Article

2006-06-27 Caribbean-Latin America

US military sees oil nationalism spectre

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-27 12:56|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Their oil nationalism plus our oil environmentalism (as in moratoriums on drilling for oil in the likely places, such as offshore and in ANWR) = high oil prices for a while.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-06-27 13:28|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-06-27 13:28|| Front Page Top

#2 All the more reason for the military to push for domestic energy supplies.

Posted by ed 2006-06-27 14:44|| 2006-06-27 14:44|| Front Page Top

#3 Nimble, any comments in light of what I posted yesterday about energy independnace being priority One and your disagreement with that?

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-27 14:48|| 2006-06-27 14:48|| Front Page Top

#4 It's time for America to realize that gasoline does not cost a puny $2.00 - $3.00 per gallon. Once you factor in the defense of our overseas oil producers (read Mid-East) along with the environmental impact of refining, tailpipe pollution and vehicle related contaminants (cadmium from tires) plus the medical complications of pollution, like emphysema and so forth, suddenly gasoline is costing around $5.00 - $10.00 per gallon.

We need to move to hydrogen right away. Build lots of nuclear power plants and tell the Arabs to eat sand.

Posted by Zenster 2006-06-27 15:53|| 2006-06-27 15:53|| Front Page Top

#5 couldn't have said it better Zenster. That and ethanol and wind and solar and water and whatever else technology can fathom. There will be plenty of business for all of you oil industry folks for the remainder of your lifetime and there will be a better world for your children.

Posted by 2b 2006-06-27 16:04|| 2006-06-27 16:04|| Front Page Top

#6 I almost hate to say this;

Anything but oil. If only to economically choke off the Islamic countries.

Posted by Zenster 2006-06-27 16:18|| 2006-06-27 16:18|| Front Page Top

#7 Oil sells on the open market, I don't see how anyone can say that they arent going to sell to us.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2006-06-27 16:50|| 2006-06-27 16:50|| Front Page Top

#8 If there were a serious oil embargo, US refiners could always purchase through third party brokers, and pay the mark-up. We can afford to, unlike the poor nations of the world. Separately, recently I read a front-page article in my local newspaper about the trend locally to turn in gas-guzzling vehicles for gas-sippers. This is the hilly part of the Midwest, where soccer moms and distance drivers abound -- who so love their minivans and SUVs. Another year or two of this and I suspect this country's gas imports will start to go down visibly. Not that this will affect world-wide sales -- India and China will take everything we don't, and more -- but we will be less beholden to the oil supplying countries, even before the various upstream technologies come to market.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-06-27 17:34|| 2006-06-27 17:34|| Front Page Top

#9 Zenster: the two things are not tied together. We would still have aircraft carriers if we got all our own oil domestically. We would still have troops in Iraq, and the possibility for war with Iran and China.

All the money we are spending now we would still spend, because the world is bigger than oil. And we found out long ago, and several times, that you ignore the rest of the world at your own peril.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-06-27 17:55|| 2006-06-27 17:55|| Front Page Top

#10 Oil sells on the open market, I don't see how anyone can say that they arent going to sell to us.

It's a mistake to think that oil is a standard commodity like wheat or copper. Refineries, which are hideously expensive to build, are tailored to one grade of oil and in some cases to specific country suppliers. That isn't something one can change easily or cheaply. And while I think that in some cases oil of different grades / origins might be substituted, with poorer or less output as a result, overall the substitution isn't without costs of its own.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-27 18:33|| 2006-06-27 18:33|| Front Page Top

#11 If we don't buy the oil from Venezuela, it will have to sell it to someone else, who will probably resell it to us with the ususal markup. In the worst of all worlds, we would have to buy from a new source.

Is someone here suggesting that it is in our interest to compel countries to sell products to us by military force? Is it our duty to assure that other countries manage their natural resources according to our interests?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-27 18:50|| 2006-06-27 18:50|| Front Page Top

#12 Don't know about others. I'm certainly not. I just view an investment in other energy sources as a prudent portfolio diversification and risk management strategy.

