Chinese Oil Demand is Surging
Posted by Dave Cohen on July 4, 2006 - 8:38pm
Topic: Demand/Consumption
Tags: angola, automobile, china, implied demand, iran [list all tags]
Apparent oil demand leapt 13.5 percent last month from the year-ago level to 6.5 million barrels per day, according to calculations based on official data.This short report will focus on "apparent" oil demand, growing Chinese oil imports, where they come from and what is driving this demand surge.That was the fastest rate since 2004, when overall demand grew around 15 percent, and exceeded last month's 10.8 percent rise as imports of fuel oil surged and gasoline exports slumped, both indicators pointing to increased domestic needs.
Some analysts said the figures were also lifted by refiners stockpiling oil in hopes of more profitable sales later.
Apparent demand is based on refinery runs plus net product imports, but does not account for changes in inventory levels.
Are higher prices impacting consumption? If we are to take the data at face value this suggests demand for gasoline is running at 0.5% YTD, pretty lackluster given prevailing economic growth. Taking the data at face value can of course be extremely dangerous. With the transition to ethanol taking place this year data are likely being distorted. Readers with a technical aversion can skip to the next paragraph. The addition of MTBE in the past has been done at the refinery. Ethanol is intolerant to water, so can only be blended with gasoline at the distribution depots closer to the customer. Official data estimates implied demand by calculating product availability (production + net imports + change in primary inventories). During the transition to ethanol in gasoline, refinery gate deliveries of gasoline are likely lower for two reasons. First, MTBE is no longer present when gasoline leaves the refinery and ethanol for blending is not measured in total gasoline stocks. Second, refiners have estimated that the loss in gasoline yields/output from not using MTBE can be as high as 5-8%. As a result, it is possible that low product availability has muted implied demand growth as measured by the US Department of Energy.We find then that implied demand is demand as measured over the entire supply chain. This definition appears to contradict the Chinese statement at the top. Minyanville is more specific about the implied demand as compiled by Reuters for May:
- Crude Oil Imports up +20.5% yr-yr in May, re-accelerating, and spiking into positive territory from the (-) 1.8% yr-yr contraction posted in April.
- Domestic Crude Oil Supplied up + 9.7% yr-yr in May, accelerating from the rise of +2.6% yr-yr posted in April.
- Product Imports up +416.3% yr-yr, not a typo, up four hundred and sixteen-plus percent, soaring further from the already stratospheric pace of increase posted in April, at +69.5% yr-yr.
Bloomberg reports that Chinese oil imports were up only 19% in May measured year on year. All implied demand figures have an associated uncertainty. The demand estimate would also seem to contradict the standard assumption that Chinese domestic oil production is flat at about 3.4/mbd (2005). But let's move on.
While apparent oil demand was estimated at 13.5%, up from 10.8% year on year growth in April, this alarming story from China's People's Daily China's automobile output exceeds 3 million in first five months tells us where the increased demand is coming from.
China Association of Automobile Manufactures released statistics showing that in the first five months China's automobile output and sales hit a record high to 3.53 million units and 2.9743 million units respectively, an increase of 31.77 % and 30.84% over the same period of last year respectively....Perhaps the People's Daily is not the best source of information and have exaggerated the figures because the Chinese are no doubt proud of their economic progress. From the Asian Times Auto boom worsens China's energy crunch, we learn that 5.7 million motor vehicles were sold in 2005 but the prediction is for sales of 9.6 million in 2010 with a total of 140 million by 2020. I shouldn't neglect to add that the first Toyota has rolled off the factory at Nansha, west of Guangzhou, not far from Hong Kong. It was a Camry. The trend is clear. For some reading here, this probably represents their worst nightmare coming true. I do not mean to scapegoat the Chinese and other "Asian Tigers" as the media often does. They are doing what comes naturally and these figures still pale in comparison with the United States.In the first five months, China's automobile imports (including the complete sets of automobile spare parts) have soared to 87,000 units, up by 80% over the same period of last year, according to the statistics released by the General Administration of Customs. Analysts said the dealers increased car imports in the first quarter due to the coming increase of consumer tax from April 1st, but the imports saw a decline in April and further drops in May. Despite that, the imports in the first five months witnessed a surge of 80% because of the sharp increase in the first quarter.
Where is all this Chinese imported oil coming from? It is not for nothing that China has dubbed this The Year of Africa.
