The fact that the US Department of Defense seems to be the world's biggest user of high quality oil, is a big, big problem. How can we avoid playing into the hands of the Military Industrial Complex?

See here:

http://www.energybulletin.net/26194.html

How to carefully use the remaining oil for the greatest good is a knotty problem. How will we wrest ownership off the War Machine?

I suppose we are going to have to hold Godzilla's head underwater until he finally drowns.

- any volunteers?

I agree with Chris, if we don't use oil terrorists won't want to defend it. We have a range of greenhouse neutral ways to produce electricity, what we lack is the political will from both sides of politics.

In greenhouse terms oil is less of a problem than coal as it is facing rapid depletion. Production of crude and condensate has already peaked worldwide and 'all liquids' including ethanol and tar sands is stuck on 85 million barrels per day. Credible forecaster Samson Bhaktiari predicts that will drop to 55 mbpd by 2020. Like nuclear electricity it is thought that coal derived liquid fuel can't be brought onstream fast enough to offset oil's decline. Then in turn natural gas and coal will peak so we will have burned most of the fossil fuel and the emissions problem will abate after 2050. Trouble is severe climate change, energy shortages and regional conflict will have made the Earth a hellish place to live. This is within the lifetime of today's children.

The alternative is to conserve that fossil fuel and move to cleaner alternatives. Apart from some feeble gestures very few countries seem capable of achieving that alternative.

Whats happened to Online Opinion forum?
All of todays posts are on the "left" side of the culture wars divide--even Mirko. His article being one of his better essays.
And they all have some useful and challenging things to say.
Unlike the usual one dimensional cliches of the IPA clones and their repetitive me, me, me, mantra.

the problem is not ecological, it's political. western society is commercial, not political. most decisions are made with, and for, and by money.

any one with the price can choose to do something anti-social such as going to pick up a newspaper in a hummer.

the course of this type of society is seeming to lead to disaster. so i suggest we change to a political society where discussion and referendum set public policy. it's called "democracy"

This is a good article that expresses an obvious link between two of the biggest problems that the world currently faces. I've often said that it will prove to be seen that one of the most tragic coincidences in history was the discovery of the first large oil deposits in the Middle East.

Of course, oil is not the only contributor to greenhouse emissions, nor is it the only source of income that funds Islamism, however it remains a major contributor to both. The sooner the West weans itself off its addiction to oil the better.

Current alarmist, incompetent stories regarding CO2 Causing Climate Change is a fraud.

Junk science is infesting the media, the Internet and public schools, affecting public health, squandering your tax dollars, poisoning sick people and miseducating our children.

Pseudoscientific claptrap abounds. Quackery is now found everywhere.

Educate, inform yourself, take a science class.

See CO2 and Climate Change
http://www.InteliOrg.com/co2_climate_change.html

Stop listening to folks that have a financial interest in the subject.

My answer to all so-called greenhouse problems is to use as much of the resource as I can reasonably afford. That way one sends a message to the oil companies, go out and find more oil. Have they tried to explore Antarctica? How about defying the Antarctic treaty in the interest of progress, and industry, and to hell with the Greens?

Dr Coles, I'm not going to get into a debate with you about Global Warming because that only asks 1 of the 2 big questions we face.

1. Is it clean energy? (Supposes the problem of Global warming is real. As I've said, I'm not going to debate it. Momentum is sufficiently underway.)
2. Is there ENOUGH energy?

That second one is a doozy! Watch SBS tomorrow night at 8:30. They are about to break the biggest story this century. "Crude Impact" argues that we are about to enter the final oil crisis, and that everything we do from how we grow our food to where we buy our stuff and what it is made from is going to have to change. Note: they will break for an intermission.

Note also that Mammoth are even onto peak oil now.
http://mammothresource.com/index.htm

Dr Woolies,
I have 350 words, clearly not enough to explain in simple terms the science, but it may hold your attention span.

One of the most convincing arguments for scientists regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is based on isotopes and oxygen decreases in the atmosphere. Carbon is composed of different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels and clearing or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases. You don't find this on Mars.

Understand, it is the fact that we (humanity) are producing CO2 faster than the ocean and terrestrial biosphere can absorb it, which explains the observed increase GHG, and consequently mean global temperatures.

