[PolestaR]

Until "the countries which matter" are past the production limits I don't think "we" will experience anything negative from oil "peaking". I put peaking in quotes because reducing demand to zero effectively stops the peak oil problem.

The fortunate ones born in well off countries with things such as the internet, constant electricity and 1-2 cars in the garage of a 3 bedroom home probably use what, 60% of the current oil capacity (please forgive my rough estimate, anyone who can correct me please do). That means there is an automatic ~40% demand reduction we can "enforce" just by "not giving" oil to those countries.

Anyone got a list of the countries who won't be eating first at the oil table, and does anyone really think the average westerner gives 2 flops about these countries? What effect did the recent African problems have on our economies? Little, because these countries by their very nature don't do much export/import wise because they are relatively poor to afford the things we export and we don't seek to import the goods they have.

[mekrob]

I'm not exactly sure which African countries you are talking about, but if it is Nigeria, I think we do care about the several million bpd they supply to the world. And the rest don't use that much oil.

You have a pretty twisted sense of how the world works. There isn't a central storage of oil from which all oil is taken and all produced oil goes. Oil is sold from one nation to another. Since we only produce one tenth of the world's oil and we consume all of that oil and more than that over again, I don't think we have much of a say in controlling which countries get so much amount of oil. If you were to be a Saudi prince, then maybe I can understand where you are coming from, but the US doesn't have a voice in the destination, unless we want to spend trillions more a year to buy all the oil. You have a very "American" view of how the world is and should be: Everything is ours even if it really isn't.

If there is one nation that has the best chance of "not getting" any more oil (from the rest of the world) it is most likely the US, given it's policies towards other nations and how favorable those policies are according to the rest of the world, especially the major oil producers.

[Comp_Lex]

And what is going to happen with our economy?

[PolestaR]

I'm not exactly sure which African countries you are talking about, but if it is Nigeria, I think we do care about the several million bpd they supply to the world. And the rest don't use that much oil.

You have a pretty twisted sense of how the world works. There isn't a central storage of oil from which all oil is taken and all produced oil goes. Oil is sold from one nation to another. Since we only produce one tenth of the world's oil and we consume all of that oil and more than that over again, I don't think we have much of a say in controlling which countries get so much amount of oil. If you were to be a Saudi prince, then maybe I can understand where you are coming from, but the US doesn't have a voice in the destination, unless we want to spend trillions more a year to buy all the oil. You have a very "American" view of how the world is and should be: Everything is ours even if it really isn't.

If there is one nation that has the best chance of "not getting" any more oil (from the rest of the world) it is most likely the US, given it's policies towards other nations and how favorable those policies are according to the rest of the world, especially the major oil producers.

With Saudi's so heavily invested in the USA why wouldn't they be looking to hold them up the longest for their own wealth? Not to mention the military and economic consequences of "not giving the westerners the oil". If you seriously believe the big oil producers will favour non western countries with oil supplies (even with higher prices offered elsewhere its likely to still favour westerners, not to mention we have the ability to raise the price to nearly whatever we want) you aren't living in the "real world, tm".

The western countries have the power to force the oil producers. The forcing will mean either NO OIL comes out due to fighting for it (sort of like Iraq atm) or they will cave to the pressure, only 2 options.

[mekrob]

Invading any of the Middle Eastern nations would be much more devastating than what has happened in 'Iraq. Oil supplies are much tighter now, partly because of 'Iraq among other reasons. It would only give al-Qaida even more fuel for recruitment and with a stretched out military, those new recruits could much more easily pick off our soldiers which would more than likely be without any European or Far Eastern friends by their sides. But to invade Saudi Arabia, or even the public threat of such an incident, would unleash a great deal of unrest and trouble for the US. We've lost a little more than 2,000 in 'Iraq now with a few ten thousands attacking US. To invade their holy land would unleash millions of Arabs and Muslims upon our forces. We'd be losing thousands a year with even less oil coming to the US. Do you really want to invade a nation just to have oil prices climb and have thousands more military deaths every year? Go ahead. The Saudi know that we can't invade, so why would they ever cave into pressure?