China's Premier Wen Jiabao (L) and Uganda's
President Yoweri Museveni watch the honour guard
Surprisingly, Uganda has no oil
The premier met with leaders of seven African nations which we can divide into two camps: Egypt, Ghana (oil), Congo (oil), Angola (oil), South Africa, Uganda and Tanzania. As Wen Jiaboa traveled, spreading Chinese largess throughout the African continent, he did not forget to make that all important stop in Angola.
China Petroleum & Chemical Corp (Sinopec) has acquired stakes in oil exploration blocks in Angola's recent licensing round through Sonangol Sinopec International (SSI), its joint venture with Sonangol, Angola's national oil company, the official Shanghai Securities News reported.Quoting from China's Portugal Connection, "In February 2006 Angola became the largest supplier of crude oil to China, beating Saudi Arabia and Iran into second and third place. Recognizing how Angolan oil can contribute to its continuing growth, China has embarked on a massive offensive to secure its vital position in the country". Perhaps it should have been dubbed "The year of Angola" but that would have been unseemly, too crass. Finally, I note that about 5% of Chinese imports come from the Sudan with expectations that exports from there will increase to about 9% of China's needs by 2010.SSI won stakes of 27.5 pct, 40 pct and 20 pct in blocks 17, 18 and 15 respectively, the report said. Sinopec holds a 75 pct stake in SSI.
In the interest of brevity, I'll cut this story off here. There's plenty to discuss.
Nothing new.
His thesis is that prior economic contractions (following oil price increases) were caused by interest rate increases, and not by higher oil prices per se.
However, he predicted that the post-peak crash will be all that more severe, because of the economic boom preceding the arrival of $100 plus oil.
As oil prices rise, Russia's dollar earnings will increase. In order to keep down the value of the ruble (if it became too strong, Russia's other exporters could be hurt), Russia will have to print more rubles (it didn't used to have to do this as the ruble wasn't fully convertible). The effect of this money printing will be not just to increase inflation, but to increase Russian consumption, including oil consumption.
As a consequence, I wouldn't be surprised to see very strong Russian growth in the coming few years.
On the other hand, the Bank of International Settlements has recently recommended (http://tinyurl.com/llubu) that central banks increase their interest rates 'more forcefully' to 'control inflation', so we may well see another major economic contraction caused by interest rates.
"Zapata" George Blake http://www.zapatageorge.com/ has written and spoken extensively on the growth of the Chinese automobile fleet being a relentless demand engine outside of any practical means of control. He once recounted a phone conversation with an exec from an auto company that was building a new plant in China. He asked, "And will your cars have gas tanks?...Ok, that's all I need to know."
Poor Americans will have to ride the bus or bicycle so that newly middle class Chinese can drive. Other than viral genocide or nuclear armageddon, there are no other solutions. The question is whether the ruling US junta is willing to escalate to massive global crimes against humanity to defend the "non negotiable" American lifestyle or will they capitulate and let a growing fraction of the US population slide into third world poverty?
And
"we learn that 5.7 million motor vehicles were sold in 2005 but the prediction is for sales of 9.6 million in 2010"
Looks like China will have no trouble blowing past that number.
"Poor Americans will have to ride the bus or bicycle so that newly middle class Chinese can drive. Other than viral genocide or nuclear armageddon, there are no other solutions."
Schwinn or Huffy
How many Firsts, Bests, and Mosts will China pull off before Americans start noticing?
Then Putin showed up, threw the oligarchs in jail and formed military and energy alliances with China and other central Asian countries.
Talk about throwing a huge wrench in the works! Now Russia, China, Iran and Germany become the New World Order.
Who would have thought this would happen three years ago?
Oh good grief.
I guess the sentence that finally put it over the top was this one:
"How many Firsts, Bests, and Mosts will China pull off before Americans start noticing?"
We will wait for thier first First or best....and except for most mouths to feed, I would like to know of any of those too...this has now gone past the edge of idiocy.
If using semi slave labor to load the U.S. Walmart chain and auto replacement part business down with cheap shiit merchendise is now considered a "miricle deed", then maybe I have a false view of national stature and securtiy.
It amazes me that if the United States has autos and wants to continue trying to use them, that is EXACTLY proof that it is a filthy decadent nation of no real cultural enlightenment or advanced knowledge, but if China has a rapidly growing population of knock off sport utes and is laying highway by the tens of miles an hour, it is a sign they are a raging success!!