Dr Coles, if you want to understand something about the science, look here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

The discussion of climate change in “public” is often completely at odds to the discussion in the scientific community (in papers, at conferences, workshops etc.). In public discussions there is often an emphasis on seemingly simple questions that, at first sight, appear to have profound importance to the question of human effects on climate change. In the scientific community however, discussions about these “simple” questions are often not, and have subtleties that rarely get publicly addressed.

In summary Dr Coles, it is very disingenuous for certain individuals to answer “general concerns” or espouse on topics that one is not expert in - you are either confused, your head is in the sand or you are living in the dark ages - probably all of the preceding.

Tactful of the author to pull ALL his punches, but in doing so he takes this crucial issue exactly no-where.

How are despotic regimes installed and maintained? With the help of wealthy and influential third parties who supply more/bigger guns and/or payolla. These third parties include greedy local 'big men' AND greedy foriegners, who usually supply the weapons (pop quiz: biggest arms exporters in world are..? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_trade).

Who armed and sponsored Saddam Husseins coup and first 20years?
Who arms the House of Saud?
Who provides Nigerian security forces with weapons to "maintain order"/keep the locals away from their oil?

In each of these cases it has been governments (UK, China & Russia struggling to keep up with US) and multinational companies (or the plausibly-deniable intermediaries eg. Tigris Petroleum http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/who-is-tigris-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-bhp/2006/02/03/1138958910146.html) that have given despots the means to gain and hold power, in return for 'very reasonable' prices and conditions on extracting their countries oil (its cheaper than a just price).

The histories of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Nigeria, Columbia, Brunei, all crudely similar when you come down to it. Defenders of this globalisation at gunpoint claim its due to some inherent failing of people in these countries ("they're more corrupt"), but this is merely racism dressing as piety. Fact is, our 'well performing stockmarkets' are in large part due to the brutal conditions under which the resources creating the economy are extracted - 'free market' economic rationalism is what has created and is fuelling terrorism, and i'm only surprised its not worse.

ChrisS & Shonga: isn't militarism dependant upon the public purse? Straightened times will force a re-evaluation of priorities, and hopefully the military will be smart enough to see where its bread is buttered (and its not by the profit robots in the IPA or Ai).

The Sun is our largest nuclear reactor and it produces enormous amounts of energy.It is said that Western NSW produces enough energy to support 2 billion people.We should be pouring millions into research into this area.Apparently one Aussie has just gone to the US to build a solar power station there.We have billions of $ sitting in a future fund for pollies and PS,but enough forsight to see the future.

Perhaps the oil companies do have too much power and are extracting every dollar they can from us before it does run out.If solar energy does become too popular then we as individuals could become independant of both Govt and the Multi Nationals.We would have the
solar panel tax brigade running around counting panels on our roof.Instead of daylight robbery of the past when people were taxed according to the numbers of windows that they had,we could have solar panel robbery.Many are pushing nuclear as solution and it does put the power again into a few hands so both profts and taxes can be extracted.Perhaps I'm just a cynic.

Can you just see the future when too many solar panels are starving the planet of energy and the world heads towards an ice age.We would have to start burning coal again to avert another disaster.Doh!

I'm not convinced that CO2 is the major culprit and there is no direct evidence proving it,but it does make good sense to become more autonomous in regards to our energy needs.

Arjay

You are right about the sun. When I was at university, our physics faculty was leading the world in solar power technology – guess what, now the world’s leading country in solar technology is Germany (China is not too far behind) and do you know where they got the expertise? That's right, good old OZ – the brain drain as you may know it. Thank the federal government for allowing this to happen. We are now buying back this expertise when we could have used it, and profited by it, ourselves.

You’re not convinced about CO2 being the major culprit? There is direct evidence if you really are bothered to look (see previous post) but the average jock has neither the time nor the apparent inclination to look for it, let alone understand it from a scientist in a 350 word forum such as this. Look, if you are seriously sick and 98 out of 100 specialists say we have to operate, what are you going to do – ask for another opinion? Well there is a 98% chance that anthropogenic global warming is real - do you really want to risk the planet as we know it on your uncertainty or ambivalence?

I agree with you, we (everybody) has to become more autonomous in regards to energy needs, AND how we use energy – we have to live in a more environmentally sustainable way. We should not just be dependent on coal, or ‘clean coal’ for that matter. Let us look at our attitudes and behaviour as well as all alternative energy supplies.

Spot on Chris Shaw. In addition to the US Military's prolific use of oil, their intentions to take control of environmental engineering (particularly to gain control of weather) is well documented.

