And the world gets 4mbpd from these guys
Posted by Stuart Staniford on October 27, 2005 - 12:55pm
And next door to Iraq, we have this train-wreck waiting to happen:
Addressing a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled "The World Without Zionism", Ahmadinejad said, "To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."
To a cheering audience that at several points erupted with chants of "death to Israel, death to America, death to England", Ahmadinejad continued, "Once, his eminency Imam [Ruhollah] Khomeini - leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution], stated that the illegal regime of the Pahlavis must go, and it happened. Then he said the Soviet empire would disappear, and it happened. He also said that this evil man Saddam [Hussein] must be punished, and we see that he is under trial in his country. His eminency also said that the occupation regime of Qods [Jerusalem, or Israel] must be wiped off from the map of the world, and with the help of the Almighty, we shall soon experience a world without America and Zionism, notwithstanding those who doubt."
“It takes as much energy to wish as it does to plan.”
—Eleanor Roosevelt
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
I guess that I have a different perspective having lived there and elsewhere. Stuart calls Iran a "train wreck waiting to happen". I call it the Iranian people exercising their free will and responding to American threats to their sovereignty. It wasn't the Iranians who started this little squabble - we did.
Oh, nevermind.
Knuckleheads. All of 'em.
It looks like the world economy is going to crash. From what? It just depends on what happens first.
Can't be sure of anything already - only sure that the music band will keep playng the same repertoire until the end.
I also think the Iranians are clearly very good at playing chess.
I don't see this as an empty threat. But what can we do about it? It seems we're at the limit of our abilities in Iraq.
I read that some folks in the defense department are saying, "The war in Iraq is over, and Iran won."
Iran is looming dark on our horizon. My fear is that our gov't will be hell bent on a nuclear option for Iran without the availability of troop numbers. We're spread very thin. Hold on tight, this rides gonna be bumpy.
The entire Middle East would be a desert again if oil fell to $15/barrel. The indigenes can't eat it, wear it or build houses out of it, they can only exchange it for things. If the world decided that oil was more trouble than it was worth, it would be worse than a return to camels; the population in e.g. Saudi Arabia has grown so far beyond sustainability that there would have to be a large exodus or people would starve.
It wouldn't be nice, but it would certainly change their attitude.
Remind me again how we're going to get oil down to $15 a barrel?
And $15 a barrel is insane. I suspect we'll see $15 a gallon before that ever happens...
As for how competitive alternatives are, wind power is currently about 4.5¢/kWh. If gasoline is 126,000 BTU/gallon and car engines are 20% efficient, each gallon yields about 7.4 kWh at the crankshaft; the equivalent cost of wind power is about 33¢/gallon. That's a smidge more than the cost of raw crude at $15/bbl, and you're not going to see pollution or carbon taxes on wind. And wind power is getting cheaper as turbines get better.
All the cost of the alternatives is in the details: batteries, transmission, DSM, charging connections we don't have yet. This stuff isn't together yet; we don't have the economies of scale. But they'll build with time, if we have enough time.
Do you have reliable estimates about wind power EROEI?
If wind power was an organism that multiplied using the energy it captures, it would double itself itself between 2-4 times per year. If the average was 2.5 times per year, we would go from 14.2 billion kWh/year in 2004 to 454 billion kWh in 2006 and have all US electric demand met by wind power sometime in early 2008.
US electric demand averages about 450 GW; there is about 1.2 terawatts (2.67 times as much) of potential wind power in the continental US.
Mind that even in Germany now they are reevaluating nuclear because renewables are just not possible to scale up that fast.
Another question - is 1.2 TW the net capacity or the installed capacity of the wind power potential in US? Wind turbines typically utilise on average 15-20% of their installed power.
Meaning you can not control all the loads everywhere - e.g. you can not start/stop factories, hospitals, schools etc. on request. Imagine a hot sunny week during summer, most of US area is within an anticyclone (low winds) - how long will it hold? From what I've read even Denmark now is realizing the necessity to include the wind power generation within a larger grid.
That source would need to be checked. Iran now has its first self-bult satellite in space. If they can build medium-range ballistic missiles, their own fighter jets (which are although decades-old technology), guided weapons, and supposedly nuclear weapons I guess they will be able to build a light bulb - or take care of oil infrastructure at 1970s level which is what they are mostly still using. Iran also manufactures cars (and will start building for Mercedes soon).