If Americans ride more bicycles, according to some posts on TOD, that is good and virtious and "environmental", while on another post when we discuss China, China leaving bikes for cars is proof of their overwhelming superiority, and us riding bikes is a sign we are becoming a "third world nation"!!
While America is going to "destroy itself and the world" with greenhouse gas emissions, apparently no one notices that China has two hundred fifty or three hundred million people, all it's shipping and most of its industry sitting in what will be coastal marsh if the glacial melt actually occurs!! Thank heaven they are exempt from the greenhouse gas their cars release!
The United States still, even long after our peak, produces more of our crude oil at home as a percentage of cunsumption than China, FAR more of our natural gas as a percentage of consumption than China, and is orders of magnitude better on energy consumption per GNP.
If the Chinese are our major competitor in who is best outfitted to survive a possible "peak" scenario, I feel better already.
So while we wait patiently for China to "pull off" its first or best, they have to keep an ever ascending amount of fuel coming to their nation, while hoping the world economy doesn't slow down and stop the money flow that buys that fuel, and plan for a billion Indians right behind them competing for their markets, their fuel, and their natural gas....oh, and one more thing...try to build some of them New Orleans style levees to protect a quarter of a billion people, and 50 or more New Orleans size cities and their associated industrial might from the inrushing "Al Gore" glacial flood.
Good luck.
I will gladly take America's "growing loserdom" any day of the week. (by the way, does anybody here ever have anything good to say about this country? I cannot begin to tell you the damage some of this completely non-sensical America bashing does to undercut the cause of educating people to the REAL critical issues of energy depletion. Non sensical praise of the non existent "miricle deeds" of China horribly undercut credibility if no one here will reply to them. I have no love lost for recent U.S. policy on many fronts, and we surely have our MANY faults and vices, but we should try not to go completely off the deep end in our attempt to prove American "loserdom" on every day, in every way....displays of rabid and irrational U.S. hatred cannot do much to win a wider U.S. audience, and often comes across as much more the point of discussion on the boards than any discussion about the WORLD energy problem.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Very well-stated!
I second your thoughts.
America-bashing (as opposed to constructive suggestions) is mostly childish mental masturbation, IMHO.
Shanghai has 17 subway lines in planning, the first 5 recently opened (3 within last 2 years from memory). Once completed, Shanghai will surpass London & NYC as the subway capital of the world, with Beijing a rival with London and NYC for #2. Many smaller cities also have major projects underway.
About 18 to 24 months ago, the response to rising oil prices was to add some kms to the 15 subway lines then planned fot Shanghai and add two more.
From memory, 30 nukes planned
Below is a listing for one Chinese river. Similar scope expansion in another couple of other rivers (upstream of 3 Gorges for example)
From a critic of Chinese dams; Three Gorges Probe
---------------
China is looking past coal. They have massive hydro plans Hydrolancang's existing and proposed dams along an 800-km stretch of the Lancang (upper Mekong) River in Yunnan province (from upstream to downstream):
Projects Installed capacity (MW) Dam height (metres) Estimated cost (US$millions) Status
Gongguoqiao 750MW 130m $625 Due to start: 2006 Completion: 2008
Xiaowan 4,200MW 292m $4,000 Under construction. Completion: 2012
Manwan 1,550MW 136m $473 Completed: 1996
Dachaoshan 1,350MW 111m $600 Completed: 2003
Nuozhadu 5,850MW 216.5m $5,000 Under construction. Completion: 2017
Jinghong 1,750MW 118m $1,000 Under construction. Completion: 2010
Ganlamba 150MW 65m n/a n/a
Mengsong 600MW n/a n/a n/a
Thank you VERY much for that wonder post. It is so nice to see that someone else thinks the same way.
I am also tired of the constant bashing of our Country and its political leaders. It seems most of the bashing comes from those that are convinced that there are major conspiricies going on all over the world.
They bash the large oil companies, but I wonder what they think will happen the first time one of those third world countries "Nationalizes" the expensive oil infrastructure that China has delevoped in their Country and orders them out of the Country like they have done to the large oil companies? Do you think they will just write it off like the oil companies or will they send in the troops?
I will forever remember the scene in "Braveheart" where they were ripping the insides out of William Wallace and his only verbage was "FREEDOM".
Freedom is not free. Its price is eternal vigalance and sacrafice. Those who advocate not working to contain violent agressive religously controlled dictatorships from getting accress to nuclear weapons would also be the first to complain about our leaders not protecting us when those nuclear weapons were used against us.