The United Nations General Assembly became alarmed at this manipulation of weather long ago and on 10 December 1976 the UN General Assembly approved a Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. However, by labelling projects as peaceful programmes - 'pure research', 'solar energy projects', or 'industrial resource development', governments were able to avoid censure.

Who knows what has occurred with weather manipulation since then!

And because our "leaders" are addicted to war, there is no guarantee that any beneficial research will be free from military exploitation.

During the 80's, global rocket launches numbered about 500 to 600 a year, peaking at 1500 in 1989. The release of chemicals into the atmosphere from rocket launches is massive and Valery Brudakov, (a Soviet aerospace engineer) calculated that just 300 launches of the Space Shuttle alone could eliminate the Earth's ozone layer in its protective capacity. Changes in the ionosphere bring about corresponding changes in Earth's weather and climate.

The US Military has been dumping toxic chemicals into the ionosphere for decades!

In a press briefing on 28 April 1997, US Secretary of Defence, William Cohen actually advised: "Others are engaging in an eco-type terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, setting off earthquakes and volcanoes remotely, through the use of electromagnetic waves. The military has a habit of accusing others of having capabilities they already hold."

Mythical science, Dr Coles, benign CO2 anthropogenic emissions and activities? I don't think so!

The "global warming" (aka "climate change") train is now under full steam and out of control, heading who knows where?
All that is certain is that a lot of people will, eventually, be hurt.
The "peak oil" scare is a sign that the drivers think they may be running out of credibility on the CO2 front (the coal tender is getting low) so they are talking about demolishing the carriages.

A good article.

I've been saying this two pronged arguement for years.

Why do we fund terrorists in these oil rich countries like Iran, Iraq and Saudi, via their economies, when we can find other alternatives? Let them starve from lack of a market. Second, there are alternatives to fossil fuels, its just that to get it started, an initial investment needs to be made.

Venezuala and Cuba are expanding oil and if the US got over its paranoia towards socialism, they could negotiate much of their own needs within their own region. They are too arrogant to do so. So they and we buy from terrorists instead.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Sheesh, I am sure that the Saudis are trembling in their boots
now, in case they can't sell their oil :)

Get real people lol. Fact is the West is hooked on oil, demand
is rising, if Aussies don't buy it, the Chinese will etc.

If the US were really concerned about terrorism, they would
never have put dummies like Bush/Cheney into the White House.
They have given extremists more reason to increase their
activities then anyone else. But I'd say
that understanding is over the head of the average US elector. Rove still managed to scare
them with Osama under the bed etc.

Not everyone in the Middle East is a religious nut either.
Just like here, there are secularists and extremists. We
have our share of religious nuts, just like they do.
Last I read, only around 25% of Iranians regularly go to
a mosque, which is pretty similar to USanians going to church.

The biggest threat to Arab regimes, is in fact other Arabs.
The culture is still very tribal, so eveyone is looking over
their shoulders. The Saud clan know that if they get it wrong,
another clan will soon replace them. Thats exactly why they
invest so much of their money in the West, its safer then in
their own countries.

All these cultural differences were of course overlooked by the
Whitehouse and the neocons, as they charged into Iraq. History
tells the story.

The one Westerner who still commands respect in the Middle East
is in fact Bill Clinton. He has the intelligence and people skills,
but puritanical America was more concerned with a bit of oral
sex, rather then look at the big picture. They should have given
Monika a pay rise, to keep him happy and get his mind back on
the job :) Fact is the world would now be a better place if they
had. The American religious right are just as much a threat to
world peace as Islamic terrorism, IMHO.

LOL Yabby - that was hilarious!

Good post too overall, except that I still reckon that we've got to get over our addiction to oil - which seems to be inevitable anyway.

I believe that's called 'adaptation', which in this case might simultaneously involve a reduction in anthropogenic greenhouse emissions, and also a major funding source for the sustenance of the more extreme Islamist project.

I'd actually prefer that the Chinese (or whoever) self-destructed than we did - although one always lives in hope that humans might actually be able to work together beyond the tribal level to assure mutual survival at some level of civilisation and comfort :)

So Yabby and Admiral,
peak oil isn't real? ;-)

It was mentioned repeatedly on last night's Lateline.

It will be on tonight's SBS documentary at 8:30.

The ABC is showing "Crude — the story of oil" in May.

