# Is the free trade of oil worth war?



## karpovage (1 Aug 2004)

Thoughts behind my topic question:

I believe that it is safe for me to say that modern nations are dependent on the natural resource of petroleum. A clear statement but used as a colorful metaphor it is the blood that flows through the arteries of both the U.S. and Canadian economies. Without it our economic engine would seize up. And the security of the free trade of this ingredient of industry has clearly been deemed a national security interest. 

I'll cite the Carter Doctrine when the president sent U.S. Navy vessels to escort the free trade of oil out of the Persian Gulf. And I'll also cite Operation Desert Shield/Storm where under the noble cause of liberating an invaded country of Kuwait the U.N. coalition was really there to prevent Saudi Arabia from being invaded for their oil and thus the domino effect of other nations capitulating to the imperialism of one dictator controlling the main sources of this world's natural resource, ie Hussein. (The presence of u.S. troops on Muslim holy land is now the cause for the war declared against the U.S. by Al Queda). I'll cite that Japan attacked China in pre-WWII to gain her oil fields in Manchuria. I'll cite Japan attacked America because of the U.S.'s oil embargo against Japan's need for the fuel to expand its imperialistic notions. i'll cite Germany going after Russia's oil fields to fuel her expansion. And going a bit further back to the birth of our two nations citing a different natural resource - was fighting for the secure and free trade of a natural resource (of fur) worthy of shedding blood over.

So, to sum up for a debate question - a question I would love if a ballsy reporter posed it to both Presidential candidates would be;

*Is securing the free trade of a natural resource vital to the functioning of your nation worth shedding blood over?* Or more simple put, *Is shedding blood worth the dependency of oil?*


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Aug 2004)

North american is just as dependent on oil as it is food in my opinion.

Is food worth shedding blood over?

I'm not trying to justify anything but when gas prices take a hike look at the shit storm it causes. People lost it.  How do you think north american would react to having their quality of life drastically changed?

I've seen quite a few vegitarians eat meat when their hungery or have a craving. I bet all out "no blood for oil" friends would change their opinion when they are paying $4.00 for a liter of gas or they have to start walking to work which is 30 minutes away by car.  Hard to show off to everyone when your $50'000 SUV is sitting in your garage.


----------



## JBP (1 Aug 2004)

I ride my mountain bike to work 5 days a week (unless it rains alot) and it's a 45 minute ride by bike.  

But yes, most people would and have flipped out when the gas prices rise incredibly.

By the way, if it REALLY came down to it. Canada has enough oil ITSELF, to go for years. We have natural gas in Alberta, oil fields off the east coast, west, and up north somewhere in the perma-frost semi-artic regions. We'd realistically be fine if we stopped sending our oil OUT and had to rely on our own reserves. The problem is our economy would collapse anyway because if we stopped trading it, that would be a HUGE loss financially. We give oil to the US mostly, but a couple other nations also. Can't remember exactly which ones...

Anyway, we'd never stop trading with the US so that wouldn't happen. But for Canada, there wasn't ANY need to go to Iraq this time. We don't need to kill people for oil.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Aug 2004)

One of my favorite ways to kill time is to play a computer game called Civilization III.  In the game you have to build a civilization up through time from wandering nomads to a spacefaring state.  Throughout the game resources such as oil show up on the map; if you have the resource in your territory, then your capabilities greatly increase.

If you don't have oil in your territory, and you can't trade for it, you may as well give up the game, because you'll fall behind so fast that you're either going to lose economically or have another state's tanks driving through your capital.

I've had no compunction going to war for oil many times before in the game.  If you think an analogy based upon a computer game is pretty crass, think about what would happen when a happiness rating and a better score is translated into the quality of living of millions of people.


----------



## LanceaLot (1 Aug 2004)

Countries will go to war for any kind of resource protection, so they would go to war for food too. I find it interesting that all these countries claim to be humanitarians and yet do nothing when it comes time to act upon it (Sudan). So I guess my point is, that real war is only acted upon with protection, profit and power in mind.


----------



## winchable (1 Aug 2004)

For industrialized nations Oil is as good as food, as it has been pointed out. Oil is one of those things we have become dependant on to ensure our freedom, so in that sense, if you want to twist it, going to war for oil is like going to war for freedom.

