quote:

Saudi promises oil in event of war Tuesday, March 11, 2003 Posted: 8:47 AM EST (1347 GMT) VIENNA, Austria (CNN) -- OPEC kingpin Saudi Arabia has promised that the world will not run short of oil in the event of a war with Iraq. Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said Tuesday his country -- the world's biggest exporter -- had enough spare capacity to pump more oil should Iraq's 1.7 million barrels a day be threatened, despite calls from other members not to open taps further. "We will make sure there is enough oil in the market," al-Naimi told reporters before a meeting of the cartel in Vienna. "There will be no shortage." The world market requires 77 million barrels a day and fears of a war and loss of Baghdad's oil supplies could push the price of oil to crippling levels. NYMEX-traded U.S. crude has been trading at $37.40 barrels. Prices remain not far from a record $41-a-barrel set during the 1990 -1991 Gulf crisis. Al-Naimi said fears over war was to blame for the sharp rise in oil prices, not a shortage of supply. "Eliminate the drums of war and you will have the price where it should be," he said. Iran, a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, has said it will oppose any move to formally suspend output limits. The 10-nations, excluding Iraq, pump 24.5 million barrels a day. Iran said Monday it would oppose any bid by Western-friendly OPEC states to impose a policy that Tehran says implies support for a U.S. attack against Baghdad, by controlling fuel costs. "Iran will not back politically motivated decisions," Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh told the official IRNA news agency in Tehran. OPEC should not adopt any policy that implies support for a "U.S. military assault against one of OPEC's member states," he said. Other OPEC members, although they don't want the formal output quotas suspended, are content to let those with spare capacity to supply more oil. Talks on a policy began at 1200 GMT and any deal will be ratified at a formal gathering scheduled for 1500 GMT. "It doesn't really matter what OPEC decides officially,'' Gary Ross of New York consultancy PIRA Energy told Reuters. "Saudi Arabia has made its policy clear. They've told customers they won't allow a shortage.'' Saudi Arabia already has lifted daily production to more than nine million barrels -- just short of its 10.5 million bpd capacity. It hopes to convince the United States and the International Energy Agency (IEA), the group that coordinates consumer country strategic stocks, that it can compensate for war stoppages without the need for a drawdown from emergency reserves.

Sorry, occrider, but this is fool's gold.

The world's oil reserves are running out, and one day there won't be oil. This is incontestable. Not admitting this is as good as sticking your head in the sand. Having Saudi Arabia increase their oil production only serves to accelerate this process.

It's really unfortunate that the world depends so much on oil. I dread the consequences of the massive oil shortage. Crises, depressions, and wars will certainly break out, worldwide. You betcha.

OK...think of it in this extremely simplified way.

There is oil in the world.
The amount of oil is not infinite, as the world is not infinite.
Oil does not "replenish."
Oil production/extraction is proceeding (and excalating) daily at extremely high rates.
Ergo, the oil will run out.

No more oil = no more civilization. I bet there is no way any of you can just close your eyes and listen for a second to the noise around you without hearing a car passing by in the distance. Or two, or three... Or maybe a plane. Or truck.

JohnSmith, great thread! We need the wake-up call that even if certain nations are coveting oil deposits in a certain Middle Eastern country, the acquisition of this oil is fundamentally not going to solve anything.

You know what, I just thought of this after posting the above.

When faced with this oil crisis, countries that consume the most oil (mainly western ones) should actually step down their oil useage. There is no other way to avert crisis. Alternative energy sources are on the rise, but oh so painfully slowly.

And spare us the nuclear energy! That's even worse than oil!

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode Sorry, occrider, but this is fool's gold.

I never said that we had unlimited supplies of oil. I merely posted that article with respects to the short term oil supply. Anyway the situation may be less bleak than the article implies. Keep in mind 90% of the Earth's oceans are unexplored. And water covers 70% of the planet. It's likely that there are very lucrative supplies of oil underneath the ocean although it will be expensive to extract. At any rate there are also large desposits in Siberia that are relatively unexplored or untapped at the current moment. Anyway that still leads us back to the original problem that oil will run out eventually but there are currentely a lot of alternative energy sources under development. No they are not mainstream at the current moment but we will adapt to find a way ... it's not like we're gonna be sitting on our asses waiting for things to roll to a stop. I envision that as gas and oil prices rise, there will be a strong technological drive to make alternative fuel engines and eventually drive down those costs to the consumer. As for one very futuristic energy source, one theory is to place solar collectors in orbit or on the moon. Even with 3% efficiency of these collectors, a massive amount of energy can be beamed back to Earth through microwaves. Not exactly sure of the details since I read the article a while ago. At any rate cost is again a barrier. But I think in due time we will make massive efforts to find an energy source other than oil.

And what is so wrong with nuclear power? I'm sure it produces far less pollution than coal, or oil based power plants.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I never said that we had unlimited supplies of oil. I merely posted that article with respects to the short term oil supply. Anyway the situation may be less bleak than the article implies. Keep in mind 90% of the Earth's oceans are unexplored. And water covers 70% of the planet. It's likely that there are very lucrative supplies of oil underneath the ocean although it will be expensive to extract.

