The Oil Drum | EB: US gov't awareness of peak oil

26 comments on EB: US gov't awareness of peak oil

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

louGrinzo on September 3, 2005 - 6:27pm

A couple of points:

First, OF COURSE the US federal gov't knows about peak oil. Anyone who thinks otherwise, or thinks that they're just now learning about it is kidding him or herself.

Second, while I am absolutely convinced that the Iraq war was about oil, it wasn't about oil in the way that many people assume. The goal was not to grab Iraq's oil and immediately develop it into a gusher of cheap energy. The goal was to ensure that the US could not be locked out of access to that oil by, say, China. Bush knows that we need to make the transition away from cheap oil at the fastest rate possible without destroying the economy. I'm convinced that he knew the supply of oil from Iraq would flat line in the short run, contributing to high (but not disastrously so) prices. This results in massive profits for oil companies (something Bush isn't exactly against), moves us along in the transition, and still guarantees the US a future supply.

In that light, the Iraq war has succeeded brilliantly. In terms of how it is affecting the US troops and the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as the US reputation around the world, it's an unmitigated disaster.

And that ends the extent of my political comments on this site for the next three months, at a minimum.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on September 3, 2005 - 6:55pm

Re: Lou's "and still guarantees the US a future supply....In that light, the Iraq war has succeeded brilliantly"

Huh? I'm not getting this, Lou, what are thinking Iraqi production looks like down the line? The whole thing is screwed up beyond repair, not just now but indefinitely in the future.... We will be forced at some point to withdraw, perhaps after some Nixonian "Peace With Honor" kind of bullshit.... Our future supplies will come from elsewhere. The whole thing is a total disaster. What are you thinking?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on September 3, 2005 - 7:48pm

I think the crew who thought this up (Iraq II) were so foolish that they actually thought they'd get a privatized oil buisiness going in a democratic Iraq. I think at the time they had more in mind about OPEC and radicals than Chinese, but maybe that's just a guess, The main thing is not to judge their plans on rational terms - that gives them too much credit. Look instead at what they irrationally and foolishly thought they could do.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mw on September 3, 2005 - 7:58pm

I'm a conservative and remain shocked at the lies told to con the American people and Congress into supporting the war in the first place.

I do, quite frankly, hope that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz and others get tagged with international war crimes indictments one day.

Invading Iraq to secure American access to oil is no less reprehensible than China threatening to invade Taiwan or Japan invading China or the US invading the Philippines oh so long ago or Hitler invading Europe or the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan or Hussein invading Kuwait. I could go on.

Apparently Mr. Bush believes in "freedom" only when freedom means being free to invade any country with oil, or strategically positioned near oil.

Newsflash: China won't invade anyone -- they'll simply use hard cash to buy what they want.

Which strategy do YOU think will work in the long run?

Think really long run...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mw on September 3, 2005 - 8:08pm

By the way, bomb attacks on oil assets in IRAN yesterday; the Kirkut pipline in IRAQ blown apart again (2km oil spill and growing); what's next...

Yes, his strategy and implementation plans have worked out to be an unmitigated disaster.

Katrina is a potential catalyst event which the disbursed, decentralized and global terrorist groups may take advantage of. Its a golden opportunity for them, isn't it?

Ironic, isn't it: Iraq, pre-war, was in a position to come to the aid of the world. Post war its been reduced to a barely functional oil exporter of diminishing returns.

The real possibility of the US having to make a total exit from Iraq exists. How that will play out into energy security for the US who can tell, but its not likely to be positive.

And hurricane season isn't even over.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

MikeCapone on September 3, 2005 - 9:31pm

"Bush knows that we need to make the transition away from cheap oil at the fastest rate possible without destroying the economy."

Say what?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Big Gav on September 4, 2005 - 5:40am

That was my reaction too - if I thought that was the plan then I could actually understand what is going on.

Controlling middle east oil as we go over the peak is worthwhile only if a crash program to eliminate oil dependence is underway. What is happening instead is a pillaging of the US treasury (and Iraqi oil revenue) by what Eisenhower would have called the "military industrial complex", with no efforts at all to shift away from oil dependence (other than creating all sorts of events that push the oil price higher).

It seems quite possible that we'll have a destroyed economy, still be dependent on oil and face a midle east in open revolt along with a unified chinese-russian block in Eurasia if present trends continue for a few more years. How can one gang of people be so stupid and so immoral at the same time ?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SW on September 4, 2005 - 9:04am

When I was younger one of my friends mother thought that when Nixon went to China, the Chinese kidnapped him and substituted a fake Nixon! I used to think that was one of the funniest things I had ever heard.

The little shit we have in office now couldn't have done more damage to this country if he had been a foreign agent working for our worst enemy.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

step back on September 4, 2005 - 10:19am

What if ... what if ... the bulge in the back is controlled by Ridyah rather than Halliburton? Hmmm ....

You take out Saddam because he threatens the House of Suad, not becuase "he tried to kill ma daddy". This is business, pure and simple.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

step back on September 4, 2005 - 10:21am

What if ... what if .. Simmons is right and Gahwar is running low. There are all those untapped Iraqi fields right across the border. Why have noble Saudi's die when the dumb Americans will do it for us? Hmmm ...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mw on September 4, 2005 - 9:31am

"controlling middle east oil"

One country (well two with UK help) unilaterally taking control of middle east oil is a sure fire way to World War III, IV and V.

If you are ok with that, then we've no problems.

If you think that quality of life following oil wars is likely to be worse off than quality of life following a concerted effort to move, in a peaceful way, to a post-oil era, then we have big problems -- today -- for the path we are on is the former, not the latter.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.