War for Oil?

Hard to believe “Three Days of the Condor” is 34 years old, because it was such a damned prescient movie. And now, in light of this latest military report, I expect that our government won’t even try to hide a “blood for oil” foreign policy once the American public is clamoring for it:

The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.

The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel.

“By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day,” says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

It adds: “While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India.”

Who are they kidding? It’s going to put major economic and social stresses on what’s left of the United States economy, because China’s selling us all those cheap goods.

The US military says its views cannot be taken as US government policy but admits they are meant to provide the Joint Forces with “an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concept to guide out future force developments.”

The warning is the latest in a series from around the world that has turned peak oil – the moment when demand exceeds supply – from a distant threat to a more immediate risk.

[…] Future fuel supplies are of acute importance to the US army because it is believed to be the biggest single user of petrol in the world. BP chief executive, Tony Hayward, said recently that there was little chance of crude from the carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands being banned in America because the US military like to have local supplies rather than rely on the politically unstable Middle East.

But there are signs that the US Department of Energy might also be changing its stance on peak oil. In a recent interview with French newspaper, Le Monde, Glen Sweetnam, main oil adviser to the Obama administration, admitted that “a chance exists that we may experience a decline” of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 if the investment was not forthcoming.

7 thoughts on “War for Oil?

  1. [vaudeville drum crash] rrrrrrit, bang Its’… The… End of the world as we know it… and I feel fine.

    If interested, suz, there’s a picture up at my place of the newest bear.

  2. Not remotely a surprise. What if folks had listened to Jimmy Carter when he said we need to find alternatives to oil, and in the meantime, turn down the heat and put on a sweater?

  3. Too bad a Democratic administration with overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress and a mandate from the voters couldn’t have found time to do both energy replacement and healthcare (real health CARE, not just health insurance reform and profit protection).

    Myabe some TARP funds for solar panels could have meant a really strong start on lessening dependence of fossil fuels. Or for a Manhatten Project for sustainable energy. But, no, Goldman Sachs had to be made whole. Sheesh.

    What a terrible loss of a great opportunity.

    Having both parties going all Corporatist on us at just the worst time in recent history is tragic. And terrible.

    Reading down from the top today has been a major bummer — so very much so very wrong.

  4. “How do you know they’ll print it?”

    Oh, yeah, today we know the NYTimes might very well not print something like that. Or ever follow up on it to see if they should print it.

    Prescient movie, but the Times and times have changed. Probably wouldn’t print the Pentagon Paper today. Or would they?

    The NYTimes kept the truth, actual reporting about damage from the nuke bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the public or almost half a century, iirc. So, there may be many secrets still kept from the public.

Comments are closed.