It's easy for us to say this sitting behind a computer with a fan blowing on our face, and tv on in the background, but I'd say in any modern war the human cost is going to be questioned more than it ever would have been in the past. Increased sensitivity to human suffering, global village effect, whatever you want to call it.

I'm sure millions more people have died over a disagreement regarding passages in a book and how to live their lives according to their own definition of that passage.
It could have been a typo for all we know but blood spills over that.
If you want to take a wierd look at it, God is as good as dead (Nietchsze I believe) and has been replaced by consumerism and industry, so rather than fighting over the beliefs that fuel our spirituality as they may have once fought, we fight over the fuel the fuels our economy and our consumption of goods and services.

In a few thousand years perhaps consumerism will be replaced by a utopian/orwellian society and people will be completely similar...chances are they'll go to war over what way they should be similar. The flavour of the century appears to be Oil, so...why not?


----------



## Scott (1 Aug 2004)

There is a program airing on the CBC right now called "Over a Barrel" about the West's conquests for oil in the middle east and elsewhere.

There have also been documentaries on the History Channel about the subject.

I work in that industry so obviously my opinions are quite biased. I will refrain from commenting.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Aug 2004)

Scott,
Because you work in the industry is a good reason for you to post it here, unless it could compromise your livelyhood. I'm sure you know things the rest of us could only speculate. That is the nice thing about the variety of people we have here, some days its a smorgasbord of new thoughts and ideas. Fire away! 
Bruce


----------



## NavyGrunt (1 Aug 2004)

LanceaLot said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that all these countries claim to be humanitarians and yet do nothing when it comes time to act upon it (Sudan). So I guess my point is, that real war is only acted upon with protection, profit and power in mind.



Your comment doenst make sense because Sudan has considerable natural resources. Their is just to much figting to develop it. A war in sudan might make more sense than in Iraq if the issue is oil. Unless Im reading your pos wrong.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Aug 2004)

If big business and government in North America was really concerned about over-dependence on foreign oil, they would have pushed harder for alternatives.  They already exist.

Oil is too closely linked to western economies to make any major changes.  I don't buy into the supposition that the American-led wars in the Gulf were fought to keep supplies of oil flowing.  It's like saying World War Two was fought over the Jews.  Way too simplistic and to a huge degree plain wrong.

No, I don't see that, at least in the west, war would ever be waged solely for oil


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Aug 2004)

Karpovage said:
			
		

> . i'll cite Germany going after Russia's oil fields to fuel her expansion. l?[/color][/b]



And you would be completely wrong.  Germany attacked the Soviet Union not for oil, not for resources, not even for _lebensraum_, Germany attacked the Soviet Union because of the whim of one man - Adolf Hitler - and it was done primarily for the sake of doing it.

Germany had access to Soviet raw materials as a trading partner, and received millions of tons of various "resources" as we are calling them in this thread every year.  On the very day the USSR was attacked by Germany in June 1941, there were trains rolling westward with raw materials.


----------



## NavyGrunt (1 Aug 2004)

Before we go anyfurther it is important to take into account that YES it is worth shedding blood over the lucrative fur resource. It bound to rebound any day and we will be eye high in beaver pelt money.


----------



## Scott (1 Aug 2004)

Bruce, thank you, I may just open up a can 'o' worms here.

Mike, the war in Iraq was not waged solely for oil, not the first or the second, I'll agree with that simple statement. Yet oil is one of the reasons for going into Iraq last year and for helping Kuwait in '91. Is it any coincidence that the first port secured by American Forces on the Iraqi coast just happened to have an outflow for a gigantic pipeline? Is it just coincidence that as soon as the port was secured, the infrastructure was made ready to ship oil? And id it just coincidence that after accomplishing the aforementioned tasks that tankers laden with oil were headed for ports in Texas and Louisiana? Sorry, I think not. Kuwait: How do you think their government paid for the work done by the states in '91 to get them back on their feet? Now, I think Bush was right in going to Iraq, and not for the energy driven reasons, he had a stand he took that I agreed with, Saddam had to go, but to say that the war was all about noble intentions I think is wrong, it was more than that.