[PolestaR]

Invading any of the Middle Eastern nations would be much more devastating than what has happened in 'Iraq. Oil supplies are much tighter now, partly because of 'Iraq among other reasons. It would only give al-Qaida even more fuel for recruitment and with a stretched out military, those new recruits could much more easily pick off our soldiers which would more than likely be without any European or Far Eastern friends by their sides. But to invade Saudi Arabia, or even the public threat of such an incident, would unleash a great deal of unrest and trouble for the US. We've lost a little more than 2,000 in 'Iraq now with a few ten thousands attacking US. To invade their holy land would unleash millions of Arabs and Muslims upon our forces. We'd be losing thousands a year with even less oil coming to the US. Do you really want to invade a nation just to have oil prices climb and have thousands more military deaths every year? Go ahead. The Saudi know that we can't invade, so why would they ever cave into pressure?

Actually we CAN invade/destroy them, we outpower them significantly (not just USA, I am talking western forces). If you think that any middle eastern country deludes itself to think it can win *all* wars against the USA/Westerners you yourself must be deluded. I am not deluded to think we can win *every* invasion scenario on another country, but there are other options to plain old invasion, as we all know these days.

Western Society doesn't just have to threaten an invasion to get a country to do what it wants, the invasion in Iraq is there mostly for the presence and the ability to setup a base of operations in the region if they so choose. If Saudi's/major oil producers don't give oil to us, we can do things against them for punishment, and that is what it will come down to, who can do the most punishment. The poor countries without stealth bombers and ICBM's or the ones with them.

A war will not be good for "our" economies which is why it won't be sought as a first option, but the threat of it will always be looming so the countries with oil know who to give it out to. Have you thought about the situation where these oil producers have to figure out who to give oil to? And has what you come up with differed from mine at all? If so I'd like to hear about it.

[Caswell]

The level of debate coming from PolestaR...!!!

Aside from the fact that the US army in Iraq will be exhausted by the end of this year, (my analogy is of a sprinter mistakenly entering a marathon) the US doesn't have the capability to invade Saudi Arabia. Although there are some 160,000 US troops in Iraq, my understanding is that there are 5 or 6 logistical back-up personnel to every front-line soldier; so in essence, there are around 20,000 sharp-end soldiers there. If this is correct, then it's no wonder that they've found it impossible to subjugate 5 million Sunnis, let alone 26million Iraqis in total. And you're imagining an invasion of Saudi Arabia! Aside from the manpower issue, this would need the compliance of regional governments agreeing to the use of bases and there isn't one that would play ball; particuarly if this was in your context of a US-European offensive against the region. Moreover, the Saudis et al would just blow the oil pipelines. It's true that the Saudis might be reticent about blowing the pipelines, since this could well mean Saudi impoverishment and social upheaval, but then, and it's presumed the Saudis know this, it would quite possibly mean the same for us.

[mekrob]

Yes we could invade and outpower them, but the occupying presence is what would cost us so dearly. You see a mere few thousand insurgents in Iraq. Now invade Saudi Arabia, and you will see millions coming at us. We have several dead a week now, but invading Saudi Arabia would make that number climb to the hundreds if not thousands per week. You really think Americans can tolerate tens of thousands if not more deaths a year just to keep the oil pumping? And the oil is flowing so well in 'Iraq isn't it? Knowing for a sure fact that we just wanted oil, they'd stop at nothing to make sure that a single drop got on a tanker bound for the West. Oh, and let's look at who else would want be a major consumer of that oil without an invasion? China. Who I believe have a few nukes of their own. Iran isn't too much of a better option, as they have ties to both Russia and China. If you want another "Mission Accomplished" speech, go ahead, invade, but be sure that we will receive plenty more body bags and very little oil, plus hatred from all corners of the globe. You think the Canadians would be sending over ANY oil or NG if this were to happen?

And tell me, other than America, which Western nations would fight for oil? Definatly not Spain, France, or Canada. It would be the same as in 'Iraq, basically.

[mekrob]

Caswell, Good point, but the Saudis are all ready poor, well, at least the ones who would be blowing the pipelines. They wouldn't hesitate.

[Gorm]

If things get nasty then US will take thegloves of and figth to win and no ammount of terror will be spared the lokals. US will not loose unless they chose to loose for internal reasons. Say that no oil comes from ME, and there will be massive international backing for the us to go in and fix it up.

exampels of how wars do play out sometimes, not to uncommon.

2 troopers ambused and killed utside a willage. Response, every adult and teenage male are shot & all houses are destroyd in the williage. No one askes who did what.

People are not allowed to leave their neighborhood without permission. A lot of pepople are moved from places were they migth cause problems to camps. Those who oppose are shot and left to rut.

