Many here are probably aware that the US is implementing a geostrategic shift on a scale not seen since WWII. Bases in europe and old locations are shrinking or outright closing, and new, smaller ones, are being setup throughout central asia and parts of the middle east.

So I have a question. If peak oil is real, and the government and industry knows about it (notice not all peak oil concerns state this), then why is the US bothering to secure current oil regions and future ones???

Why work to stabilize these places (in the not too distant future note, since the bases will take a long while to reorganize)? Why shift your fundamental geo-strategic plan so that its strongly centered around a resource that you know is going to disappear before the 'plan' can control it?

Because you have to look at the specific facts.

What is happening is that oil reserves in friendly and semi-friendly countries,
i.e. US, Canada, UK & Norway (The last two saved our ass in the 80's) are declining
very heavily.

Oil in Mexico and Indonesia and Nigeria (semi-friendly) is getting low.

The problem is that most of the *remaining* oil is in more hostile countries.

The whole idea behind peak oil is that by 2030 its all over. No more oil, it costs more to get it than you get out of it, iow, spend three or four barrels to get one.

Its not that there is a peak in freindly countries, its a peak in global reserves.

So if peak oil is true, and they know about it, then they wouldn't be trying to stabilize the middle east and central asia, beause those places would have no geostrategic worth.

Good question. The unmistakable fact is, as you state, that the USA is moving to secure certain regions, and those regions are key oil producing regions. So if it is not pure co-incidence that the US is moving in, then it stands to reason that it does have something to do with oil.

Whether it is to do with Peak Oil remains to be seen, but a dwindling resource is certainly a valuable resource - regardless of whether or not it will run out in a matter of decades.

I think that an impending oil crisis would add impetus to the strategic importance of said regions, and would provide more reason to go there. After all, if there is an oil crisis, surely its better to be in control of oil reserves, than to not be in control? If Peak Oil does happen, there will be a chaotic and desperate scramble for the last reserves, however ultimately futile; it is our human nature - think what would hapen if the last bowl of rice in the world was put in a room full of hungry men.
With China, India, etc having high demand for oil, and growing military prowess, then hypothetically assuming Peak Oil to be real, it would be strategically sound, given our nature, to move to secure the last reserves as early as possible. There will always be the hope that it will buy more time to find a viable alternative.


edit tags

[edit on 25-4-2005 by Paul]

Because when the time comes at whatever cost, The United States *must* own that oil. It will take a good amount of oil to get off of oil and China, the US, Etc realize this. If we must defend that end of supply our military machine won't be running on sunshine and flowers.

Originally posted by Paul
Good question. The unmistakable fact is, as you state, that the USA is moving to secure certain regions, and those regions are key oil producing regions. So if it is not pure co-incidence that the US is moving in, then it stands to reason that it does have something to do with oil.

Whether it is to do with Peak Oil remains to be seen, but a dwindling resource is certainly a valuable resource - regardless of whether or not it will run out in a matter of decades.

Oil is not dwindling. Peak oil states that it will, in effect, dissapear instantly (not literally, and not from teh ground, just the market). So if peak oil is true, the last thing you do is bother to secure these regions. You secure your own country, and some nearby neighbhors water and non-oil based energy resources, not scatter your power across the world.

I understand what some people are saying. If oil is 'dwindling', and there's not much left, then you'd seize control of the places where its left.

But no, because with peak oil, you hit the production peak, you very quickly have the oil drained out of the market, and you can't actually get it out of the ground anymore. To deal with it, you establish gigantic (really gigantic) physical reserves, not try to control the areas that have in in the rock. You won't be able to make use of the middle east and central asia. Its perhaps counter-intuitive, but peak oil isn't just about 'there's no oil left' its that you have to spend many barrels to get one out of the natural rock. IOW, it effectively 'dissapears' in a snap. Yes, not an actual snap, but over a number of years. But whats it matter? If, say, the US retreats to its own borders, peak oil 'hits', and say, the Russians decide to invade the US, well, by the time peak oil has run its course, those russian troops are effectively stranded, and destroyed. You can't maintain offshore global control without oil (unless you revert to muskets and chariots). If peak oil is real, then the strategic worth of those regions drops to zero, it doesn't increase because oil is 'running out', because peak oil is more than just running out of oil.

If you knew peak oil was real, you'd return everything to the homeland to prepare for the impending societal collapse, and have to 'weather the storm' as the world's regions go through 'systems collapse', like in the dark ages or the end of the bronze age.

If Peak Oil does happen, there will be a chaotic and desperate scramble for the last reserves,

And those nations will be the ones that don't survive the systems collapse. They'll be the ones that have foreign gendarms patrolling their streets and protecting the occupiers systems of in-country forts and coastal ports.

In 2030 there will still be significant thermodynamically worthwhile oil in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and Iraq, and virtually nowhere else.

There will be large scale conversion to CNG and LNG (compressed and liquid natural gas).

Russia will do quite well, as they are the "Saudi Arabia" of natural gas.

Peak oil is peak, not shutoff.

I don't understand the idea why "Peak Oil" means a sudden shutoff from the market.

Extractive technologies will have to run on energy other than oil.

i have thought of that too. when oil becomes a precious commodity rather than a power source will we stop looking for it and give it up because its too expensive? i don't think so. look how much time and energy goes into gold, platinum etc. mining. just because its a rare find doesn't mean that people will give up on getting at it just because its expensive.

Oil is very valuable as transportation fuel, because liquid hydrocarbons are so darn convenient. Laws of chemistry and physics and all that.

But we can do OK with other things.

Peak oil doesn't mean the end of energy or some such return to the stone age.

I think that people will quite quickly get used to nuclear power and pluggin in their hybrids every night when oil is $250.

Peak oil means no more oil, with a tail off of a few years, not decades probably. It means returning to pre-industrial modes of energy production, by force, or using inefficient alternative sources.

Yes but the peak in production results in the eventual removal of oil from the market. You don't slowly run out until all the oil is taken out of the ground. You get to a point where, there's still a lot of oil in the ground, but you can't extract it in anyway that is economical.

If nobody is extracting oil, then that is zero oil production, not peak oil production.

Texas still pumps oil, although significantly less than it used to.

Peak oil production is peak oil production. As prices rise, what was uneconomical will become economical---this just chops off the peak off the plateau a little bit, so we will get a flatter peak.

Remember, oil != energy. Oil is very useful for transportation, but there will not be mass deindustrialization because electricity will still be available. Transportation will be expensive, and long-distance physical commerce less feasible.

Originally posted by mbkennel

I don't understand the idea why "Peak Oil" means a sudden shutoff from the market.

Simply put it this way: peak oil is when oil demands are going up while oil supplies are going down. Way, way down.

Originally posted by mbkennel
Extractive technologies will have to run on energy other than oil.

There are all types of alternative fuel technologies but most doesn't come close to the efficiency of energy usage and distribution as oil. When it comes to the diversity and use of crude oil on energy, physics, transportation, materials - oil beat all other sources of energy (coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.) hands down.