This most recent war in Iraq has been lucrative for one particular company in the States, any guesses? Halliburton, the worlds largest energy services company, (KBR is a part of Halliburton) and guess who used to be the President of Halliburton? Mr VP Dick Cheney. Would anyone find it strange to learn that alot of contracts for reclamation in Iraq did not go out to tender? Why was that? Hmmmmmmm, something is slimy here. This one is not even close to being done yet, there are going to be massive investigations come out of this and I would not be surprised if some guys get driven to the stake for this. I wonder what Mr Cheney's package from Halliburton was when he left? I wonder what sort of stock options he got?

Another link to the President's office. Until George W came into power the Alaskan wildlife refuges were off limits to oil and gas exploration, production and transmission. Not long after elected good ol' George opened the area up to oil companies. Not that I think this is wrong, just trying to illustrate the point that the current administration in the States is an energy hungry one.

My opinion of big oil in Canada? Biggest bunch of hypocrites who ever walked. These guys preach HSE all the time and yet they had a well in Northern Alberta flowing 40,000 bbl/d into the Peace River for OVER FORTY YEARS. This well was drilled way back when farmers were trying to be like Jed Clampett. Proper measures were never taken to ensure integrity and eventually these wells blew out. Numerous attempts were made to control them, all unsuccessful. So after a while they just said "f*^k it" I have talked to locals in Peace River (the town) who said that the reason that river ice was thinner around the town was because of "Old Salty" the well puked so much salt water into the river that it compromised the thickness of the ice downstream!! An update on old salty is that they have finally brought the well under control and it is now cemented off.

We preach safety in the industry yet you have to play chicken with a freight train in order to cross the river in Ft Nelson. We go on more about safety yet you are asked to run two log books so that you are never shut down (driving) at the scales because in the winter you may average 80 hours a week (70 in 7 days is too many) I am a Safety Professional and I run houred out, how much sense does that make? There have been changes that should end some of this but it will never stop completely.

What really chokes me is how big oil advertises that they are all about the environment IN CANADA. The same oil company working in Brazil doesn't give a f^&k! Russia, Siberia, Romania, those places are pollution hotzones, and it's still going on just like normal. In the States safety is a bit lax; up here if you pump hydrocarbons down the well (Fracturing or fracking, used to boost production) you must have a fire crew on site, that's where I gain employment, standby fire protection, in the States they do not do that ...hmmmmmmm. 

Food for thought: A couple of years ago Shell Oil reported record losses of over 600% for the third and fourth quarters yet still posted record profits at the end of the year...hmm

Another thing, why do you think that it takes only hours for the price to go up at the pumps if the world price of oil jumps and months for it to go down when the world price does the same?

In closing (I am only closing for now because my prime rib steak is almost ready, more later) I want to say that I am not against big oil but I trust them a whole lot less than when I started this job. No worries about me pulling a "Weibo" that runs on a different course but also has to do with the lack of respect oil companies have for the average Joe. More on that if asked.

I am sorry for straying away from the original topic, but I think that it all relates. Bruce, thanks for giving me the shot in the arm and the sort of "go ahead" 

Remember, They're Just Thoughts

Cheers


----------



## rdschultz (1 Aug 2004)

Speaking of Weibo, I saw him the other day going into Wendys.  Driving a nice big diesel truck.

Thats all I've got.


----------



## Bert (1 Aug 2004)

Is shedding blood worth the dependency of oil?

My personal response would be that the shedding of blood or the mass shedding of blood,
oil dependency or not, is wrong.  Yet, as see all throughout history, anything that negatively
affects or is hostile to national security has been grounds for some level of war.

The world would be a wonderful place if everyone was peaceful, fair, genuine, honest, and
willing to help out the other person.  Historically, ha ha ha.

Looking at it from another perspective...

In the past, many invaders of other lands were resource poor and victims of other take-overs.
Look at the earliest civilizations, the beginnings of Empires, the fall and then the beginnings
of other countries or empires.  Europe was resource poor in their opinion and they left
for other lands.  China did not emerge from their locale very much because they already had
what they needed.  Dictators, despots, and Emperors often lead armies (not often the
will of the people) to seek the riches or enforce safe areas the Empire didn't have in the first
place.  Much of what was taken over were areas of fractional tribes, anarchy, or wasn't considered
anyones territory.

