Peak Oil News and Message Boards

How's this for a scenario?

The Middle East reacts badly to George Bush and his attempts to bring freedom to the region. The area descends into chaos and the price of oil shoots through the roof.

i'm not sure how long a ME war would last but surely it would provide Dubya with a cover to deny that PO is happening because we will all be under the impression that the reason for the sky high oil prices and resulting economic depression will be the fact that they are not letting us have our oil.

Imagine a united Iran-Iraq fighting Saudi Arabia and other ME powers over control of the oil reserves, half of the world's oil in such small a region makes for one hot zone. One revolution in any of these countries could push the whole region off the cliff.

Saudi Arabia is one global recession away from a complete revolution. Here's how it plays out. High oil prices push the American Consumer to the brink. He loses his home and his credit cards. This spikes interest rates in order to prop up the dollar (a total dollar collapse would destroy the global economy). This creates a global recession. China stops growing and it is pushed into a recession. All of this would drive down demand for oil. In terms of PO, it's a Godsend. Oil consumption drops to 60-70 million barrels a day. These creates a glut on the oil market. Prices drop like crazy. The world will produce less oil even though it could produce more (an artificial drop in oil production caused by economic rather than geological reasons)

What happens to oil producers? They run out of cash like they did in the 80's. Oil demand drops substantially (like in the late 70's/ early 80's) and we avoid a true depletion for a few years. HOWEVER, the Saudis find themselves with too little money to take care of their people. A revolution happens or worse, oil producers fight each other in order to try to keep their people "busy."

The world never gets out of that recession. The extra oil that should have been extracted stays in the ground because the wars are too intense. There is no chance for a recovery because the oil just isn't there. We end up with a Post Peak Scenario even without using up most of the world's oil.

And if things weren't bad enough, it looks like coal production is about to be cut for safety concerns.

China {Coal} Mine Blast Kills More Than 200 http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article ... =4&cid=842

Good post Tyler - just the sort of thing that I fear could happen if we all start fighting over it.

Good post Tyler - just the sort of thing that I fear could happen if we all start fighting over it.."

You used "if". What do you mean "if we start fighting over it?" We have been fighting over it since at least the 70's. I just hope the world governments don't get carried away with the wars and end up destroying everything. A faster crash might be better because at least the resource wars wouldn't last as long.

Have you guys ever heard of the "neutron bomb?"

If the Middle East erupted in chaos that threatened the oil flow, I imagine the U.S. would seriously consider using them.

Our way of life is "non-negotiable," according to Dick Cheney.

Colorado-Valley wrote:Have you guys ever heard of the "neutron bomb?"

Well, I have now. I've long believed that the real danger lies not in conventional nuclear weapons--which sane people are afraid to use--but rather in new explosives that could do just as much damage without the fallout, nuclear winter, or 25,000 year half-life.

Bush may be able to hide that peak oil is happening, but he won't be able to hide that recession is happening. Which is exactly the reason we are all worried about peak oil.
Of course, the American people could take some bad decisions if they think that the problem will be over eventually, instead of realising that it's here to stay.

I see no reason why Iraq, Iran, or a combination thereof would start something against SA.

It doesn't even take a complex chain of world-financial events to bring down the House of Saud.

SA is already in population overshoot, which worsens by the day. A numerical majority of Saudi population is below the age of adulthood. This in turn has synergistic effects in terms of breeding domestic terrorist movements. A properly-timed hit on a properly-chosen oil infrastructure target, would be enough to trigger the income loss whose effects would bring a lot of latent resentments to the surface and thence bring down the regime. Boom.

Doly wrote:Bush may be able to hide that peak oil is happening, but he won't be able to hide that recession is happening. Which is exactly the reason we are all worried about peak oil.

I don't know about anybody else but I'm more scared of global resource wars than recession.

Believe what you will of it.

