[Aaron]

Since we agree that shortfalls in conventional crude are at best a massive challenge, and at worst a nightmare, the critical question becomes:

"How much is down there?"

Many call for transparency in reserves reporting by oil producers for this very reason.

To say that oil producers are less than forthcoming about reserves reporting is an embarrassing understatement to say the least.

Given the critical importance that reserve amounts represent to our entire world, perhaps the time has come for demanding this data, rather than asking nicely.

Perhaps a new "coalition of the willing" should be formed to seize (by force if necessary), seismic information concerning the worlds oil endowment.

Or better yet, our new coalition should just invade producing countries who do not volunteer to cooperate, bring in seismic teams, and make our own surveys... & then leave for the next non-compliant producer.

[JLK]

I think you're ahead of the curve on this one, Aaron. The broader issue is whether the OECD countries (as embodied by the U.S. military) will be putting pressure on the countries that are typified by national oil companies and big reserves (SA, Iran, Venezuela) to open their fields up to exploration and production by multinational oil companies and/or to increase production as a rate that is greater than what their baseline comfort level would otherwise dictate.

I see the answer as inevitably yes. Of course, true to fashion it won't be spun that way for public consumption. We'll hear more about how Chavez is frustrating the hopes of ordinary Venezuelans for a better life and how Muslims are oppressing women. But it'll happen, IMO.

[Barbara]

I think there is a terrible mistake over this oil thing.
The oil is THEIRS. If we think they lie, then we should stop to buy it. It's not an act of justice to force them doing anything or steal their property.
Like them or not (I don't, for what it worth), we are not forced to buy what they have to offer us.
We are blessed with wealth and many other gifts, so we could solve ourselves our energy problem and leave alone oil and oil producers.

Of course, these are just principles...

[Barbara]

To be clearer:
if you think all the used car dealers are liers, are you going to force them to tell the truth at gunpoint? No, you simply drop the used car and buy something else, a new one, a bicycle, a bike or whatever.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he oil is THEIRS.

[JLK]

From a moral standpoint I agree with Barbara. Then again, morality as it is practiced between ordinary people has never had much to do with relations between nations- realpolitik is a much better predictor for what is going to happen in the future.

This is why the issue of Iran going nuclear is really so important. If Iran can acquire a dozen or so small nuclear weapons it changes the power balance in the region to the extent that it can sell its oil to the extent that it wants, to whom it wants without real fear of reprisal. It could also project power into Iraq and across the Gulf to the Arabian peninsula much more effectively than it can now.

The U.S. is in a real fix now because the Iraq war has exposed the limitations of its military as far as occupying a hostile Muslim region while being able to keep the oil flowing. Military options that looked feasible in 2002 don't look that way anymore.

[smiley]

http://www.earthsat.com/geo/oil&gas/hyd ... n_SEA.html

http://tinyurl.com/6345m

why ask?

[BudDwyer]

Regardless, oil is as bout as good as a mcdonalds burger. Fast, easy, filling but very shhitty. I doubt you really disagree.

The global oil peak teaches me less about the danger of my life than about than the mankind dependence of it and how it will effect us all. Looking for more oil is like looking for more heroine, and the more you find it- the crazier spasms and suffering you will have thru your withdrawl.

About who owns it-

"Nobody owns this Earth. It is a treasure we hold in trust for future generations. A trust that we have abused."

- African "ish"

No type of structure can change that fact unless it is twisted. Also the very thought of that fact is often dismissed as "Miss-America-logic" with no respect. It is up to you to respect this fact.
It's hard to "keep it real" but even harder to "make it real."

-peace

[Barbara]

Bud,
I agree: it's like heroin. We should try to become less dependent, instead of running around to find more more more.

Aaron,
I don't care if they are bad people. Oil is theirs simply because it's under their foot. What if some powerful country come to yours asking for this and that? What if they come to look into your resources because they don't trust you and they desperately need them?
If you have a resource, or a product, well, it's a free market: you can sell at the price you like, you can advertise, lie, or do whatever you want. It's up to your customers decide if to buy or not.

We should learn this: oil is not something you can't live without. Air and water are a human right, oil is just a market product.

[Aaron]

Barb,

Fine. Agreed that the oil is theirs.

But that's not the question I asked...

[Leanan]

I voted no. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, it's not practical. Invading over oil info or WMD info - same difference. We'd have a dozen Iraqs on our hands. We can't even handle one.

[CarlinsDarlin]

Agreed, Leanan.

[nigel]

Aaron, highlights the single most important question upon which the whole Peak Oil business hangs - 'How much oil is there?'. Much panic and nonesense is written on the topic given that the answer is unknown and the variables of consumption, technological development, alternatives and URR are so uncertain in determining how long what is there will last. Charlatans thrive on such uncertainty and all manner of wild assertions are made and rubbish books sold to play on our fears.

Given that the whole modern world is built on oil, not knowing how much there is left is barking mad. The oil optimists say we'll not peak until 2060 and the pessimists say we already have. We cannot prepare for it's inevitable peak and price rise unless we have an incentive to do so. The poor in the Third World will inevitably suffer most and first, from the price escalation. Many millions of people's lives will be at risk. Pollution and global warming should do the trick and scare us into alternatives, conservation etc but it seems so distant from our short drive to the shops that most of us fail to see the link. On the other hand, if there really are oceans of the stuff under Saudi control we can address the other concerns which will arise from this stranglehold.

