[Pops]

We used to talk about supply shocks a lot more.




A third of the world's oil comes from here, 3/4 of flowing oil reserves are here, and just about every country you see here is now in conflict...

What is the likelihood of a broader war here between the Sunnis and Shias (and us, their puppet states)?

Isn't this the jihad we should be worrying about?

SAUDIS SEEK SECTARIAN STRIFE WITH EXECUTIONS: HEZBOLLAH
BY REUTERS ON 1/3/16 AT 11:37 AM

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said on Sunday Saudi Arabia's execution of a Shi'ite cleric was a "message of blood," and Riyadh sought to create sectarian strife across the world.

The execution on Saturday of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, a vocal critic of the Saudi government, drew Shi'ite anger across the region, with protesters in regional rival Iran storming the Saudi Embassy and leaders condemning the move.

"We are today faced by an appalling event, a huge event that Al Saud took lightly...but this is an event that cannot be taken lightly," Nasrallah said in a speech broadcast live on the Lebanese Shi'ite group's Al Manar television.

"Al Saud wants Sunni-Shi'ite strife. They are the ones who ignited it before, and are doing so in every part of the world."

Nimr was executed alongside 46 other people, including 43 Sunni jihadists, some of them Al-Qaeda leaders and ideologues.

https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl=d1 ... =0&topic=h

[Rod_Cloutier]

I am more worried about the other 2(3rds of the oil being stranded due to financial collapse. Gail Tverberg has numerous essays about this issue here:

http://ourfiniteworld.com/

[Outcast_Searcher]

We used to talk about supply shocks a lot more.




A third of the world's oil comes from here, 3/4 of flowing oil reserves are here, and just about every country you see here is now in conflict...

What is the likelihood of a broader war here between the Sunnis and Shias (and us, their puppet states)?

Isn't this the jihad we should be worrying about?

...

https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl=d1 ... =0&topic=h

At the risk of asking the obvious, can't we presume that this is WHY the US has been heavily entangled in middle eastern affairs for the past 4+ decades, is just this region and its oil? (i.e. "this" being the idea that sooner or later something major WILL occur in such a politically unstable region, and the critical oil from the Persian Gulf MUST be allowed to flow to the western world).

As I understand it, we now spend $250 billion a year just patrolling the Strait of Hormuz and having enough firepower available to ensure they can be opened in a timely manner should something "inconvenient" in the area occur, say with Iran.

Now, this doesn't mean the military is competent or the goals will be met, but as a taxpayer, if keeping the middle eastern oil from this critical region flowing isn't a major factor in what we're doing over there, then the US government is a much larger cluster-"truck" than even I imagined.

[ennui2]

will the United States heed Europe's desperate plea for oil access

Where is this desperate plea coming for and what is it requesting that we do?

Sounds to me like you are writing novels in your head again.

[onlooker]

I suspect we will continue to assist Europe as they are an important financial and trade partner. However, at some point as things begin to unravel more we will abandon them and simply safeguard Oil for ourselves.

[ennui2]

ennui, where do you expect Europe to get its oil from if not the Oil Triangle?

Last I checked, Europe is not suffering from oil shortages, despite the constant conflict in the middle-east.

Does Europe have the military to maintain access through all those choke points? The pipeline routes, Straits of Hormuz. Gibraltar? Or does Europe need the US to confront Russia? Will we be there? Trump says no.

You're outlining various contingencies which haven't happened yet.

One thing I have noticed about europe, though, is they tend to be less reactionary in dealing with crises. If the US were adjacent to Syria, would we let in all those Syrian refugees? Even before the shootings in Paris, I don't think we would have. So characterizing Europe as a country that would just casually call on the US to go bomb the shit out of the ME in order to keep their happy-motoring going is really just the typical anti-West slandering that is par for the course at peakoil.com.

Also remember that Europe is often cited by peakers (like Kunstler) for its public transit and walkable communities. So I don't know why you've chosen to shit on them other than to uphold your quota of anti-establishment haterism for the day.

[Pops]

I think the Carter doctrine was about "some other" country (like say USSR) invading the area.

The local mosques lobbing IEDs at each other wasn't necessarily on the radar.

Or was it?

[onlooker]

Well isn't that the mandate also of NATO. To safeguard Europe but again the question is more nuanced. It is about the Oil and safeguarding and attaining it. So, I certainly believe the US military is there first and foremost to safeguard and attain it for ourselves. Everything and everyone else would be of secondary importance.

[vtsnowedin]

You're outlining various contingencies which haven't happened yet.

That is like saying "She is a working mother"
There isn't another kind.

[Pops]

Europe?
China is the no1 importer of oil
The US number 2
Japan number 3

well here is the picture

[dolanbaker]

Europe?
China is the no1 importer of oil
The US number 2
Japan number 3

well here is the picture

Germany, France, Spain & Italy are in Europe, just adding those together and you match China.

[Pops]

Wow you guys that was cool! Did you learn how to do that in university?

LOL, Obviously you missed my point— just about everyone imports oil, not just EU.

[GHung]

With the EU being the US' largest trading partner, it's about a lot more than oil. That said, as I was informed in a middle east deployment orientation @1980 (my first trip there), our involvement there is ALL about oil. "There's simply nothing else here that we have any interest in at all".