There's another dimension to the SouthCom analysis that isn't being discussed here. If the oil revenues get screwed up in Latin American countries - and especially in Mexico - that has geopolitical and security implications for us. I'm not suggesting we have any right or intent - or any good purpose - to intervene there, but we'd better be prepared for any side effects on us.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-27 19:28|| 2006-06-27 19:28|| Front Page Top

#13 Its another Rove conspiracy. Hugo will embargo. The MSM will go ballistic blaming Bush and the Republicans. The Pres will declare a national emergency and open the off shore sites for immediate development. Halliburton will have the equipment ready to deploy. See photo ops of first new oil flowing. The Dems who created the mess will be stuck with their 'starve you gas guzzlers' position, just like Iraq. Another log jam broken and the economy back on line before the 2008 election. The left will go more rad. The government will go more red.

Posted by Jereck Jinetle7758 2006-06-27 19:45|| 2006-06-27 19:45|| Front Page Top

#14 Hugo's on Rove's payroll?? Who knew?

Or maybe it's only the psychic income of thinking he's important.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-27 19:49|| 2006-06-27 19:49|| Front Page Top

#15 Zenster: the two things are not tied together. We would still have aircraft carriers if we got all our own oil domestically. We would still have troops in Iraq, and the possibility for war with Iran and China.

Yes, but these individual conflicts or potential conflicts would not require the sustained "boots-on-the-ground" like we have had in Saudi Arabia for so many decades. I do not overlook how necessary our military forces are. Nor am I so deluded as to think they only serve the security of our oil supply (i.e., the usual "Blood for Oil" horsesh!t). However, I do firmly believe that we have spent great treasure defending our Middle East oil interests (which our economy so heavily depends upon), to the detriment of America not developing alternative fuels and mass transit.

All the money we are spending now we would still spend, because the world is bigger than oil. And we found out long ago, and several times, that you ignore the rest of the world at your own peril.

Please see my above comments. Were it not for serious considerations about impacting world oil markets, we might well have been able to better focus on interdicting terrorist nations and rooting out stateless terrorist enclaves. Far too much of our military focus has been on keeping the oil flowing.

Long ago we should have recognized this vulnerability and retuned our economy over to mass transit, alternative fuels and crushing those who seek to do us harm. Our money-obsessed politicians have been in the pocket of big oil for far too long and have betrayed the American people's need to be freed from the Islamic oil teat. This is no big news, save to our politicians.

Posted by Zenster 2006-06-27 19:56|| 2006-06-27 19:56|| Front Page Top

#16 My only quibble, Zenster, is that mass transit only works in the cities and the East Coast corridor. The rest of the country is too spread out and -- speaking about my own life at least -- too varied in personal schedules to line up neatly waiting for the next bus.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-06-27 20:09|| 2006-06-27 20:09|| Front Page Top

#17 Mass transit also refers to our nation's rail system, which is in such a shocking state of disrepair as to be a national disgrace. tw, you are well traveled. The European train system precludes the need for a lot of automobile travel that is otherwise required in nations like America, which have such spotty train service.

Also, our urban transit systems are so belated that suburban sprawl has occured without the centralized planning needed to include interurban and peripheral transit infrastructure. Americans were deluded into believing that the car was the end all and be all, much to our peril.

Posted by Zenster 2006-06-27 20:21|| 2006-06-27 20:21|| Front Page Top

#18 "There will be plenty of business for all of you oil industry folks for the remainder of your lifetime and there will be a better world for your children."

Dont count on Bush and his Boys giving up their OIL power anytime soon, for patriotism or any other reason, wont happen.

Posted by bk 2006-06-27 20:25|| 2006-06-27 20:25|| Front Page Top

#19 our urban transit systems are so belated that suburban sprawl has occured without the centralized planning needed to include interurban and peripheral transit infrastructure.

Our urban transit systems are over 120 years old in the north east. We have transit systems that suit the American desire for land ownership, space of our own and a liking for nature.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-27 20:30|| 2006-06-27 20:30|| Front Page Top

#20 If producing countries embargo the US but not other countries, the oil will move around and get to the US anyway, less efficiently and with some risk premium, but it will get there (Iraq managed to export to the world during the trade restrictions).
If producing countries just shut exports (as Iran is threatening) their own economies will suffer severely, possibly leading to government collapse.
Refineries are customized to specific feedstock blends, but mostly can be modified to adapt to changes, or else the blends can be rebuilt to acceptable 'fits' from alternative sources.
Such oil nationalists may have missed their best short-medium term opportunity for impact too - Canadian oil sands are coming on line and Iraqi exports may be increasing, at the same time US (and probably world) demand is flattening or even declining. Stockpiles in storage or shipments at sea are at their highest levels in quite a while. I'm starting to wonder if Bush is trying to pull a Reagan - recall the USSR fell because the US forced a military spending competition while simultaneously dealing with Saudi Arabia such that oil prices fell, squeezing the Soviet oil sales cash flow. Substitute Iraq/Afghan driven 'spending' competition with the Islamists and Canadian for KSA oil?