Can I suggest that you both google "peak oil" and do a little reading before you say any more? Try answering these 3 questions before you continue with the egg-on-the-face routine. ;-)

Questions.
1. What do the official energy agencies actually count??
Do they count the oil that we KNOW is actually there, or do they count stuff they WISH was there but have absolutely no evidence for? Do they tell us what they are CERTAIN is there, or do they fudge the numbers with probability games because they don't want us to know the truth?

2. Peak discovery year?
With hundreds of billions to be made, in one of the most competitive markets in the world, with some of the most advanced technology in the world and fantastic developments in the last decade, which year was the "peak" year for DISCOVERY of oil? In which year did we find the most oil?

3. Are we ahead on discovery?
That is, have we found far more oil than we have yet developed, or are we eating into old discoveries? In other words, are we replacing the oil we are consuming each year? If so, at what rates are we replacing it with new discoveries? Are we discovering twice as much oil as we use? 3 times as much? Or is it running the other way? What has been the discovery trend for the last 40 years as oil companies drill the entire globe? Where has the most significant finds been... is there any "low hanging fruit" or "easy oil" left, or have recent finds all been expensive deep sea fields because all the easy land fields have all been drilled and developed decades ago?

If you could answer these 3 basic concepts before continuing to insult geologists and experts in the field that I know personally, that would be great.

Eclipse, now where did I say that fossil fuel supply would not be
a problem? I just don't have my knickers in a twist about it
as you seem to :)

I have been saying for yonks and yonks, that what we are doing
is unsustainable and that means that eventually the wheels
will fall off the old cart. I just don't name dates, as I've
seen things change so fast, it would be foolish to make
predictions.

Fact is the West is hooked on oil. You'd only need the
slightest disruption in the Straits of Hormuz and oil would
pass 100$ a barrel. But that is political, not supply based.

Yet I see that as part of the solution, not the problem.
Fact is nothing will happen until there is a major crisis,
be that political or supply. When oil goes to 200$ a
barrel, people will get serious about using it wisely.
As I said on another thread, I bet you could halve your
fuel consumption, if you really tried.

Personally I am not concerned. 20 acres of canola will be
enough to cover my needs. I could grow a bit extra and
sell some to you, for huge money of course :) My lambs
and yabbies will still grow, oil or not. So I could sell
you some expensive food too! But then I happen to live
fairly sustainably.

The point of this thread was to say that we should use
less oil to affect terrorism. Ha, you must be kidding!
Its simply not going to happen.

Meantime, if you are so concerned, in Aus you have
options. NW shelf gas reserves are enormous, you can
live in the country, etc. etc. The solution will be many
things, not one thing. Unlike in a big city in say Europe,
where you freeze without imported oil or gas

I think I got you all wrong Yabby.

However, if contributers here watched "Crude Impact" last night — and especially if you carefully watched the interviews in "2013: Oil no more" — they'd see the potential for oil depletion to cause real terrorism, real problems with our food supply, real disruptions to our economies, and a very real potential for total systemic breakdown.

As Christopher Flavin said, "Most people think they are going to be worried about filling up the car. Time for a reality check. The real question is going to be where do you get a loaf of bread?"

So we are GOING to face a situation of ever declining, ever more expensive oil. Yet this could be made worse by just a few acts of terrorism that could suddenly, unpredictably bring down the entire global economy in a catastrophic way. As James Howard Kunstler from "End of Suburbia" says, "All it takes is 5 pounds of plastic explosive and a camel to put down an oil refinery!"

So when the oil runs dry, and international tensions loom large, and the city dwellers are starting to get hungry — where do you think they are going to turn to get their food, Yabby? It would be wise to help promote awareness of these risks. Help mitigate the risks to us city dwellers to protect your own farm. Otherwise, I know roughly where my city-dwelling turned road-warrior "brethren" will be walking to get some food for the starving hoards.

If you want to turn your back on the world, make sure you store plenty of tinned food and ammo... and have a few mates to watch your back while you sleep. IF (and it doesn't HAVE TO if we wake up early enough) it gets that "funky", you've got some very long years of "night watch" to cover.

Eclipse, I watched that show. It was a bit of a yawn, as there was
nothing that we didn't already know. But I don't think you need
to panic just yet lol. The world is not about to end...

