil if they want to, but many other friendly countries cannot.  Fighting to retain an orderly market in oil is advantageous to many, many people who appear not to be directly involved.  What would happen to the world economy if certain Asian and European countries were denied oil supplies?  That was the principal danger Saddam posed to the West.  There was very little he couldn't have extorted from Europe, in particular, by controlling ME oil.  

Forget simple solutions and simple reasons.  The ramifications of the oil market alone give me a headache.

 

[Infanteer]

If you want to get to the truth of it, your question could be rephrased: "Are energy and food supplies worth fighting over?"

Think about what it takes to sustain a modern city.  Fresh consumables don't materialize on grocery store shelves every night.

Thanks Brad, I think you answered the question to my video game analogy.

 

[clasper]

As for oil, the US could be much more independent of foreign sources if we simply drilled in the Arctic.

Drilling in the arctic isn't the cure all that many people seem to think it is.  The Prudhoe Bay field is in serious decline, but added production from some satellite fields that have recently come on line (Alpine, Northstar, Atlas) are making up the deficit.  Further exploration is happening west of Prudhoe Bay in NPRA (National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska).  They haven't hit the mother lode yet, but they have found some oil.  Within the next 10 years, a natural gas pipeline will be built across Alaska, and the Prudhoe Bay field will be converted over to gas production.  The construction of the gas pipeline will most likely occur before any serious drilling happens in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge), just for the simple reason that both are massive projects, and it probably isn't feasible to do both at the same time.

Additionally, no one actually knows if there is lots of oil in ANWR.  The data we have at the moment suggests that there might be oil bearing formations there, but we won't know until we drill several exploration wells.  A couple of wells were drilled in the 70's or 80's (I don't remember exactly), and the rumours that were flying around (25 odd years later) were that they were dry holes.  Those rumours obviously don't mean anything, but it is an indication of the uncertainty involved in oil exploration.

Canada is already drilling exploration wells in the arctic (around the Mackenzie river delta).  The plans for the Canadian natural gas pipeline are further along than the ones in Alaska, and hopefully construction begins soon.  I personally find it rather irritating that the two federal governments can't get along, so there are probably going to be two natural gas pipelines coming down from the arctic, several thousands of kilometers long, terminating in the same pipeline network in Alberta, and they are only going to start off a couple of hundred kilometers apart.  If there wasn't an arbitrary line on the map in the vicinity, a short pipeline would be build east from Prudhoe Bay to Inuvik, and then down the Mackenzie river valley.  Instead we're going to waste resources and build two.

 

[Brad Sallows]

People fondly dreaming of the panacea of alternate energy should understand there's no magic wand.  If it was as easy as it's sometimes advertised, we'd already have greater use of other sources.  Even the task of obtaining more oil production is non-trivial.

Rationing is futile; someone else's demand will consume available supply.  Have some faith in the market.  It is unlikely that government regulation and rationing will find a solution more quickly and efficiently than pure market forces.  Never underestimate the profit motive.

 

[Scott]

People fondly dreaming of the panacea of alternate energy should understand there's no magic wand.  If it was as easy as it's sometimes advertised, we'd already have greater use of other sources.  Even the task of obtaining more oil production is non-trivial.

Rationing is futile; someone else's demand will consume available supply.  Have some faith in the market.  It is unlikely that government regulation and rationing will find a solution more quickly and efficiently than pure market forces.  Never underestimate the profit motive.

I had an Oilfield Engineer tell me that as of today companies can only recover approximately 30% of what they find.

 

[JBP]

There are much more cheaper methods of alternate energy than searching for more oil. Here's a few examples in the works!

1.) Fusion reactor/Power (Joint multi-national run plant being built North of Toronto, first in the world of it's kind planned for about 2020)
2.) Wind power (Actually used in many places in the world but not extensively or on a wide scale)
3.) Tidal power (It is theorized+tested that a tidle movement speed of 8kph provides the energy of a 400mph wind turning turbines to create electricity! [Due to water being 800 times more dense then air!... 800 or 600, can't remember exactly!)
4.) Solar Power (Again, actually used in moderation over parts of the world although only mostly among industrialized nations)
5.) Hydrogen power for residential+vehicle use (H2O for fuel, some new vehicles from FORD started using this recently in 2005 models, not for public yet)
6.) Waste-fumes for energy (Example: Giant "bubble" overtop old giant garbage dumps gather gasses+heat and eventually process it into energy, not alot unfortunately)...

;D

Anyway, these are just a few of the different things I've seen watching Discovery Channel and the news etc etc over last year or so! I'm sure there are even more ideas out there! I hope for a better cleaner future and the environment is always on my mind! I haven't littered since I was 12 yrs old. Most 12 year olds don't even THINK about that sort of thing! We need to teach children about the future+environment also. Sorry for jumping partially off-topic.

Joe

 

[clasper]

Have some faith in the market.

I have absolutely none.   As has been pointed out, alternate energy sources represent non-trivial engineering problems.   Many will take years (decades) to develop.   If we wait until the market forces the price of oil into the stratosphere, we may not have a viable alternative at the ready.   We need to spend serious money on R&D right now, before oil becomes prohibitively expensive.

I had an Oilfield Engineer tell me that as of today companies can only recover approximately 30% of what they find.

That may have been true over a decade ago, but the current number is probably closer to 50%.   Still not terribly impressive.   (Unless you're talking about the tar sands- I have no idea what the recoverability rates are there...)

 

[canuck101]

If the Canadian government and provincial governments are interested in being less dependent on middle east oil or any other countries oil they would push for people to conserve energy like we did in the 70S.  They would offer incentives for people to reno old houses to make them more energy efficient.  Spend loads of money on R&D.  Invest in transit so people are not force to take cars to work. Demand that the car industry make cars that can go 80 to 90 km on a litre of gas. We have a large coastline and there is tech that is able to get energy from waves.

Plenty of open space with wind that is not being used.  Force trucks off the road and expand train service to accept the cargo traffic for long distance.  Design cities that are more dense.  All these actions would give us time to come up with new ways to power our society and we would be less dependent on oil.  this will not happen of course because we don't have real leadership.

cheers

 

[Brad Sallows]

Search for some basic information and compare:

1) North American energy demand

2) Percentage of demand which could be satisfied by wind, tides, and other "novel" sources.

 

[Scott]

From what I understand the Tar Sands are very efficient as far as recovery of resources.

So, how do you think that they get the 50% recovery rate from conventional wells? Stimulation. Acid, water, hydrocarbons, polarized fuels, solvents, the list goes on. I make the lion's share of my money just going out and setting up a fire truck to stand by while they pump this stuff into the ground at high pressure. They also use water injection wells which, according to some sour gas theorists, is the reason H2S is so prevalent in the northern fields.

One thing that may concern readers is the development of coalbed methane projects. Ask any farmer in Montana what he thinks and I am sure he will go off on you. Reason being is that the oil companies down there have misted the brine water away and what results is a barren landscape chockablock is unnatural salt deposits. It's coming to Alberta and BC. Already in the Turner Valley there are a few producing wells. Now, the big concern with it is what to do with the brine water that is a byproduct of the methane and so far the oil companies have been pretty careful with it. They have used it for water injection or fracturing. That brings another point, the use of water in the oilfield but I think I will leave off there for now, the thread started about the middle east and war and I am rambling about Canada and my job, would be good debate to keep going though.

They're just thoughts.

Cheers