Skip to main content

View Diary: The 4 biggest oil fields in the world are in decline (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Peak oil + Bush incompetence = ? (4.00)
    Jerome, you are right on the mark as usual with this diary, and peak oil is certainly either here or imminent.  But the question is, what has been the USA response to this fact?  So far, the Bush/Cheney policy has been to invade Iraq and grab their oil.  The price per barrel for Iraq's oil, none of which has yet made its way to the USA, is quite high when the $250 billion cost of the Iraq quagmire (so far) is considered.

    Just imagine what that $250 billion could have done for alternative energy research or just plain wind energy investment.

    How many megawatts of wind energy could we buy for $250 billion?

    •  A bit more than a grab. (4.00)
      We're not only there to grab Iraq's oil, but to set down a forward position against China and others in the future as we move past peak and competition for reserves heats up; hence the permanent military bases.

      In addition, our presence in Iraq is essentially a proxy war against Russia, France and others who were positioned to contract Iraqi oil fields as UN sanctions ran out.  This was likely a topic of Cheney's energy meetings early in the administration, and a big part of the reason they've kept them secret.

      •  Good point, Impeach Cheney also (none)
        If we are ever able to get the Bushites out of office those secret Cheney energy meetings are a good place to start digging.

        Bush's blatant lawbreaking will just strengthen his "unitary dictator" theory if he is not stopped- call your congress critter today if possible.

        There is also a theory that Iraq was going to price their oil in Euros so this added some urgency to the Bushco rush for invasion.

      •  don't forget Condoleezza Rice (4.00)
        whose academic expertise, during her Cold War apprenticeship, centered on regional and ethnic tensions within the former Soviet Union. That's the subject Rice spent a year researching as a fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations in the mid-1980s.

        Rice's knowledge, and her mercenary conservative credentials, were later applied to 'gaming' these conflicts on behalf of oil companies after the break-up of the Soviet Union. Hence her seat on the Chevron board.

        Since I always seem to forget which oil company Rice represented, I wrote the following as a mnemonic. It may be sung to the tune of 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic' (it's a work in progress, so feel free to substitute your own last line and chorus):

        There's a tanker in the ocean named the Condoleezza Rice,
        It's a legacy of days when she gave Chevron good advice,
        She sold her soul for oil, now we all must pay the price,
        In truth, she's just a pawn...

        "And I hope you'll understand if any of us come before a court and we can't remember Abramoff, you'll tend to believe us." - Senator Lindsey Graham.

        by QuickSilver on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:43:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  shortsighted (4.00)
        I wonder if $2trillion dollars could have bought enough R&D... the end result of it would have been "Screw you all we don't need oil. Now if you want to fight over what's left of oil, fine, but we've got technology X we'd love to sell you."

        Unitary Executive is just a nice way of saying Dictatorship.

        by voltayre on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:40:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Easily (none)
          Check this out

          Biodiesel can be made from algae. We could get all the fuel we need from the following investment:

          $300 B to build algae farms (one time cost)
          $46 B/yr to operate them

          The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits. - Albert Einstein

          by racerx on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 12:16:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah it's not abour Iraq/Iran, it's about China (none)
        This is where it's going to get ugly.  There's all this talk now of doing something about Iran, but it's ignorant of a very critical problem: China.

        China is growing at a very fast pace and their thirst for oil is also growing.  China faces a very serious risk of political collapse if they can't keep the economic growth moving forward.  They are attempting a very radical shift of Chinese society in a very short period of time, and for the time being, oil is a big part of what's keeping it running.

        So if the US tries to flex it's muscles in the middle east too overtly, we're going to run head long into Chinese interests.  Speaking of interest, who holds all those US treasury bonds?

        --- If trickle down economics worked, Marie Antoinette wouldn't have lost her head

        by sterno on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 12:21:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't forget India (none)
          Both China and India are developing nations with about a billion people each.  Worldwide demand will only go up.  Now if only the biggest oil consumer in the world (The United States) would take proactive steps to conserve, we might be able to deal with the energy problem better.
        •  not only China (none)
          but India as well.

          Republican politicians are not elephants. They're filthy, greedy pigs.

          by sadair on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 12:40:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  A good friend of my wife and I, (none)
          we're Godparents to their child, is a PhD geologist who has worked in oil exploration his entire life.  He's out on his own now, but until relatively recently, he was a VP at a fairly large and internationally known oil company more or less in charge of exploratory drilling.  He first told me about peak oil in Spring 2004.

          The way he likes to explain what he does is that he travels the world poking straws in the ground looking for oil.  I've known him for over a decade, and in the time that I've known him he's been on extended travel to set up wells in Russia, Argentina, Paupau New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Africa (can't remember the country), and (just before I met him) China.

          He is worried about China, because his experience is that everywhere he goes the Chinese are there too.  To him, the new "cold war" is over control of new sources of oil, and China is playing the role of the former USSR.  That being said, I concur that China CANNOT and WILL NOT let the USA control an inordinate amount of their raw oil supply.

          IMHO, if present policies continue, we're going to have a big "problem" with China by 2008.  Also, given the location of the Olympic Summer Games in Beijing, it just might be a major topic of discussion in 2008.  My fear is that the Administration will use the growing scarcity of oil, and the competition with China to acquire oil reserves, as a way to sabre-rattle and fear-monger to another republican president in 2008.

          Do what you can, with what you have, where you are. - T. Roosevelt

          by ranger31 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 12:56:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  $250 Billion in Wind Projects (4.00)
      Would have resulted in roughly:

    • 250 Gigawatts of Installed Capacity

    • 550 Billion KWH of annual output

    • 13% of Electrical Demand Met with Wind

    • 2.7 Billion Tons of CO2 saved a year

    • 1.5 Million Jobs Created
    • Instead we get quagmire.

  •  You hit it on the head... (none)
    I don't think we could have had a worse group of people in power at a worse point in history. Just when we need to radically ween ourselves off of the stuff, we've got oil whores in office.

    I actually think this is another example of a 'high crime' against our nation, the total lack of regard for the reality of peak oil and the nonexistant plan for the future. Reprehensible...

    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead

    by ilona on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:01:46 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

  •  Living in the past (3.66)
    A journalist friend told me the following:
    In 1973 the State Dept. held a conference for the media.  At this time Rumsfeld and Cheney were working with Nixon.

    The State Dept. wanted to tell the press that it was in America's best interests to control oil-producing countries, and in particular to establish a major presence in the Middle East.

    My friend and some other journalists questioned whether the US had a right to occupy nonthreatening countries. Around that time the CIA was busy overthrowing Allende in Chile. The suave reply of the State Dept. official was "This is in our best interests.  Don't you want gas in your cars?"

    So this line of thinking is an old one, and back then there was a suspicion in DC that oil might be finite.

    We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. -Albert Einstein

    by Plan9 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:29:23 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

  • Close

    Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

    Click here for the mobile view of the site