Locals revolt in a city. Army response are bombings/shellings and isolate they city untill the locals start to die-off because lack of food. After that 10% males executed, just to remind them rest of what happens when they try and pick a figth.

If you think that will cause an international uproar? No, not post peak, cause then everybody will see whats best for them, and some arabs that deny the world/west/us the oil will hardly even be humans in people eyes

[gt1370a]

You are right, demand destruction will occur among the poorest countries first. At $60, places like Zimbabwe that were screwed up already are priced out of the market. Even within the US, the poorest are already struggling with their limited budgets to pay for increased gas and energy prices, so their demand destruction keeps the price affordable for the rest of us. It's ugly, but this is what economists mean when they say The Market will work.

[gt1370a]

You are right, demand destruction will occur among the poorest countries first. At $60, places like Zimbabwe that were screwed up already are priced out of the market. Even within the US, the poorest are already struggling with their limited budgets to pay for increased gas and energy prices, so their demand destruction keeps the price affordable for the rest of us. It's ugly, but this is what economists mean when they say The Market will work.

[sch_peakoiler]

Nobody mentioned China here, or have I missed something? Just wanted to remind that China has its very own interests in oil and also nuclear weapons to justify its actions in UN. It will likely come to a full-blown conflict between China and US, where the winner is not really defined. Or am I missing something?

SCH.

[PolestaR]

The level of debate coming from PolestaR...!!!

Aside from the fact that the US army in Iraq will be exhausted by the end of this year, (my analogy is of a sprinter mistakenly entering a marathon) the US doesn't have the capability to invade Saudi Arabia. Although there are some 160,000 US troops in Iraq, my understanding is that there are 5 or 6 logistical back-up personnel to every front-line soldier; so in essence, there are around 20,000 sharp-end soldiers there. If this is correct, then it's no wonder that they've found it impossible to subjugate 5 million Sunnis, let alone 26million Iraqis in total. And you're imagining an invasion of Saudi Arabia! Aside from the manpower issue, this would need the compliance of regional governments agreeing to the use of bases and there isn't one that would play ball; particuarly if this was in your context of a US-European offensive against the region. Moreover, the Saudis et al would just blow the oil pipelines. It's true that the Saudis might be reticent about blowing the pipelines, since this could well mean Saudi impoverishment and social upheaval, but then, and it's presumed the Saudis know this, it would quite possibly mean the same for us.

I thought I "made it clear" when I stated "all invasion scenarios". Now of course there would be some scenarios where the USA/westerns would take more casualties, etc, but its clear you haven't thought of all possible invasion scenarios. If they do a repeat of Iraq with as few soldiers, sure it might be pretty bad. There is only 150K troops in Iraq, a small amount of total possible forces we have now (western forces).

One scenario might involve dropping a few nuclear or biological weapons onto them (USA has the biggest biological weapon stockpile), then coming in with the cleaning gear. Of course when you think invasion, *you* sort of mean something like the DDAY landing invasion from World War 2. Things have changed since then, it just depends how dirty you want to get. Such things might appear totally out of the question in these "peaceful and prosperous" times but I don't think you can rule out such actions when oil is running out.

People like you don't run countries, if you did there would be constant wars because you don't understand the capabilties of others and their deterrants.

[PolestaR]

Nobody mentioned China here, or have I missed something? Just wanted to remind that China has its very own interests in oil and also nuclear weapons to justify its actions in UN. It will likely come to a full-blown conflict between China and US, where the winner is not really defined. Or am I missing something?

SCH.

China is one of those countries which looks good on paper militarily, but in reality, the logistics are against it. Such as, how do you move and feed the 2+ million standing army (there is also a lot more since every man is 'encouraged/required' to join the army) China has. If you can't move the 2 million+ army, how much can you move? etc

China's oppression of it's people is also going to backfire against it at some stage, especially when they are starving and looking for answers.

The main problem with China is it has around 400-500 nuclear weapons, and in that sense is a pretty big threat to its neighbours, and to some of the western world. China also has quite a few enemies surrounding it, other asian neighbours, which will require some of its attention also.

[Bolinbrooke]

Yeah, what a great paln, lets brutalise a group of people so we can continue to live an extravegent unsustainable lifestyle.

Unfortunately consumption levels are dictated by the US, Europe, China and India. I dont think excluding the third world would have much impact on consumption as they are mostly excluded now anyway.