No one really knows what is going to happen when the oil shortages really begin to happen. There are as many different ideas (or more) than the number of people posting on this wonderful educational site.
But it seems that the educational content comes from just a few who focus on the problem(s) and the bashing comes from the many who provide minimal educational content.
My hat is off and I offer my many thanks to those who are spending the time and effort to provide the really great articles, charts and references.
Thank you very much.
The United States is a world laggard, the worst of the bunch (Australia may be near us) in planning for the future.
Even Uganda wants to build two more hydroelectric dams to get completely off oil for electricity. We trail Uganda in foresight and planning !
*The 1¢/kWh wind subsidy is doing some good (carryover from years past), but the Bush Administration's drop of federal matching for new Urban Rail from 80% to 50% does more damage than the wind subsidy did good. The Interstate Highway system was largely built with 90% federal matching subsidy.
In a little noticed move, the Bush Amdinistration rolled back the energy efficiency plans from the Clinton Administration for home central air conditioners from SEER 13.0 to SEER 12.0. Massive amounts of natural gas will be burnt in future years because of this one small change.
We are right now doing a little more then what is motivated as a "bonus work" while doing other things. Much of it is market driven investments presuming high and rising oil prices. For instance are our farmers large common organizations risking a large part of their capital on this.
And Ford is starting a hybrid technology reserach center in Sweden to continue Volvos work in hybrid technology and have promised to invest about $1.2G in this over 10 years. (And if Ford goes belly up the people and knowledge will still be there for someone to bid on. ) I also think manny people hope for these fields to be ha safe haven for new surprisning taxes. Our authorities could surely not kill these new industries when they are desperately needed? There would be a public outcry.
Our opposition alliance is proposing larger public investments that I interpret as focused on infrastructure, energy savings, research and development in cooperation with industry with a higher degree of corporate and researcher control.
Our current socialist government will probably propose larger public investments that I interpret as focused on infrastructure, energy savings, research and development in cooperation with industry with a higher degree of political control.
Either way the turn around if you sum up all the parts will probably only be about a percent of GDP. The socialist version will take the chance to increase the size of the government staffing and will probably use more tax money, the opposition version will probably try to attract a larger portion if private investments. The opoosition has stated to contuine the current large rail investments and use more money for road maintainance and building, our socialists will probably propose more money for even more rail investments.
And much of this additional effort is still only words, the result depends on what happens during the summer months, if PO becomes a big question it will mean a lot in the election and influence decisions. Either way no one want to get rid of budding and working industries exept our greens and leftist(almost true communists) who realy want to close down nuclear power and get rid of other things they concider dirty or distrubing the natural views.
What is proposed is more or less a go ahead for most half finished plans and researchers and companies who have bided the time using about a percent of GDP. That is far from being an almost maximum effert. A maximum effort is a mobilization comandeering some 20% of GDP or more. But this is not a war, this is two immediate problems, global warming and PO whos solution efforts can be combined with creating jobs and protecting our comptetiveness.
And we could be wrong! PO might not hit us with full force for 10 or 20 years, global warming might be controlled by some natural feedback loop or man made one. We would then look dumb if we made an almost maximum effort, it is better to do a reasonable one that gives attractive products in the short run, generally usefull knowledge and infrastructure that lasts for decades or a century. Perhaps we are only adding a layer of infrastructure and knowledge as done during earlier smaller energy and other crises? I would actually argue aginst a true maximum effort but it would be wise to draw up some plans for such an effort if it would be needed. (The lack of a good civil defence as the one we had during most of the cold war worries me.)
In a rich nation, 1% of GDP goes further. And Sweden and Switzerland already had, among other things, good non-oil transportation systems in place and they are just enhancing already good systems.
IMHO, 1% of GDP is close to the maximum effort that can be expected in the real world of today. I am amazed at the Thai level of effort !
If the US effectively devoted $124 billion/year towards solving these problems "we could get somewhere" in a decade.
Even 1/2 of 1% of US GDP; $62 billion/year would give is a fighting chance to effectively deal with both of these looming problems.