In recent times, I believe the US had to invade Iraq.  There was no other choice.  It wasn't for
Iraqi oil or to overthrow Saddam.  The governments in the region support terrorism against the
West and the US moved into Iraqi terrorist.  Had to.  Without  large active military presence  
in the region, the governments, agencies, or other supported agencies working in the region
wouldn't change their position.  If Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations continued to build its 
power base in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, around the Suez sea gate, governments get overthrown and
the region delves into anarchy.  The tribes in the region are fractious at best.

Definitely this scenario would threaten US national security.  It would also affect China, India and Europe
but it has been suggested they would act in the region too if oil would not continue to flow assuming
the region's governments fall.  The US is more motivated to act quickly because Al-Qaeda and how they
could respond.  

The current balance of power is more business-like and somewhat adheres to regulated supply and 
demand.  If Al-Qaeda gathers influence in governments of the region, not only will there
be oil supply issues, but another growing storm.


----------



## LanceaLot (2 Aug 2004)

> Your comment doenst make sense because Sudan has considerable natural resources. Their is just to much figting to develop it. A war in sudan might make more sense than in Iraq if the issue is oil. Unless Im reading your pos wrong.


From what I understood, there are some clear acts of genocide happening in Sudan as we speak. If that is true, I am making the point that not one of the developed countried got off their butts and made an effort to intervene. Why? I don't know, no profit or bennifit for them?  But they will sure jump off their butts in any situation if their oil reserve is threatened. Are we really as civilized as we make ourselves out to be? You tell me.


----------



## JBP (2 Aug 2004)

Thanks for the post+info Scott!!!

And to add to Scott's post, one other thing the US did almost immediatly was have highly trained Special Forces units deploy and takeover major oil fields/pumping stations and facilities across Iraq and hold them until reinforcements came in and clamped down!

They said this was so Saddam didn't order them to be blown open and cause ecological disaster. Good point, he DID do that last time! But that's just the same thing Scott was talking about, they didn't just secure them to protect the environment of Iraq, they want the damn oil!!!


----------



## Scott (2 Aug 2004)

I can not go into to many specifics about how my company was involved in the latest Iraq campaign but I can say that the company, or at least the President of it, was contacted by the US DOD asking for opinions on how the Iraqi's might booby trap or sabotage the Oilfields. We all thought that we would get a call to go, the call never came. Some blame Canada's lack of participation in the effort, I will not comment except to say that I do not agree.

In 1991, the company I worked for was given five months notice that they must get ready to go to Kuwait, they thought that the same would happen this time around but it did not.  Granted, the scale of the sabotage was nothing compared to what we all thought it would be, but you'd think that the best performing company from 10 years prior would at least be stood to. Unfortunately I cannot divulge too much more than that.

Read the story at www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/canada/oilfire_030310.html and www.safetyboss.net for company history and pics of Kuwait and stories.




I do have to correct a previous statement where I said that contracts were awarded without going to tender. Washington DID ask for proposals from five engineering firms and awarded 900 million worth of work to three companies. 

Just Thoughts

Cheers


----------



## clasper (2 Aug 2004)

scott1nsh said:
			
		

> I do have to correct a previous statement where I said that contracts were awarded without going to tender. Washington DID ask for proposals from five engineering firms and awarded 900 million worth of work to three companies.



Washington eventually asked for bids, but several contracts were given out without going to tender.  One of the first contracts given out, IIRC, was for fighting potential oil well fires, and it was given to Halliburton without going through the tender process.  I was working in the Gulf of Mexico at the time, and the reaction of everyone I talked to was "Halliburton fights oil well fires?!?"  There are two obvious industry leaders in this specialized and dangerous field (SafetyBoss is one of them), and I find it pretty startling that a 3rd rate company was hired for this particular task.

And one small quibbling point- Halliburton is only the largest oilfield service company if you include their subsidiary of Kellogg, Brown, & Root, which provides basic services to the US military (ie nothing to do with the oilfield).  If you look strictly at oilfield service companies, a certain company founded by two French brothers is larger.