Lots of mistakes in there. Of course there will still be oil
after 2013. It might just be more expensive. I don't see that
as a problem, it just means people will be forced to use it
a bit wiser then now. In America for instance, people don't
even make their own coffee anymore, they drive to a Starbucks
drive through.

So my point remains. If we only half tried, we could reduce
our oil consumption by 50%, but that won't happen until its
really expensive. The most permanent thing in life is change.
Change is what you will get, but you should see that as an
opportunity, not as the end of the world.

That explosive camel could happen now, yup it would cause
problems. You are free to buy some energy stocks outside
of the Middle East. If oil costs more, they will go up,
like say Woodside.

Growing wheat for bread takes very little energy, in
conparative terms. Factory farming meat is what uses lots
of energy. So pork, chicken, might be limited, due to cost.
Thats ok. You'll just have to eat a bit more pasture raised
lamb :) I remind you that Aus is the largest range reared
meat exporter, so energy is not the issue for Aussie farmers.

I think that suburbia will not end, but be the future. Let
me explain. Your movie showed carrots and the energy in
producing them etc. So energy is used to grow, transport,
process, market those carrots to you, the consumer. Meantime
you city slicker go to the health club for your exercise.

Now in suburbia, on your quarter acre block, using say a bit
of permaculture, you could grow those carrots right there,
no energy wasted, use your grey water to do it, plus save
your health club fees! Not a single litre of oil used either.

Words, words, for against, against for? Be realistic and come into the real world. The only answer to poverty, global warming etc is birth control, instead of producing food, medical supplies, infrastructure etc and sending it to the third world countries so that they become healthier and produce more children to die of starvation, put birth control medication in their water supply and the problem will be solved.

Hi Lizzie...
while I completely agree that population growth is essential in dealing with poverty, isn't that a bit harsh?

Isn't that a bit like an act of terrorism in itself?

Maybe you were being provocative because population growth IS such a real issue that you wanted to get people thinking. Yet on the other hand, there are other humane ways of dealing with population growth.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/10/171745/455

PS: While I agree with some of his solutions, I don't agree with the flippancy of this author regarding ignoring discussing population growth. Governments should address it, instead of being bowled over by the big land developers that just want more and more immigration into Australia — both enabling population growth to continue back in the home countries AND creating more net Global Warming emissions. (Each person immigrating into a First World lifestyle is worth 20 or 50 or 100 times the amount of resource consumption and pollution of the friends they leave back home, depending on the country we are discussing).

There is a list of Proposals for the Australian Federal Government here regarding population.

http://population.org.au/solutions/index.html

Remember posters, "oils ain't oils". We live in a world now manufactured largely from the petrochemical industry.

A reduction in the purchase of consumer goods will enable us to depend less on oil.

Products from the petrochemical industry range from cars to computers, clothing to cosmetics, synthetic rubber, nylons, plastics, plumbing, fertilisers, pesticides, dyes, pharmaceuticals, detergents, hip replacements, even chewing gum! There are thousands of other products!

Some of the petrochemical products are manufactured from gas and coal though we are largely and unwittingly at the mercy of the oil barons.

Yabby's smugness in his self-sufficiency may come unstuck with his plans to sell us his "pasture raised lamb" and canola at inflated prices when the oil crisis starts to take effect.

Unsustainable agricultural practices have had a severe effect on our climate.

Perhaps it would be prudent for Yabby to invest in a water diviner!

"Perhaps it would be prudent for Yabby to invest in a water diviner!"

Umm Dickie, sorry, but I am not into hocus pocus. My lambs are
doing fine thank you, very healthy too, eating natural clovers
and grasses. All very sustainable too.

Given your faith in water diviners etc, I tell you what. You
do your thing, I'll do mine. Reality does not go away, when
we close our eyes and with it would, but you are free to learn
the hard way...

Now back to your hocus pocus. Once again its been shown that
ignorant city slickers don't have a clue about farming or the
countryside, but then I expected little else.

Back to a core of an article, newly discovered oilfields put Iran firmly on the second place between oil-rich countries.

Shift to non-fossil fuels is surely long-overdue.

Hi Michael,
got a link on those new Iranian oil fields?

I thought Iran peaked decades ago and is now in serious decline.

I guess there is always room for a bit more discovery of oil in the world, but discovery itself did peak 40 years ago and has been in decline ever since. Production will soon head into permanent decline as well, as SBS made clear the other night.