A lot of it is incremental costs as if a suburban landscape would be PO prepaired by being built with a 10% higer cost in insulation, heating/cooling heat pumps, preparations for subdivsion of houses if times turn bad and fruit trees instead of lawns. If you extend the loading gauge and axle load of a railway, how much of the investment is reinvesting the worn rails and bed below it and how much is new PO preparation for increased traffic? I could probably easily get my single percent by moving the goal posts. :-/
And then there are local decisions, our municipiality could on its own start about this level of investment for the local area by moving its capital from old more socialist era investments to new trolley lines, car roads and bicycle roads. (Yes we need some new roads for cars.) The trouble is that old nostalgic people are guarding the "democratic influence" on the day to day running of these investments even when that has lost all practical relevance and they would be better served by new infrastructure. I am trying to sow this idea, I hope it works. Manny but far from all municipialities have capital that can be moved around to finance infrastructure investments and most have good credit rating.
And most of the municipialities will go broke in about 20 years if we dont do something more efficient and market driven for fulfillig promised social benefits etc but that is another problem.
Said the car dealer to the old lady.
This is a meaningless phrase. Freedom isn't free, but neither must it be so expensive that other, vital national interests are not met or looked after.
Let us consider data on US military spending:
Military spending in 2005 ($ Billions, and percent of total)
The chart below might also make a few things clear:
Country Dollars (billions) % of total Rank
Source: U.S. Military Spending vs. the World, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, February 6, 2006
United States 420.7 43% 1
China 62.5 6% 2
Russia * 61.9 6% 3
United Kingdom 51.1 5% 4
Japan 44.7 4% 5
France 41.6 4% 6
Germany 30.2 3% 7
India 22 2% 8
Saudi Arabia 21.3 2% 9
South Korea 20.7 2% 10
Italy 17.2 2% 11
Australia 13.2 1% 12
Brazil 13.1 1% 13
Canada 10.9 1% 14
Turkey 9.8 1% 15
Israel* 9.7 1% 16
Netherlands 9.7 1% 17
Spain 8.8 1% 18
Taiwan 8.3 1% 19
Indonesia* 7.6 1% 20
Myanmar 6.9 1% 21
Ukraine* 6 1% 22
Singapore 5.6 1% 23
Sweden 5.6 1% 24
North Korea* 5.5 1% 25
Poland 5.2 0% 26
Iran 4.9 1% 27
Norway 4.7 0% 28
Greece* 4.5 0% 29
Kuwait 4.3 0% 30
Colombia* 3.9 0% 31
Switzerland 3.8 0% 32
Pakistan 3.7 0% 33
Vietnam 3.5 0% 34
Belgium 3.4 0% 35
Notes:
Figures are for latest year available, usually 2005. Expenditures are used in a few cases where official budgets are significantly lower than actual spending.
* 2004 Figure.
Source uses FY 2007 for US figure (and includes Iraq and Afghan spending). I have used 2005 to try and keep in line with other countries listed (but I have NOT included the Iraq and Afghan operations cost which would be another $75 billion).
A massive, standing military establishment in peace time is a relatively new phenomenon in our history. At first we justified the national security state that was built after WWII through our experiences in the two world wars and the shadowy threat Stalin's USSR represented. We've been without those justifications for over ten years now and (surprise! surprise!) we've not only not gotten rid of it but expanded it by using Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism as the new looming evil du jour. Am I mocking the threat Bin Laden represents? Absolutely. When you read the 9/11 Commission report it is clear Bin Laded succeeded more due to massive incompetence and ineptitude at the highest levels in the national security apparatus of the United States than to brilliance by religious fanatics.
So, what do we have? Billions and billions spent on a national security apparatus flummoxed by 19 men weilding knives. We've a war in Iraq sold to us by folks who reap all the benefits of military spending and military operations but bear none of the costs. If you read Sy Hersh, the gnomes tending the war machine in DC are still seriously considering dropping bombs on Iran.
Freedom isn't free, but we don't have to crucified on a cross of iron either. No one doubted European militarism and imperialism was driven by vested interests who had much to gain by such policies. Suggesting the same thing about the US, however, gets you tarred as being anti-American. A look at the data, however, suggest otherwise.
One U.S. Marine with his Kabar could have taken out four guys with box cutters in approximately eighteen seconds.
I disagree:
if conservation is your goal then the best place you can get the best impact is to cut the use by the military then use the savings there to convince the public to do the same.
1. Much of the frustration with these topics is that they are loosely related to oil if at all. A few posters have a compulsion to foment about their pet peeves to the detriment of the larger dialogue. Don't misinterpret all of the lack of patience with off topic rants as disagreement.