----------



## karpovage (2 Aug 2004)

Great debate so far. I think everyone's answers are really probing the root causes for so much bloodshed and why. Let me clarify that I don't think oil is/was the SOLE reason for going to war in the examples I cited. There were many other reasons definitely and I agree with them. Some reasons were very noble and I supported those reasons too. But deep down an influential factor is the security of that particular main resource that drives the engines of your economy. Like Che said, if oil gives you freedom then freedom is worth fighting for. So, as an example, same could be said if fresh water resources give your nation a leg up and provide for a better way of life that your citizens enjoy then fresh water would be worth fighting for, or fur, or food. Oil comes from nature too. Scott risks his life everyday as the oilfield firefighter so we can enjoy the results. My position is that I do not have a problem with my country going to war to secure the "free trade" of the source that we would pay for. But to go in and capture the resource from another nation as a pure invasion I would have a problem with. That's what Hussein's intentions were. Coupled with many other noble reasons for going to war, fuel resource security as a role would be fine with me. And I think our political leaders should be up front about this. 

I agree with some of comments too that I do not trust the oil companies in the least and that there have been many patents and other alternative forms of energy that would lift this dependency on oil and the causes of so much strife. 20th century has been a revolution in technological advances but we cannot change the source to fuel a combustible engine! Yes we can but it is being suppressed and you know by who. Oil companies have the biggest to lose should another source of fuel take over.

So there in lies the question for me. Knowing that there are alternative sources for fuel and knowing that my government in particular has trillions of dollars at it's disposal of citizen's money to switch to alternative sources for fuel then I have to question is oil, right now, worth the sacrifice. Right now, to sustain my way of life, I lean toward yes but with reservations. But my government has not been upfront about confronting this issue. 

I'll tell you what - if either Presidential candidate came out and said we are making the switch from dependency in the next 5 years and here is my plan then they would be guaranteed the election. But who controls both parties pocketbooks. Big Oil.


----------



## NavyGrunt (2 Aug 2004)

LanceaLot said:
			
		

> > Your comment doenst make sense because Sudan has considerable natural resources. Their is just to much figting to develop it. A war in sudan might make more sense than in Iraq if the issue is oil. Unless Im reading your pos wrong.
> 
> 
> From what I understood, there are some clear acts of genocide happening in Sudan as we speak. If that is true, I am making the point that not one of the developed countried got off their butts and made an effort to intervene. Why? I don't know, no profit or bennifit for them?   But they will sure jump off their butts in any situation if their oil reserve is threatened. Are we really as civilized as we make ourselves out to be? You tell me.



It would be extrememly lucrative to go into sudan set up a nice west friendly government and start the oil production. I dont know why the humanitarian crisis of basically africa as a whole seems to rank so low on the worlds radar- but it not resource specific.


----------



## clasper (2 Aug 2004)

Karpovage said:
			
		

> I'll tell you what - if either Presidential candidate came out and said we are making the switch from dependency in the next 5 years and here is my plan then they would be guaranteed the election. But who controls both parties pocketbooks. Big Oil.



Actually John Kerry said last week during the convention that he was going to invest in alternate energy sources and eliminate the dependency on Middle East oil.   Not quite the same thing, and he didn't give a time frame.   He's certainly not guaranteed the election (probably because very few people believe he can actually reduce the dependency on ME oil).

To answer the original question posed, yes the free trade of oil is worth war at present, but only because of western dependence on the Middle East for its supply.   The west in general (and the US in specific) needs an energy policy that has a little bit of forethought in it (and this goes way beyond just opening up ANWR to drilling).   Oil is a non-renewable resource, and it will run out eventually.   Many experts (and shills for various lobby groups) disagree about when the oil will run out, but none of them are asking if- only when.   And more petroleum products drive our economy than simple fuel- we build plastics, lubricants, etc.   Our energy policy should strive in the long term to reserve petroleum for applications other than energy.

