|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Iran Is Iraq |
| [Opinion] The energy predicament places shia state in the crosshairs |
|
Nicolas van der Leek (Nick)  |
 Email Article
 Print Article
|
|
|
|
Published 2007-02-23 14:01 (KST) |
|
|
|
"Iran is not Iraq. There is, as far as I know, no planning going on to make an attack on Iran and people are pursuing a diplomatic and political solution." -- Tony Blair, speaking recently on BBC radio.
Iran is not Iraq, except that it is. Most intelligent people today recognize that the U.S.A.'s adventures into Iraq were not about an evil dictator, or about democracy, it was about, as James Kunstler so eloquently puts it: "setting up a police station in Iraq." Not to steal their oil, but simply to insure world access to Iraqi oil.
 |
TODAY'S TOP STORIES |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
FROM THE SECTION |
|
|
|
|
| Iran is another Iraq for the obvious reason that Iran is sitting on a large amount of oil. With Saudi Arabia as the world leader, Iran is second, Iraq is third. In terms of the geopolitical significance of its resources, Iran and Iraq are on par. Supply this year ought to be, once again, very tight indeed, and into the future, far more so. Unfortunately.
"Few or no analysts care to remark that by July-August 2007, world oil demand in the summer peak can attain well over 88 Mbd on an all liquids base." -- Andrew McKillop, a Senior Energy Strategist, at Juno Mother Earth Asset Management, New York.
Given that global oil production has not been able to even approach this figure of 88 Mbd (instead it's peaked at around 85 Mbd), we could see a crunch in the oil market this summer. We could see oil prices reaching a new ceiling of perhaps $85 or more. All this is speculation of course, but it's reasonable speculation. And with this uncomfortable scenario possibly facing the most energy addicted nation on the planet, that nation needs a Plan B, C, D etc. It needs a few contingency plans. War with Iran needs to be avoided for as long as possible, of course, but access to its oil (and oil in the region) is no longer a matter of preference, it is a matter of absolute dependence.
The U.S.A. is also taking a fairly active role in Africa, citing terrorist activity in the horn of Africa (Somalia). As it happens, Somalia is geographically appropriate to the Gulf, and is possibly another contingency in the case of Saudi Arabia being unfriendly to the idea of playing "Operational Base."
Conjectures aside, what we are actually seeing in the Gulf is this: Iran ignored Wednesday's Security Council deadline to quit its enrichment activity, but then Iran has never indicated willingness to co-operate. We're seeing the naval presence of the U.S.A. in the Gulf intensifying, numerous arrests of Iranian officials in Iraq and increased fingerpointing towards Iranians as agents in the Iraqi insurgency. Iran is also circumventing targeted sanctions by simply renaming those companies "complicit" in uranium enrichment. These points aside, the nuclear issue will once again provide the premise for possible -- some will say inevitable -- war (as WMD's were in the case of Iraq).
Even so the aggressive action of the U.S.A. towards Iran wouldn't make much sense unless we were aware of the greater geo-political and economic background. Matthew Simmons, adviser to President Bush on energy issues puts the true price of oil at $300.
Simmons recently made a presentation highlighting worldwide depletion. In terms of the oil companies positions, Simmons writes:
"Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, etc., all advertised strong future growth in 2001/2002. Most fell on their swords as production declined." And these trends are continuing.
The North Sea, which provides oil and gas to Northern Europe and the United Kingdom (and was the biggest regional supplier in 40 years) peaked in 1999, and has shown swift subsequent depletion. The United Kingdom, for the first time in more than a decade, will once again become a net importer of fossil fuel.
Europe also is completely dependent on Russia, and Russia has indicated that it is about to re-work it's ancient energy infrastructure, meaning it will consume larger fractions of its own energy in future (instead of exporting it to Europe). All this increases the pressure on countries to find enough oil (at a cheap price) to go round.
This is becoming very difficult now, as the reality of equations begin to manifest. Infinite demand simply cannot correspond indefinitely to the finite supply of any resource.
There are good examples of significant depletion, especially Cantarell in Mexico, which is declining at 15 percent. In a recent email James Howard Kunstler wrote the following:
"Jeff Brown (www.theoildrum.com) has been most concerned lately with the fact that oil exports seem to be going down faster than the base global depletion rate -- because the exporting countries are using more of their own level (which they're getting less of). He cites a 7 percent fall in exports, aggregate, from those nations. They [Mexico] may have no oil to send to us in just a couple of years -- and they're something like our number 2 supplier!"
Andrew McKillop meanwhile, provides this eloquent equation to summarize the global problem:
1. World Average Demand Growth (about 2 - 2.2 Mbd/year net)
2. Loss of capacity from depletion (over 2.5 Mbd/year loss)
It's the above equation that necessitates urgent action. But action is not only required in terms of solving the energy predicament, urgent action is also required to address climate change. Obviously in the long run climate change and the energy predicament will join hands. How? Energy is required to deal with changes in the environment (put very simply). Specifically, when you're experiencing a heat wave your car/house requires more energy to run air conditioners and cooling systems, people and animals are consuming more water, more refrigeration, services etc. are required. The most spectacular and unexpected power failures occur in summer -- not winter -- usually towards mid to late afternoon.
Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, spoke recently to Jeff Sackur on BBC's HardTalk. Reference was made to Sir Nicholas Stern's report which examines the economic effects of climate change. Bingaman commented that America needs to be "running" in order to deal with the urgent energy predicament the U.S.A. faces, but conceded "we aren't even walking yet." He summarized the U.S. position by stating no change in energy policy (meaning, no serious efforts to pursue alternative energy, or to move away from a car dependent culture) was possible for at least two more years. Why? The current administration simply aren't willing to look seriously at alternative energy.
It appears that the current administration cannot foresee a viable alternative to oil, and perhaps they are right. Perhaps there simply isn't. Many writers have posited that no combination of alternatives will allow the U.S.A. (or the world for that matter) to run their highway systems the way they are being run.
If this is the case, it appears that the administration has decided that once the world discovers it cannot share the Oil Cake equitably, the spoils are going to go to the most powerful players (Heinberg's so-called "Last Man Standing" Strategy). The U.S.A. is, perhaps prudently, stationing its chess pieces well in advance of the other players. China is looking at Africa. Europe is looking at Russia. But the resource is really where the U.S. police stations are being set up.
Iran is Iraq. It is simply a matter of time for the equations to really unbalance, and for the tension embedded in the system to overload. As such, the Northern Hemisphere ought to be interesting in its summer of 2007.
|
|
©2007 OhmyNews
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
How worried are you about the H1N1 influenza virus? |
|
 |
| * Vote to see the result. |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RSS
Del.icio.us
Digg 
reddit
Y! MyWeb
Comments Note: Kindly refrain from personal attacks and profanity.
.jpg)