And therein lies the rub. I think that it will be astronomically expensive to extract this oil, especially in the areas of the ocean that are incredibly deep. And as more and more oil runs out, we will have to go deeper and deeper. Who knows what kinds of risks will be present? Indeed, the ocean is the #1 most dangerous element for mankind, closely followed by space. No one can claim that they know all about the ocean and how it works. There are many unknowns, there is still a lot of research being done. Digging for oil there would be inherently risky.

quote:

At any rate there are also large desposits in Siberia that are relatively unexplored or untapped at the current moment. Anyway that still leads us back to the original problem that oil will run out eventually but there are currentely a lot of alternative energy sources under development.

This is actually my main and only hope (the alternative energy). See my comments below.

quote:

No they are not mainstream at the current moment but we will adapt to find a way ... it's not like we're gonna be sitting on our asses waiting for things to roll to a stop. I envision that as gas and oil prices rise, there will be a strong technological drive to make alternative fuel engines and eventually drive down those costs to the consumer.

This is assuming that the oil run-out will occur gradually, which is actually most likely to happen. I just hope that people will realize this and, as you've said, push for more development in the alternative energy field, rather than seeing more "hero states" like Saudi Arabia saying they will up their production even more.

quote:

As for one very futuristic energy source, one theory is to place solar collectors in orbit or on the moon. Even with 3% efficiency of these collectors, a massive amount of energy can be beamed back to Earth through microwaves. Not exactly sure of the details since I read the article a while ago. At any rate cost is again a barrier. But I think in due time we will make massive efforts to find an energy source other than oil. And what is so wrong with nuclear power? I'm sure it produces far less pollution than coal, or oil based power plants.

Nuclear power is just pretty darn dangerous. Think Chernobyl. Think of the radiation leaks etc. You can't keep something like that under wraps for good. But above all - think of the waste! This is the main reason I'm opposed to nuclear power. National Geographic had a great article on this a few months ago - it was certainly an eye-opener! The US has mountains of the stuff! (nuclear waste, that is)

What I'd like to bring up as my main hope is Nuclear Fusion which, by the way, has much more potential (as far as energy output is concerned) than nuclear fission (think A-bomb vs. H-bomb... actually, don't think of this, both of those are bad). I did a lot of research on this topic a few years ago in high school, so I'm aware of the developments. To my understanding, Fusion development is in a relatively advanced stage. The only real problem now is bringing down the cost, and achieving "engineering breakthrough" (I *think* that's the term) - that is, having a reactor produce more energy than the energy required to keep it operational.

There are many fusion projects worldwide, for example CERN. And another awesome benefit - all you need is water! Granted, it's not that easy, you need a special isotope, but it's not impossible nor impractical. Also there are no risks whatsoever. To keep the fusion process going, you need the energy to keep the plasma heated at incredibly high temperatures. If a reactor failure were to occur, there would be no "meltdown" - indeed, the reactor would simply stop working. The gas would instantly cool. It's like having boiling water. You must constantly apply heat to keep water boiling. As soon as you withdraw the energy, the water cools. Same thing with nuclear fusion. There's no BOOM. (Thankfully)

Anyway, there are also many other alternatives, mainly wind power and some - admittedly extravagant - rarer ones such as the solar power solution you mentioned. All in all it remains to be seen if humans will demonstrate the wisdom necessary to let go of the oil before it gets critical.

(As a refutation of the last sentence, there are even signs today of such happenings! All the interest in renewable resources, and companies such as Honda producing hybrid and even electric cars, is really admirable. I hope the trend continues.)

ask the folks who live around Yucca Mountain what's wrong with nuclear power.

I prefer things without a government spin on them though, Here's what the People of Nevada Have To say: http://www.citizenalert.org/yucca/intstor2.html

Or maybe you could ask the people who died in chernobyl? How about the thousands of malformed children with cancer in iraq caused by depleted uranium? Or the scores of US soldiers who came down with gulf war syndrome which the govt denies having any connection with DU munitions, despite proof that there is in fact a correlation.

Nuclear Power, while it may seem an option, is even worse.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith ask the folks who live around Yucca Mountain what's wrong with nuclear power. I prefer things without a government spin on them though, Here's what the People of Nevada Have To say: http://www.citizenalert.org/yucca/intstor2.html Or maybe you could ask the people who died in chernobyl? How about the thousands of malformed children with cancer in iraq caused by depleted uranium? Or the scores of US soldiers who came down with gulf war syndrome which the govt denies having any connection with DU munitions, despite proof that there is in fact a correlation. Nuclear Power, while it may seem an option, is even worse.

Well granted it sucks to live around Yucca mountain but when you take an abstract look at pollution, I think that coal, and oil plants produce far more pollution and pose a greater threat to the environment than nuclear waste. Simply based on the scale of waste that is produced. With regards to your second argument you're arguing about the military applications of nuclear power. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about nuclear power as a power source. With regards to Chernobyl and 3 mile island, yes they were terrible incidents caused by poor management of the plants but by today's standards there are a lot more safety precautions in place. My argument is that yes they produce horrible waste but the waste from fossil fuel burning plants are worse.

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode This is assuming that the oil run-out will occur gradually, which is actually most likely to happen. I just hope that people will realize this and, as you've said, push for more development in the alternative energy field, rather than seeing more "hero states" like Saudi Arabia saying they will up their production even more.

I think this will happen. Oil is not going to spontaneously run out one day with nobody the wiser. As oil supplies become scarcer the price of gasoline will continue to rise and eventually consumers and businesses will be cost driven to find alternative sources.