For an interesting article on this topic, check this out:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-06-27-1.html


[edit for grammar]


----------



## karpovage (2 Aug 2004)

Clasper, you are right on. I read that article and here's the main quote I pulled from it:

"And even if they keep the oil flowing, why are we pumping money into the pockets of militant extremists who want to destroy us? Why are we subsidizing our enemies, when instead we could be subsidizing the research that might set us free from our addiction to oil? "

On Kerry, if he made energy alternatives his main presidential focus then maybe I would believe him. But he also said he would be creating 10 million new jobs too if you vote for him. The damn thing is these are feel good statements and not a clear policy direction for the country. Bush, in his State of the Union address also earmarked funding for hydrogen-power research but that was the very last time I had heard of it. Point is the national leaders don't make this a highly visible priority and an attainable goal like putting a man on the moon. 

Conversion to alternative fuel sources was a hot topic back in the 70's when Carter talked the talk after the Oil Crisis. But talk is all that has happened. Not until 9-11's major attack that crippled our economy was the point really driven home to relook at the dependency of oil as one of the root causes for the attack. 

I support my President in his military strategy and I support him in his economic policies too (these are clearly the two main deciding issues facing voters) however I am perplexed as to why he continues to coddle Saudi Arabia - the source for most terrorist funding, the source for most of the actual terrorists, and the regime that we finance - thus closing the circle. 

Kerry does nothing for me. His Senate record speaks for himself. And more importantly what he said and did after he left Vietnam in the 70's and what he markets now as a candidate are two completely two different viewpoints. He clearly said he committed atrocities and he also said his superiors did the same. He then tossed his medals and appeared with Jane Fonda. These actions not only supported the enemy's cause but also discredited his fellow comrades. To now say he is fit to be Commander-in-Chief is dangerously inconsistant with his real personality.


----------



## clasper (2 Aug 2004)

Karpovage said:
			
		

> To now say he is fit to be Commander-in-Chief is dangerously inconsistant with his real personality.



I might agree with that statement, if I had a friggin' clue what his real personality is.  The spin doctors on both sides have gone into overdrive, and I'm too dizzy to figure out who Kerry really is.  I'm not fond of Bush, but at least I know where he stands.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Aug 2004)

If you want to get to the truth of it, your question could be rephrased: "Are energy and food supplies worth fighting over?"

Think about what it takes to sustain a modern city.  Fresh consumables don't materialize on grocery store shelves every night.


----------



## PTE Gruending (3 Aug 2004)

The problem with the Western World (in particular, North America) is that we are too dependant on oil. Oil is a precious commodity that fuels our nations economy. Post WWII economic booms in North America fueled continued policies on reliance on petroleum. Our entire infrastructures are based on both the energy we can extract from petroleum, and the products (plastics/rubber) that we can make from refined crude oil. 

Our cities are entirely devoted to the ideal that every individual has an internal-combustion powered vehicle to do *anything* in their lives, be it; work, play, travel, leisure, even getting kids to school or shopping for groceries. The amount of disposable products that are created, imposes an incredible drain on the petroleum industry. Not to mention all of the pollution that discarded packaging happens to create.

If we really want to stop political turmoil over these natural, UNRENEWABLE resources, we are going to have to ration or reduce our demand. This means cities designed with mass transit in mind, incentives for pedestrian transport, and fines and penalties for over-users. There will always be a need for oil, I do not contend that, but we cannot use it on the scale that we are doing so today. Space travel, military, essential services, etc should always have a supply or have 'first dibs;. What happens in X years when the supply runs out? We may find that our entire countries are so dependant on it for transport, etc, that we will grind to a shutdown, and less developed countries may overtake us. There will be a future shock when the supply runs our or is restricted for some reason (Middle East & WWIII), so why not prepare for the inebidable? In addition to reducing usage, we should invest more resources into finding alternate means of energy.

The scary thing is that many other countries in the world are striving to be like the developed nations. What happens when the largely urbanized countries like India, Nigeria, heck even China, with their large populations, want a car for every person? Shit is really going to hit the fan. If we can lessen the chokehold that countries like Saudi Arabia, and all of their OPEC cronies have over us, the better off we will be.....

my 2cents


----------



## jrhume (3 Aug 2004)

Just a note on Halliburton:

Their parent company was awarded an open-ended military contract for just such services as fighting oil well fires and providing logistics well before the 2nd Gulf War -- in 1998 to be exact.   They provided the same services in Bosnia and other areas.   Before 1998 a different company held the contract.   While I don't trust any large organization to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, Halliburton's activities over the last year or so were well within the scope of the original agreement.   Some of the prices the wanted to charge were fairly scandalous and that's one of the reasons the military began bidding for services and supplies, an option they have under the contract.