Military invasion and enforced surveys? Would this be practical? How many lives would America be willing to lose to put a dipstick up the Saudis? How long would it take? How many nations would oppose it? Wouldn't it be seen as yet another American grab for the world's resources which it so shamelessly gobbles up regardless of world pollution? (How true is this commonly accepted fact? Oil per GDP %?) Would China stand by? Might America not invite its own punishment by such unilateral actions? What if there was in fact little oil there? Would the Saudis not then choose to supply oil first to its friends - ie. anyone other than America? Would America tolerate this? Would anyone believe the American data?

It is THE fundamental question and, as I've said before, it's madness that we do not know the answer but force will not achieve a certain or necessarily acceptable outcome. What's need is international pressure, an interest and focus on the energy/pollution questions facing us all and a concerted effort to inform the public that we need these answers. The Saudis have already began to respond to questions about these issues and to try and calm nerves. Much more effort and openess is required. But as I tried to point out in the Slippery Saudis thread, it's not as straightforward as all that. If they have loads then they will be pressurized to produce more and more cheaply - increasing both our dependence AND pollution/global warming - and if they have less, international instability will be assured and the crisis well hit us artificially early. This latter effect may be no bad thing. On the other hand, it may lead to a panic excavation of Wyoming - USA has more coal reserves than the Saudis ever had oil - and a consequently massive boost to global warming. (The coal, nuclear, green, solar etc guys want to ramp up oil panic.)

Force does not appear to be the answer, forceful intellectual persuasion to allow an independent survey does. Unless there is really far less URR in Saudi than they claim this should not worry them. If they refuse, we will assume the worst and they will find themselves squeezed between the USA and China. Merely making it an issue should do the trick.

[Aaron]

Great post Nigel,

Agreed that we would risk much by "seizing" data from oil producers.

We have been warned by many however that if Ghawar declines rapidly and is nor offset by new production, the global economy is in trouble.

I don't necessarily advocate using the military option, but pose a moral question... which is worse?

IMO, the consequences of unknown reserve quantities, are much worse than most potential backlash reactions, especially if we can get international support through the UN.

My real point was the moral dilemma... profit before ALL. With the greedy house of Saud claiming "no problem", real public works energy solutions can't gain traction. But if a coalition of international geologists concluded that the Saudi Miracle is almost over... instant traction worldwide.

[nigel]

Aaron, the moral question I always ask myself when debating the war/peace option is this:- 'Would I be right to send my teenage children (I'm too old) to fight and possibly die, for the cause?' I can imagine answering 'yes' - but not on this issue (I am obviously not a pacifist) . If not mine then not yours either - in other words I couldn't countenance my compatriots and allies dying for my benefit if I wasn't willing to sacrifice my own. I hate and despise the 'they're only grunts' attitude to soldier's lives. (The callous way Bush refers to the dead in Iraq sickens me).

The UN? I was anti-war without UN sanction and I really thought the pressure would make Saddam buckle. Then what did the French do... The UN has its uses but being decisive is not one of them, neither is acting for the common good against national self-interest. The UN Sec Cncl needs remodelling - out goes France and the UK, in goes the EU, Japan, Egypt, India and Indonesia. Maybe voting strength could be balanced on blocks of population to stop small country obstruction and large populations being ignored?

[Aaron]

I agree in substance...

What bugs me are the consequences for those same young men & women, and indeed the rest of the world, if the Saudi "smoke screen" has the world running blind, off a cliff of oil production.

So I guess that leaves us at:

What's worse?

[nigel]

War is worse. I don't see oil prices rising inexorably as either a necessary or sufficient cause to hail the end of the world - there's still half left! Serious aggro and readjustment - certainly.

What do you think about creating a rounded letter raisng these concerns, spelling out the reasonable fears uncertainty creates, and encouraging people to cut and paste them in POSTED/MAILED letters to our respective Saudi embassies and asking for a reply? A sort of Peak Oil Amnesty International approach - I guess you're also into that with (your?) Steve Biko memorabilia.

[Aaron]

I'm not sure about "doomsday" myself.

But I can envision a global energy crisis which depresses the global economy enough, that marginal developing economies collapse completely.

And every economy takes a brutal beating...

I guess I fear the social unrest which breeds at the heels of serious economic depression. Not necessarily in the rich nations initially, but many poor countries are borderline now... imagine a world wide depression, and your in Mexico City.

Or Columbia.

Or Nigeria.

North Korea? Oh man...

Peking?

Or any of a laundry list of highly leveraged economies.

Wide spread poverty alone is a terrible offering to place at the feet of greedy oil producers who refuse to publish reserves data.

Sure we still have half left, the more expensive half.

http://peakoil.com/fortopic1127.html

But the attendant conflict which comes with the possible implosion of the developing world...

Worse than war?

Man... that is war.

----------------------------

Bikko projects the right visual message for me I think. Solidarity is key.

[The_Virginian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut the attendant conflict which comes with the possible implosion of the developing world...

[nigel]

Virginian - 'we have spies everywhere' - Possibly. More likely they are on expenses in some smart hotel in a warm climate following a possible source, a fellow - but foreign national - spy (to the bar). Did they predict the end of the cold war? Did they find the Los Alamos hard drives? Did they predict 9/11? Did they know about the Pakistanis selling nukes to all and sundry? Were they right about WMD in Iraq? Did they know the Israelis were manipulating data to get the USA to fight a war for them?

Where is Bin Laden? Where is one eyed Mullah Omar?

Many years ago I met someone from MI6 and the person I met said this, inter alia: "We do not exist. We are the Secret Intelligence Service...". I kid you not. Pretty hard to take spies seriously after that. Read Graham Greens Our Man in Havana - and spot the similarities with the WMD/Hutton/Scarlett saga.

Better to rely on market signals than on spies if you want to know what's what.