The notion that all people in Gulf Countries only do "Islamic Studies" is quaint but untrue, Iran has focused heavily on engineering and that is precisely one of the reasons why they are seen as "dangerous".
Iraq was fairly industrialized before the war and the Baath government policy was to use more of the oil as a raw material for petrochemical industry, use natural gas for making fertilizers etc. Even Saudi-Arabia has far-reaching plans to make the country a petrochemical hub. Nobody really wants to be only a crude exporter. But this may be a problem for those who only want to by unrefined crude.
Industrializing means increasing the domestic fuel consumption so less will be left for exports. Think about Nigeria: the population is over 100 million and they should use all of their oil themselves. The population of OPEC is about 550 million. If they used as much oil per capita as the US they would use all they produce...
Unless of course, some event should occur that removes the industry in Iran, but keeps the oil production (which is mostly sitting in Khuzestan, right next to iraq, and a site of some ethnic unrest) intact.
Like a bombing campaign against Iranian infrastructure that is alleged to be used for WMD development, then extending to all infrastructure that keeps the regime afloat, and accompanied by a seizure of Khuzestan province by foreign forces. Not that anyone could be planning such a heinous crime...
Really?
I thought that Iran also possessed huge natural gas reserves.
Would it not make sense to utilize as much natural gas as possible for domestic use (i.e. electricity generation and manufacturing) before even considering the nuclear option?
I understand that a similar program is occuring within Saudi Arabia, to replace as much domestic oil consumption with natural gas to maximize export earnings.
Also, wouldn't the development of nuclear power be far more costly and can only produce electricity, whereas natural gas is far more useful in the way it can be utilized?
If I can propose to let a different view - if I am producer of oil and NG and see that BOTH of them will be scarce (and very profitable along the way) in the near future, I would also consider every alternative, and the best one available is nuclear. I think that it is cinism that the only country that has used nuclear weapons ever accuses much weaker countries without any proof.
The truth about nuclear weapons is that if any country is crazy enough to decide to use them it could as well blow up a dirty radioactive bomb on its territory and just wait for the whole world to become depopulated.
And check EIA: "Currently, natural gas accounts for nearly half of Iran's total energy consumption, and the government plans billions of dollars worth of further investment in coming years to increase this share." Yes, they are using NG.
Iranian oil production cannot increase significantly in the future and domestic oil consumption is growing. They need NG for maintaining exports income in the longer run. That is why nuclear energy is important.
We have become so short-sighted and conservative during our years of prosperity and this will cost us a lot - including the world dominance.
A quote form Wikipedia:
By 2050, China plans to deploy as much as 300 gigawatts of reactors. If PBMRs are successful, there may be a substantial number of reactors deployed. This may be the largest planned nuclear power deployment in history.
By 2050 there will be no oil neither NG even according to the most optimistic projections. Some people are capable of looking ahead.
Not so broadly covered is the coming Iranian oil bourse, its valuation of crude in euros and a big "up yours" to the greedy, overconsumptive american public.
If anyone can give good reason why the neocon army isn't planning a sandy vacation in sunny Iran, I'd love to hear it. I'd like to call this mission "Operation Supply Destruction"
G.W. is already rehearsing the war speech, he just can't seem to get past that dang word "nuc-u-ler"
Both sides know it and just play this macho game to get support for covert actions against each other. Cold War on a smaller scale.
To me, it seemed more of a statement about the shaky foundation upon which the US sits and a prediction that that foundation would soon begin to crumble. He might have a point (especially when the Iranian oil bourse is taken into account).
Ignore the rhetoric on both sides and focus on the deeds.
how well are american refineries protected?
We beat the Russians.
Our existence as superpower undermines Chinese ethnocentrism.
We're the religious enemy of Iran.
Fun, huh?
Of course, Russia is weak now, but they still have manufacturing brawn (something we lack). And China may not want to risk having their entire economy collapse underneath them by fighting us. Then again, maybe they've been hiding secret machines in all their factories for years now which will let them convert over to wartime manufacturing in a heartbeat. Won't that be great?
Why do people always have to focus on really unimportant things when a simple word resumes everything:
Petrodollars
It's as simple as that. Energy and world currency wars. The world just doesn't accept anymore that the USA has the power to export it's insane debt to the rest of the world and effectively tax it. Russia (Putin) and China have started to make moves to topple the Petrodollar system. Iran is a good pawn.