I suspect that Canadian forces have a similar 'all-in' supply contract with one or more companies, just for such contingencies.   It happened that Halliburton held the US contract when war broke out, but the award was made during Clinton's administration.

As for oil, the US could be much more independent of foreign sources if we simply drilled in the Arctic.   I'm not convinced we need to do that, but the fact that we don't is at our option.   High oil prices would eventually drive us to drill there and would allow profitable exploitation of hard-to-reach oil within the US.   We don't do that now because the international oil market provides the oil at reasonable prices.   

Remember, Canada and the US can ignore the world market in oil if they want to, but many other friendly countries cannot.   Fighting to retain an orderly market in oil is advantageous to many, many people who appear not to be directly involved.   What would happen to the world economy if certain Asian and European countries were denied oil supplies?   That was the principal danger Saddam posed to the West.   There was very little he couldn't have extorted from Europe, in particular, by controlling ME oil.   

Forget simple solutions and simple reasons.   The ramifications of the oil market alone give me a headache.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Aug 2004)

> If you want to get to the truth of it, your question could be rephrased: "Are energy and food supplies worth fighting over?"
> 
> Think about what it takes to sustain a modern city.  Fresh consumables don't materialize on grocery store shelves every night.



Thanks Brad, I think you answered the question to my video game analogy.


----------



## clasper (3 Aug 2004)

Old Guy said:
			
		

> As for oil, the US could be much more independent of foreign sources if we simply drilled in the Arctic.



Drilling in the arctic isn't the cure all that many people seem to think it is.  The Prudhoe Bay field is in serious decline, but added production from some satellite fields that have recently come on line (Alpine, Northstar, Atlas) are making up the deficit.  Further exploration is happening west of Prudhoe Bay in NPRA (National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska).  They haven't hit the mother lode yet, but they have found some oil.  Within the next 10 years, a natural gas pipeline will be built across Alaska, and the Prudhoe Bay field will be converted over to gas production.  The construction of the gas pipeline will most likely occur before any serious drilling happens in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge), just for the simple reason that both are massive projects, and it probably isn't feasible to do both at the same time.

Additionally, no one actually knows if there is lots of oil in ANWR.  The data we have at the moment suggests that there might be oil bearing formations there, but we won't know until we drill several exploration wells.  A couple of wells were drilled in the 70's or 80's (I don't remember exactly), and the rumours that were flying around (25 odd years later) were that they were dry holes.  Those rumours obviously don't mean anything, but it is an indication of the uncertainty involved in oil exploration.

Canada is already drilling exploration wells in the arctic (around the Mackenzie river delta).  The plans for the Canadian natural gas pipeline are further along than the ones in Alaska, and hopefully construction begins soon.  I personally find it rather irritating that the two federal governments can't get along, so there are probably going to be two natural gas pipelines coming down from the arctic, several thousands of kilometers long, terminating in the same pipeline network in Alberta, and they are only going to start off a couple of hundred kilometers apart.  If there wasn't an arbitrary line on the map in the vicinity, a short pipeline would be build east from Prudhoe Bay to Inuvik, and then down the Mackenzie river valley.  Instead we're going to waste resources and build two.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Aug 2004)

People fondly dreaming of the panacea of alternate energy should understand there's no magic wand.  If it was as easy as it's sometimes advertised, we'd already have greater use of other sources.  Even the task of obtaining more oil production is non-trivial.

Rationing is futile; someone else's demand will consume available supply.  Have some faith in the market.  It is unlikely that government regulation and rationing will find a solution more quickly and efficiently than pure market forces.  Never underestimate the profit motive.


----------



## Scott (3 Aug 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> People fondly dreaming of the panacea of alternate energy should understand there's no magic wand.  If it was as easy as it's sometimes advertised, we'd already have greater use of other sources.  Even the task of obtaining more oil production is non-trivial.
> 
> Rationing is futile; someone else's demand will consume available supply.  Have some faith in the market.  It is unlikely that government regulation and rationing will find a solution more quickly and efficiently than pure market forces.  Never underestimate the profit motive.