Article

Excellent post, specop. I have warm feelings for several of the lefties who post here, having exchanged pms with them and enjoying their presence in this forum. I am a believer in placing friendly feelings ahead of politics. But this article doesn't suprise me at all; I have felt myself that what Bush is doing over in the Middle East must have resonated with many people over there in a favorable way. Of course there will be enemies and the people who say that Bush is a courageous man must deal with it. In the final analysis, we can't really say yet. Thanks for finding this and posting it.

No second Hama possible? What tripe!

The barbaric razing of Fallujah in November (once a city of 300,000 people) and massacre of uncounted thousands of hapless trapped civilians (with poison gas, napalm, phosphorus bombs, cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells - all Geneva convention violations) was directly and deliberately modeled on the razing of Hama for maximum effect. No question that this was the worst war crime by a first world power since WWII.

The WSJ is so far out to lunch that Paul Craig Roberts, former WSJ editor (and Asst. Treasury Secty for Reagan) can't stomach it anymore.

Financial Times is a much better source of business news and opinion.

MicroHydro wrote:No second Hama possible? What tripe!

The barbaric razing of Fallujah in November (once a city of 300,000 people) and massacre of uncounted thousands of hapless trapped civilians (with poison gas, napalm, phosphorus bombs, cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells - all Geneva convention violations) was directly and deliberately modeled on the razing of Hama for maximum effect. No question that this was the worst war crime by a first world power since WWII.

The WSJ is so far out to lunch that Paul Craig Roberts, former WSJ editor (and Asst. Treasury Secty for Reagan) can't stomach it anymore.

Financial Times is a much better source of business news and opinion.

Just be glad we didn't do what I thought they should have done in March of 2004. There wouldn't even be a fallujah now to talk about, it would have been de-atomized and irradiated now.

Sorry, k_semler, but Michael Savage is an idiot. Specop's post shows what will maybe lead to victory for the US. Nuking Fallujah was an assinine idea broadcast by an imbecile with a hyper IQ and a cynic's view to ratings. Savage can go screw his dog teddy as far as I am concerned.

Well, I agree with him on it. I don't agree with him on the recent deveopments with the "Virtual Strip Searches" though. If they want to see my naked body, I should at least get a cut off of the profit!

MicroHydro wrote:
The barbaric razing of Fallujah in November (once a city of 300,000 people) and massacre of uncounted thousands of hapless trapped civilians (with poison gas, napalm, phosphorus bombs, cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells - all Geneva convention violations) was directly and deliberately modeled on the razing of Hama for maximum effect. No question that this was the worst war crime by a first world power since WWII.

I can tell you right off napalm isnt "banned" according to the Geneva convention, and Americas use is in NO way affected by the Geneva Conventions rulings on napalm regardless of what those rulings are.

So, I dont know where your getting your facts exactly, but AlJera or whatever that Muslim anti-US propoganda site is probably isnt the best source of information.

And I'm 99% certain cluster bombs arent even covered in the GC, although i cant be positive of that.

I can tell you right off napalm isnt "banned" according to the Geneva convention, and Americas use is in NO way affected by the Geneva Conventions rulings on napalm regardless of what those rulings are.

So that makes the use of napalm and other weapons, to "liberate" a city from "insurgents" fine and "dandy" does it?

America is so far up thier own ass, that they think the rules do not apply to them.

jackal42 wrote:

I can tell you right off napalm isnt "banned" according to the Geneva convention, and Americas use is in NO way affected by the Geneva Conventions rulings on napalm regardless of what those rulings are.

So that makes the use of napalm and other weapons, to "liberate" a city from "insurgents" fine and "dandy" does it?

America is so far up thier own ass, that they think the rules do not apply to them.

Well in this case, the rules DONT apply to us. Regardless of whos up whos ass.

Come back in 20 years and we'll see.

The_Virginian wrote:Come back in 20 years and we'll see.

We'll see in regards to whether the rules apply to us, or whether Iran is gonna make a big glowing parking lot out of Isreal?