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2006-06-27 20:31|| 2006-06-27 20:31|| Front Page Top

#21 Zenster, I strongly suspect urban sprawl has been deliberate government policy post-World War II, as the only sensible response to the real threat of undeclared nuclear or biological attack by an unsuspected enemy. And it's worked -- as far as I can gather, the US is best situated of all the nations of the world to survive a terror attack or pandemic - nuclear, biological or chemical - because the population is not concentrated, and most people have enough land for a small vegetable patch and a few chickens if necessary (not to mention the suburban deer population could probably feed us for a year or two!). The cost in oil-based fuel has been bearable to obtain this safety net, which is a separate issue from our continued choice to leave our oil unpumped in order to hold the OPEC knife to our throat.

Separately, the places I've been that have good and much-used public transport have significantly higher population densities than where I am in the middle of the American Midwest. In Germany, people assumed that my 1500 square foot house must contain three apartments, and most of my local friends did indeed have living spaces that small. In Belgium, my neighbors all drove anyway, because they were too important to take public transport, although their children did so in happy independence. In Hong Kong, as far as I could tell from a brief but wonderful visit, distances are so short that one would ride mostly to save one's favourite shoes from being scuffed.

But I've been plenty of places where the choice is either to stay home or go by car or taxi... so most people just stay home. Even in Germany -- when we first arrived, we lived in a small village with no public telephone, no public transportation, and it was several kilometers along major roads to get to the nearest village with either. The wait to get a phone installed in the flat was six months -- longer than we intended to stay. I was nearly suicidal by the time we found a house in Civilization (telephone, 3 minutes walk to the train station, 5 minutes walk to the village center and the shops, less than half an hour by train or car to the center of Frankfurt a.M., and people who understood that one might not speak their language fluently). Truly I don't think I'm being disingenous as I make my argument.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-06-27 20:54|| 2006-06-27 20:54|| Front Page Top

#22 urban sprawl has been deliberate government policy post-World War II

Then why have so many real estate developers had to bribe so many zoning commissioners to build the sub-divisions? As always the American voters got what they wanted, just as they have the energy policy they want, whether the Burg likes it or not.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-27 21:27|| 2006-06-27 21:27|| Front Page Top

#23 Herman Kahn used to tell the story of his talks with urban planning types in the late 60s/early 70s. He would explain and explain that polls and surveys and sales figures all showed that the vast majority of Americans wanted to live in a detached home with at least a little land.

The reponse of the planners? "How can we change their minds?" He didn't seem to think it was likely to happen .... ;-)

Posted by lotp 2006-06-27 21:30|| 2006-06-27 21:30|| Front Page Top

#24 San Diego's a real spread out place, and the "planners" are always spending transportation dollars on mass transit (which few use) and not freeway expansion....the last sales tax for road projects vote REQUIRED they spend no more than 1/3 on mass transit, to relieve freeway congestion

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-06-27 22:50|| 2006-06-27 22:50|| Front Page Top

#25 I don't wanht to be forced to ride with loudmouths or people who need a bath. If you like that kind of thing have at it.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-06-27 23:59|| 2006-06-27 23:59|| Front Page Top

23:59 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:52 twobyfour
23:48 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:23 Eric Jablow
23:15 Frank G
23:08 JosephMendiola
23:06 JosephMendiola
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:55 49 Pan
22:52 Barbara Skolaut
22:50 Barbara Skolaut
22:50 Frank G
22:48 Glenmore
22:47 Frank G
22:45 49 Pan
22:42 bk
22:39 49 Pan
22:38 JosephMendiola
22:37 Old Patriot
22:37 DanNY
22:34 Eric Jablow
22:34 JosephMendiola
22:33 Unavitch Unaviper3310
22:31 muck4doo