I had an Oilfield Engineer tell me that as of today companies can only recover approximately 30% of what they find.


----------



## JBP (3 Aug 2004)

There are much more cheaper methods of alternate energy than searching for more oil. Here's a few examples in the works!

1.) Fusion reactor/Power (Joint multi-national run plant being built North of Toronto, first in the world of it's kind planned for about 2020)
2.) Wind power (Actually used in many places in the world but not extensively or on a wide scale)
3.) Tidal power (It is theorized+tested that a tidle movement speed of 8kph provides the energy of a 400mph wind turning turbines to create electricity! [Due to water being 800 times more dense then air!... 800 or 600, can't remember exactly!)
4.) Solar Power (Again, actually used in moderation over parts of the world although only mostly among industrialized nations)
5.) Hydrogen power for residential+vehicle use (H2O for fuel, some new vehicles from FORD started using this recently in 2005 models, not for public yet)
6.) Waste-fumes for energy (Example: Giant "bubble" overtop old giant garbage dumps gather gasses+heat and eventually process it into energy, not alot unfortunately)...

 ;D

Anyway, these are just a few of the different things I've seen watching Discovery Channel and the news etc etc over last year or so! I'm sure there are even more ideas out there! I hope for a better cleaner future and the environment is always on my mind! I haven't littered since I was 12 yrs old. Most 12 year olds don't even THINK about that sort of thing! We need to teach children about the future+environment also. Sorry for jumping partially off-topic.

Joe


----------



## clasper (4 Aug 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Have some faith in the market.



I have absolutely none.   As has been pointed out, alternate energy sources represent non-trivial engineering problems.   Many will take years (decades) to develop.   If we wait until the market forces the price of oil into the stratosphere, we may not have a viable alternative at the ready.   We need to spend serious money on R&D right now, before oil becomes prohibitively expensive.



> I had an Oilfield Engineer tell me that as of today companies can only recover approximately 30% of what they find.



That may have been true over a decade ago, but the current number is probably closer to 50%.   Still not terribly impressive.   (Unless you're talking about the tar sands- I have no idea what the recoverability rates are there...)


----------



## canuck101 (4 Aug 2004)

If the Canadian government and provincial governments are interested in being less dependent on middle east oil or any other countries oil they would push for people to conserve energy like we did in the 70S.  They would offer incentives for people to reno old houses to make them more energy efficient.  Spend loads of money on R&D.  Invest in transit so people are not force to take cars to work. Demand that the car industry make cars that can go 80 to 90 km on a litre of gas. We have a large coastline and there is tech that is able to get energy from waves. 

 Plenty of open space with wind that is not being used.  Force trucks off the road and expand train service to accept the cargo traffic for long distance.  Design cities that are more dense.  All these actions would give us time to come up with new ways to power our society and we would be less dependent on oil.  this will not happen of course because we don't have real leadership.

cheers


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Aug 2004)

Search for some basic information and compare:

1) North American energy demand

2) Percentage of demand which could be satisfied by wind, tides, and other "novel" sources.


----------



## Scott (4 Aug 2004)

From what I understand the Tar Sands are very efficient as far as recovery of resources. 

So, how do you think that they get the 50% recovery rate from conventional wells? Stimulation. Acid, water, hydrocarbons, polarized fuels, solvents, the list goes on. I make the lion's share of my money just going out and setting up a fire truck to stand by while they pump this stuff into the ground at high pressure. They also use water injection wells which, according to some sour gas theorists, is the reason H2S is so prevalent in the northern fields. 

One thing that may concern readers is the development of coalbed methane projects. Ask any farmer in Montana what he thinks and I am sure he will go off on you. Reason being is that the oil companies down there have misted the brine water away and what results is a barren landscape chockablock is unnatural salt deposits. It's coming to Alberta and BC. Already in the Turner Valley there are a few producing wells. Now, the big concern with it is what to do with the brine water that is a byproduct of the methane and so far the oil companies have been pretty careful with it. They have used it for water injection or fracturing. That brings another point, the use of water in the oilfield but I think I will leave off there for now, the thread started about the middle east and war and I am rambling about Canada and my job, would be good debate to keep going though.

They're just thoughts.

Cheers


----------