Now stop talking about religion, ethnocentrism and resent. Worlds are never fought because of those reasons. "It's about the economy stupid". (no offense intended)
But to say that these differences have nothing to do with war is foolish. If that were the case, Western Europe, who we exploit just as much, would be rising up against us (and don't mention the EU. Yes, they're getting big and powerful, but don't think for a minute that if world war were to break out again we wouldn't become chums. There's too much history there to sever.) Things like resentment, ethnocentrism, fanaticism, and, in the US, fear of terrorism are the popular forces that drive wars. So even if the underlying motive is economic, the wars do not happen without a popular message, and the messages coming out of Iran are what scares me the most, not their economic competition with us.
all other reasons: religion, racism, political animosity, etc. are merely window-dressing for the ignorant populace. these sentiments are fostered to make war and genocide more digestible to the morons of society. the ones who decide when and where we go to war rarely are so deluded (even if they are occasionally racist/fanatical).
indeed, the love of money is the root of all evil. or at least 99% of all evil.
watch The Money Masters to see how international banking cartels have fueled wars in the last 300 years.
http://www.1984videos.com/
The corporation is a modern invention (last 100 or so years) to further promote this.
why do you think Genghis Khan, Alexander, and all the rest of the monarchies and tyrants decided to fight wars? were the Crusades about fighting heretics and infidels? it was always about amassing money and power. nothing has fundamentally changed.
"The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed".
George Orwell, 1984
Ultimately, I agree with the point that dangerous things should be kept away from dangerous people. However, I feel the American people are being manipulated. The lack of truth only serves to further compound a complex situation. Currently it is not clear what should be done. Though it would be nice to know which the American public prefers: economic collapse or nuclear war.
and I don't see how he could say it much more clearly than that. I think we know where the man stands now.The American part is more interesting. But consider the fact that Tehran is the most important ally of the US in Iraq at the moment. Tehran has kept Southern Iraq quiet and prevented the total collapse of the American forces. But of course Iran is just after the Southern oilfields. Now the question is, does Tehran see a possibility of a deal with Americans or not. The Iranians know what they want, and have shown that they are ready to cooperate with the US. Can they trust that the Americans are ready to continue that cooperation? Can the Americans accept the fact that Iran is winning the Iraq-US war?
If the Iranians are sure that the Americans will attack them in any case, they will not wait to be attacked but will take the initiative. They are already moving fast. The Iranian backed political forces are not interested in sitting in the Green zone. Governing in Basra an Iranian-friendly Southern Iraqi state is much better. They have already their own armed forces in place. Iran fought eight long years for these areas and oilfields and they are ready fight for them now. If necessary they are ready to show Americans some effective Chinese and Russian anti-tank weapons and cut the logistics routes from the Persian Gulf ports.
The US threatens Iran with air strikes, and may be with nuclear weapons. Iran threatens the US with a havoc in Southern Iraq. If any one of them thinks that the conflict is unavoidable he will seize the initiative. Iran can afford an oil shock - can the US?
What we really want is the oil, and maybe some nice little neo-colonial governments like we had with the Shah.
I think it's a safe assumption that, given our lack of available ground forces, any military action against Iran will be confined to massive air attacks. While such attacks can do massive damage, they are hardly likely to topple the current Iranian government. After we make such an attack and destroy lots of military installations and kill lots of civilians, then what? Is the Iranian government going to raise their hands and surrender? Hardly!
Iran's natural response would be to inflict as much damage on the US, Isreal, and the UK. Not just militarily, but economically.
I could easily picture a massive ground assault into southern Iraq, probably closely coordinated with the sympathetic Shiite militias. While the Iranians would suffer a huge number of casualties, they could (at least temporarily)
wrest control of Shiite Iraq from the US-back Iraqi central government. What do we do then, send over another 100,000 troops? What would the Brits do?
I think the worst damage they could do would be economic. It goes without saying that if we initiate a massive air attack on Iran, the spigot gets shut off immediately, and 4 million barrels per day instantly vanishes from the global oil market. Then, they could attack US- and UK-bound tankers with land-based cruise missiles (already obtained from their chums, the Russians and Chinese). While we could take out many of these missile batteries, the coastal area of Iran along the Gulf has quite rugged terrain ideal for the concealment of mobile missile launchers. All it would take is one supertanker sunk in the Straits of Hormuz to put world oil markets into a panic. There might also be torpedo boat attacks on supertankers which would be very difficult to totally prevent.