Sure, no doubt. But I think detaching the technical debate over how much oil is left is KSA from the geopolitical and social ramifications of peak oil is difficult if not impossible. You can't have a real discussion about oil without talking about US demand and consumption. 5% or so of world population using 25% or so of world production. America's use of oil and the entire society built on it is the elephant sitting in the room is it not? China, India, Europe, Japan, KSA...all important, but in the end we have the US consuming far more than anyone else.
2 It is pretty obvious that there are extremes in the US and that any statement by one extreme results in insults by the other. If you can't take the heat ...
I wasn't insulted, but, again...5% of world population consuming something around a quarter of world production! 43% of world military expenditures but next to no investment into programs or policies that would alleviate oil consumption! An invasion and occupation of an oil-producing Arab country coupled with the abandonmen of efforts to capture the actual people who attacked the US! A looming showdown with Iran over its nuclear program. Highway sprawl going deeper and deeper into the countryside. Gay marriage being given more credence as a political issue than global warming by our political elites.
What is one to make of this? It's clearly, obviously insane, but that's the reality on the ground. Something is out of whack here. Opinion polls reflect it and a lot of people can sense and feel it. Many are angry about it. But no one can really say what it is.
3 Vested interests gaining from policies is old, obvious and well documented. I don't see much opposition to this line of discussion until you get to some pretty extreme conclusions. Some of these are based in paranoia, some in politics and some in anti-Americanism.
Fair enough, but I think Americans are overly touchy to criticisms of their country and are way, way too quick to charge anti-Americanism and paranoia. 5% or so of population, 25% of world oil consumption and an economic, political, military, and cultural hegemon to boot. How can the United States NOT be a topic of conversation?
"detaching the technical debate over how much oil is left is KSA from the geopolitical and social ramifications of peak oil is difficult if not impossible. You can't have a real discussion about oil without talking about US demand and consumption. 5% or so of world population using 25% or so of world production."
Yes. social and geopolitical issues are just as important as technical. U.S. demand is clearly relevant, but your post was not about demand. It seemed like the boilerplate "The U.S. is an empire rant". I didn't see much effort to link it to energy issues. Sure the US uses 25% of energy, but has near 25% of the global economy. China and India are elephants knocking on the door too.
"Something is out of whack here. Opinion polls reflect it and a lot of people can sense and feel it. Many are angry about it. But no one can really say what it is."
The current U.S. administration is deeply unpopular, a sentiment that I share. But the causes are many. I don't think American militarism is the direct cause of an American malaise. However, I disagree with the hyper simplistic war for oil analysis. I have asked before, if people think Russia or France's support for Iraq was less about oil? How about China and Russia's support for Iran. I suggest in all cases all players have a mixture of economic and political motives. Oil is one of both.
"Americans are overly touchy to criticisms of their country and are way, way too quick to charge anti-Americanism and paranoia. ... How can the United States NOT be a topic of conversation? "
I agree that the U.S. is no less acceptable as a topic of conversation than any other subject. Are Americans more touchy than citizens of other countries? I doubt it. Most of the "anti-American" posters are Americans. Self-criticism is an American trait. I think the two extremes go overboard. Overly patriotic Americans see everything the country does as good, kneejerk critics see everything as bad. They are both wrong in my view.
My primary objection to your post (and the Israel one yesterday) is that the main thrust of the argument is external to peak oil (although contortions can be made to claim otherwise), the topics are endless, and they lead to brute arguments between two extremes.
I have come to accept that critics of America and the U.S. administration really do believe that these issues aren't being discussed often enough. I suggest you look around. There are many people with opinions that may not be much different than yours, or who would be convinced. However, they are so bored of people thinking it is reasonable to insert Bush comments or America is a dictatorship into every discussion. I have close friends that I have to make agree to not talk about Bush all night if we go out together. Do I disagree with them, maybe not. But I don't want to hear the same simplistic argument over and over and over....
I am not the site policeman. My opinion is no more important than yours. But I do think we improve the quality of this site if we stick with topics that are relevant or lead to something other than emotional arguments.
Chapter 7 is titled "Blood For Oil" and his case is that while the cold war was primarily about ideology, our near-future wars would be about resources.
Perhaps that book just captures a moment in time, but I think we came up againt that choice. Is war about peak oil? I think when it shows up in a book like that the case is stronger than just "contortions."
So, while I don't think I open these things, I don't think it's a good idea to swear silence either. Because, if oil is a cause, and we all just keep mum and pretend it's not ... we aren't helping.