<Wolcott: "Worse Than a Fool" The Oil Drum Friday Open Thread>

47 comments on Of rigs and pipelines

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Leanan on March 23, 2006 - 7:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
FWIW, CNN is now airing a story on the alliance between Russia and China.  They mentioned the energy deal, but emphasized the military alliance.  

They seem to think the old Russia and China vs. the U.S. dynamic is alive and well.  I think there's something to that.  Japan has no real military, and they're in our pocket, anyway.  If I were Russia, I'd court China, too.

Now the talking heads are lamenting the failure of "free trade."  Opening up to China was supposed to tame them by showing them the benefits of trade.  Instead, it's had the opposite effect.  They are getting more aggressive, not less.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on March 23, 2006 - 7:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
GW did say he is a "uniter not a divider."  In a sense that it is true.  He has succeeded in uniting the world against us.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
strandk on March 24, 2006 - 12:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There was a meeting of foreign ministers from Australia, Japan, and USA last week (http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/australia/joint0603-2.html).  USA and Japan also emphasized the corporation with India. I think that the alliance of USA, Japan, India, and Australia has been forged gradually in the last couple of years to contain China. Nuclear deal of USA with India should be part of this alliance. The weakest link of BRIC alliance, Brazil and India, seems to move away form the alliance slowly. In my opinions, the most important issue is how far Russia is willing to support China. There was a deal for gas pipelines but not oil pipelines.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oilaholic on March 24, 2006 - 1:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Good observation, strandk.  One interesting aspect of an alliance composed of USA, Japan, India, and Australia is that among all four there is damn little oil produced.   As opposed to the China/Russia alliance, which has a lot of oil and, especially, NG.   With China, you have to count in their rapidly expanding bi-lateral deals for oil: Sudan, Iran, etc. and growing.

Frankly, it doesn't look too good for the home team unless we get to work real fast on both conservation and alternatives, as Hirsch says.   In this regard, the recent strong statements by Richard Lugar are totally on point.  I have to believe that people are going to see this in the not too distant future.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on March 24, 2006 - 10:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I have to wonder, when you mention those four nations, (Aus, USA, Jap, India) how much the global-influence of a Nation is necessarily hinged upon its access to raw materials and great labor-force.  Look at the British Empire, or just the way Humans, and by a further extension, the Transistor- use raw power itself.  It is a model of a smallish conduit that funnels and manages power.  Success is based on the effective, and sometimes the efficient Handling of that power, not necessarily that of being the energy supply itself.

So I look at the ascendency of China and wonder if the Next Dynasty comes from SIZE, or from Having the 'Right Idea for the time period in question' (IE, England combining their Market Systems with the need for Naval Dominance reinforced by the history of Norman and Spanish incursions)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on March 24, 2006 - 10:36am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
.. I should have said
"The right MANAGEMENT Idea for that period.." since, as I re-read it, I'm looking at 'Power Conduits' that operate largely Extra-nationally, like Wal-Mart or Exxon..  They are leveraging the power-sources wherever they are, against the financial resources, whereever they are.. dependent, of course, upon the ability to transport the goods from the one to the other.  But aren't corporations in many ways competing at the scale of the nations for resources and influence, with the 'Power Management Idea' of doing so without the Ball-and-chain of a fixed piece of land or a population to have to answer to?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ChrisPhoenix on March 24, 2006 - 10:53am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If I were to make a guess, I'd guess that the right management idea for the upcoming period will involve less stringent rules on some forms of intellectual property than the US currently has.

The US software industry flourished for decades with no patent protection.

Computers have provided the first manufactured good that's literally too cheap to meter: the transmission of data by the megabyte around the world. Business models that take advantage of the unlimited-sum nature of data copying will do better than those that try to fight it. For example, some book publishers are finding that putting complete books online for free increases sales of those books, and Megatunes.com is doing the same with music.

For more of my thoughts on intellectual property, click here.

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on March 24, 2006 - 5:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Interesting points.

John Perry Barlow of the Grateful Dead would seem to agree with you in this.  He's said that their open policy about bootlegging was a boon to their success, not a drag on it.  I have been looking at the increasing amount of art that is finalized as 'Data', and therefore doesn't exist as a unique material object.  There is no 'Original'.  What does that do to Arts Auctioning, and then what does that mean for 'Ownership' of art at all?  Would people who could have just 'one of an unlimited number' of copies of a great Cezanne, a CB DeMille or one of Mozart's or Shakespeare's Manuscripts, etc, without ever getting to be that 'King of the Hill' who has 'THE ONE'..

.. and is universal access to one's very own source of power-generation (Solar, Wind, etc) just as great a threat to the 'Selective-Ownership Society' as that of our Art being so 'unownable'.

It's unfortunate that parts of Capitalism tend to succeed from conditions of imbalance, because it creates a demand by the capitalist society FOR imbalance.  It's a disincentive for cooperation, trust and peace.  Now sure, to do business with each other, these same conditions have to be present to some degree, but PROFIT is won by leveraging divisions.  Feeding from low cost supplies, offered to places with high-priced demand.  War Profiteering has never had it so good, and it's hard to keep the labor costs down if population gets too plentiful.

 

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Brother Kornhoer on March 24, 2006 - 12:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think the US is in some ways trying to replay the old English strategy of building alliances on the continent to contain the strongest continental power.  In this version, though, instead of Great Britain offshore of Europe, it's the US offshore of Asia, building alliances to contain the Chinese.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
CapnBligh on March 24, 2006 - 11:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There's also a good article in this week's Newsweek about this "alliance." The other remarks about in this thread are true enough, but....

I think Russia is merely bowing to the inevitable, though I'm sure they don't see it that way.

Nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and that's what Siberia is. The Chinese are already "invading" it, and if they're patient, they can probably take it without a fight. Given all its problems (demographic meltdown, AIDS, tuberculosis, alcoholism, corruption, ...), Russia won't be able to resist very effectively.

OTOH, China faces demographic problems of its own. They will all be living in interesting times.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
strandk on March 24, 2006 - 11:50am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yes, I remember that my Russian friend showed me an editorial in Pravda regarding with Russian policy in Far East a year ago. It said that Russia would welcome remilitarization of Japan because Japanese military will become a good counterbalance against Chinese. It also mentioned that this would be a good way to avoid nuclear attacks from Chinese. Russians are much more comfortable with Europe than China. Russians are well aware of resource insecurity of Chinese. Russians have great concerns about Chinese illegal immigrants in Far East. To my eyes, USA and Russia seem to be dealing with China independently and from different reasons. Nobody wants to provoke China. But it would be very dangerous to fuel too much self-confidence in Chinese. That is why, as I said, the most important issue is how far Russia is willing to support China.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on March 24, 2006 - 12:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think Russian's policy is brilliant in this regard. By making themselves a critical supplier of energy they are both supporting and putting China under some kind of control.

Of course they have the resources to do it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gets IT on March 24, 2006 - 8:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
And Europe.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

47 comments on Of rigs and pipelines

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version