The US would have to escort every single supertanker passing through the Gulf, and in doing so would put its own naval vessels at risk. As I have said before, many military analysts believe that even our super carrier battle groups are sitting ducks if they stay within the Gulf (the Aegis missile defense system notwithstanding). Which is why an attack on Iran will most like be preceded by the withdrawl of our super carriers out of the Gulf rather than moving them closer to the Iranian coast.
Whatever we do, and whether or not we prevail, there will be an enormous price to paid in the event of an attack on Iran by the US and/or Israel.
While for the casual newpaper reader it may look the contrary ("US troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, establishing bases in Central Asia"), in reality the US troops at their current strength are already struggling to contain the pretty localized and small Sunni insurgency. On top of it virtually the entire supply for them is going through southern Iraq, Kuweit and then the Persian Gulf, always under threat of being cut off if hostilities between the US and Iran should be breaking out. Not to forget the fact that the various infrastructure providing a quarter of the worlds oil supplies is literally within striking distance for the Iranians.
Under these circumstances the US cannot even plausible make threatening noises about limited airstrikes against iranian nuclear facilities. They would either have to substantially upgrade their forces in the region to try to pressure the Iranians into submission by threat of an invasion (and risk a massive escalation with potentially catastrophic consequences during the process), or withdraw most of their ground forces from Iraq. This way a limited air strike scenario would become much more feasable and thus Iran might be more willing to consider US demands.
Of course the problem with either of these options is that the situation in Iraq is far too volatile to consider a complete withdrawal probably for years. This option would risk either outright civil war or the installation of a pro Iranian puppet regime (or maybe a combination of both), basically it would be openly admitting defeat. Massive longterm reinforcements are also out of question, the US military is already struggling to maintain current troop levels.
On the diplomatic front the situation is not looking better, any security council resolution to impose sanctions would be certain to be shot down by Russia (probably more due to old cold war resentment then anything else) or China (here comes actually Peak Oil into play, they see Iran as a vital stone in their global energy strategy, mainly as a supplier of natural gas).
Thus Iran has every reason to be confident. Frankly the only halfway appealing option that i see is for the US to try to make up with Iran, establishing full relations, maybe even turning a blind eye to their nuclear program in return for a stabilizing influence by Iran in the region in combination with an informal military alliance (like Persia under the Shah or Pakistan now).
The benefits would be obvious, but the likelihood is very low, it would involve far too much swallowed pride on the side of the Americans. My prediction is they will try to maintain the status quo until the shit truly hits the fan. That could mean an Iraqi civil war with foreign involvement, an outright Iran-US war or maybe a Saudi revolution, take your pick.
"The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them because they are equally guilty of murder," Bush said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051028/ts_nm/security_bush_dc
Bush says in effect that the Iranian leaders are murderers and wants to topple their government: "We're determined to deny the militants control of any nation". The Iranians are "Evil men who want to use horrendous weapons against us are working in deadly earnest to gain them." They are fanatics and not only murderers but potential mass murderers: "And we are working urgently to keep weapons of mass murder out of the hands of the fanatics". Syria and Iran are "outlaw regimes", which "deserve no patience". This with patience sounds bad and has been generally considered a diplomatic codeword that means threatening with an imminent war.
So the Americans should not envy Iranians for their eloquent president nor be worried. They understand each other well and are on the same wavelength. Only when they start speaking about peace we should be alarmed.
- Iran is in a fairly strong position right now with the Iraq war failing and a Shiite majority in the south there
- His speech could be meant for consumption by his hard-line political base
- He is taking a (extreme) negotiating position vis-a-vis their nuclear program
- He is making oil & gas deals with Iraq, China and India (see the first bullet)
So, all in all, this may make some sense though the Zionist Entity and the Oppressor are not going away anytime soon. And yes, it makes me nervous that we get over 4/mbd from these guys. It also makes me nervous that they could have nuclear weapons in a 5 year timeframe.The new "non-mullah" president's Israel remarks are stupid, but it's what we get when we play dirty. The US wants to stir Iran's Arab minority, so they play the anti-Israel card. The Egyptian press has been talking about Israeli agents in Iraqi Kurdistan planning anti-Iranian operations for a year now.
And finally, don't forget that our friendly Saudis have said much worse things about Israel. At least Iran's "mullahs" have always gone out of their way to say they respect the Jewish religion and people and are only opposed to the colonial state of Israel which was founded by the British rulers of Palestine.
Where were you guys back in the 80's when America's favorite King Fahd used to go on about the Communist-Jewish conspiracy ...