Iran

Iran has the world's second largest reserves of conventional crude oil at 133 gigabarrels, according to the CIA World Factbook, although it should be noted that both Canada and Venezuela have larger reserves if Non-conventional oil is included. Iran is the second largest oil holder globally with approximately 10% of the world's oil.

Iran averages about 1.5 gigabarrels per year, which is a significant decline from the 6 gigabarrels per year it produced when the Shah of Iran was in power. The United States prohibits imports of oil from Iran, which limits its exposure to an Iranian oil cutoff, but does not reduce the likelihood that an interruption of Iranian oil would cause a spike in world oil price. American pressure on Iran to renounce Iran's nuclear program makes the possibility of military confrontation quite high, and the political risks of Iranian oil far outweigh any geological ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Iran

Eclipse, you have to understand why little oil was discovered for
years. I remind you that it was around 1999 IIRC that oil dropped
as low as 10$ a barrel and it was simply not worth bothering looking
for it, so people didn't .

Exploring for oil does not happen overnight, it takes time. Right now,
if you try and find an offshore rig, you are scratching, all are
booked out and hugely expensive. As they build a few more, prices will
drop. The thing is, now its starting to pay to look for harder to
access oil, like offshore, deeper water, in less politically stable
countries, etc. etc.

Even places like Lybia have just released new areas for drilling,
areas where nobody bothered before. What was simply tapped for a
start was the stuff that people virtually fell over and cost
1-2$ to extract, like in Saudi Arabia etc.

1999 is not very long ago in oil terms. Now that explorers are
starting to accept that oil won't go back to 10$, they have reason
to start investing some serious money into exploration, like BHP
is doing in the Gulf of Mexico deep water etc. I remind you how
much gas has recently been found in our own NW shelf, when
they started drilling a bit more. Some of these holes cost
25 million$ a hole, so its not chicken feed and explorers need to
know that the risk is worth it. Similarly tar sands are only now
coming into play, as oil prices stabilise higher. If they go to
100$, there will be even more incentive to look and to apply
expensive technology, which made no sense in the past.

There are other options. Algae have huge potential, but projects
were canned in the late 90s, due to the 10$ oil price. All these
things will start to happen once again. So naming 2013 as the
end of oil is nonsense basically, as it won't be.

Hi Eclipse Now, abov mentioned info on Iran oil was provided by non-English language media sources, and my post was following immediately.

I think your explanations, as all speculation on this topic in general, omit a simple question: what will countries-oil exporters do as their natural resources be exhausted?

To me, it is not less important geo-political component than engineering solutions to political problems.

And that is where I completely agree with you.

It is the very heart of geopolitics and international tension.

The problem seems to be for many on this list just demonstrating that there IS an impending oil crisis. But imagine the geopolitics and POWER of nations like Venezuela when oil hits $150 per barrel in the next few years? Imagine if they decided they didn't want to play ball? Imagine certain other unstable oil exporting countries, and the riches that regimes will pull in? Now imagine an unstable and unhappy populace watching the regime grow fat from the profits of their environmental destruction? It's all happened before. It can happen again. Inter and intra-national conflict can quickly break out over oil.

Hey, I wonder if countries will have to leave OPEC as they decline? I mean, what's the use of belonging to a legion of Petroleum Exporting Countries if you actually become a net oil importer? ;-)

At national level conflicts over natural resources are already blooming-all Africa is a perfect example of. Iraq's internal Shiite-Sunni insurgency is the same process, because at the end of the day a n y local princeling to rely on foreign force only, on American one even the most. With all applauses to the Bushes’ bravery in fighting barbarianism (call it terrorism if wish), one could clearly understand then unifying outcome of Saddam’s oil-depending regime when local tribes were in a stable condition of mutual “under-table” armed quarrels.

That is what could happen to other oil-dollar-consumers if dependence on their oil to sharply ease.

Are resource-consumers prepared to responding this tide within own bouondaries?

But what happens if China decides to WALK down to the middle east? They don't even have a pond to cross.

Then there's always the Carter Doctrine which would make things really interesting.

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

These self-confident Yankees!

Let them think they reign in Persian Gulf whilst loyal royal subjects, some with Australian kangaroos on passport jacket, know who is who in the Arab world in general and practically.

And China is already IN as Iranian discoveries were the middle eastern China's achievements-beg pardon, not sure whether Iran belongs to a region or this country is still Persia standing apart in region like sometimes once-upon-a-time already happened.