As predicted before the last election Tony Blair may not survive his full term as leader. Gordon Brown, the slightly more left-wing heir apparent, is quietly waiting in the wings as the most likely successor. This was also predicted before the election. I would think that Blair would see the writing on the wall and not put himself through an inquiry as leader and resign.

I hope the inquiry goes through whether he resigns or not, because just like George Bush, he knowingly lied to his citizens to force the Iraq War.
MPs organising the campaign to impeach Tony Blair believe they have enough support to force a highly damaging Commons investigation into the Prime Minister’s pre-war conduct.

A renewed attempt to impeach Blair over claims he misled parliament in making his case for war against Iraq, will be made in the Commons within the next two weeks.

The impeachment process effectively stalled last year when just 23 MPs signed a Commons motion. But the scale of the government’s defeat on its anti-terror legislation last week – where 49 Labour MPs rebelled – has galvanised the momentum for proceedings to be invoked.

Organisers say they are expecting 200 cross-party signatures, including those of former government ministers, to force the Commons to set up a Privy Council investigation that would examine in detail the case for impeachment against Blair.
Blair Faces New Inquiry Into Iraq War (http://www.sundayherald.com/52851) - from the Sunday Herald in Scotland.

PS: I hope I don't get accused of Britain-bashing or being anti-UK for posting this ... :D

It would be interesting to see the reaction of Bush should Blair be forced to resign.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of Bush should Blair be forced to resign.

I have a theory that Britain and the US came to a secret agreement at the end of WWII to support each other in any major conflict.

Tony Blair is a smart cookie and British Intelligence is second to none. I don't think the Brits and Tony Blair believed the case presented by the Bush admin (as supported by some leaked documents). But, I think they stuck to their agreement and reluctantly supported the war.

I doubt this inquiry will move forward. There is no benefit to the rebel MPs in having such an inquiry. It would bring them down as well.

"I have a theory that Britain and the US came to a secret agreement at the end of WWII to support each other in any major conflict." Yes, it was called NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The core of NATO is Article V of the NATO Treaty, which states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

"I have a theory that Britain and the US came to a secret agreement at the end of WWII to support each other in any major conflict." Yes, it was called NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The core of NATO is Article V of the NATO Treaty, which states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

I am talking about other military ventures outside the scope of NATO (e.g. Falklands, Iraq).

I am talking about other military ventures outside the scope of NATO (e.g. Falklands, Iraq).

During the Falklands conflict the US in fact tried, through intense diplomatic pressure, to prevent Britain from reclaiming the islands by force. Only when they realized Thatcher was serious, and would not back down, did they offer some support - and even that was done very quietly.

The times were different and Reagan was concerned (obsesessed?) with events in South and particulalrly central America. ge didn't want to rock anyone's boat.

I see your point now, Vandave. However, I think that Pelao is accurate in his assessment of the US reaction during the Falklands conflict. Of course, Bush is fascinated with the concept of "Manifest Destiny", so one can only speculate how far he shall take this view of the world.

During the Falklands conflict the US in fact tried, through intense diplomatic pressure, to prevent Britain from reclaiming the islands by force. Only when they realized Thatcher was serious, and would not back down, did they offer some support - and even that was done very quietly.

The times were different and Reagan was concerned (obsesessed?) with events in South and particulalrly central America. ge didn't want to rock anyone's boat.

Ya, but the US did support the military effort once the Brits decided to invade, which was basically right away. The US may have made those statements just for public consumption and to protect their own reputation.

Without the US, the Brits would have had a very difficult time winning the war. They mobilized their navy basically overnight and started heading south.

I have a theory that Britain and the US came to a secret agreement at the end of WWII to support each other in any major conflict.

Tony Blair is a smart cookie and British Intelligence is second to none. I don't think the Brits and Tony Blair believed the case presented by the Bush admin (as supported by some leaked documents). But, I think they stuck to their agreement and reluctantly supported the war.

I doubt this inquiry will move forward. There is no benefit to the rebel MPs in having such an inquiry. It would bring them down as well.
I don't think I'm buying the secret agreement theory although on the surface it looks like a possible explanation. If it was a secret and negotiated by long dead politicians, what possible reason would present day leaders have for honouring it? Especially if it goes against their own perceived interests or beliefs?

It's usually subject to much speculation and sometimes never known historically why leaders make particular decisions. We can only guess. There is much speculation today about what the "real" reasons are that both Bush and Blair went into Iraq, since the stated reasons have been shown to be bogus. We all have our theories, but I don't know if we'll ever know for sure until years from now, when the complete story starts to come out.

My theory is that Iraq is about establishing a beach head for military and political control of the main oil producing region. The oil fields of Iraq are considered to be the world's second largest and also have not been tapped out to the degree that Saudi Arabia's and Kuwait's have. Interesting to note that the world's second largest individual oil field, located in Kuwait, was officially acknowledged to have reached peak production last week. Kuwait's Biggest Field Starts To Run Out Of Oil (http://www.ameinfo.com/71519.html). Iraq is the place to be, which is why I don't think you will see the US leaving any time soon. They need to get a reliable puppet in place first, one who will consent to keep the large permanent US military bases being built there. They need a dictator in place that they can spin as "democratically elected", look for Saddam Lite. No doubt Diebold with their nice voting machines is helping them out with that. ;)

William Howard Kunstler, whose dark theories about resource depletion I don't necessarily follow, has called the Iraq War, "the War for Suburbia", which I think is essentially true. With the US controlling much of the world's oil, there will be less pressure on their primarily unsustainable auto-centric suburban lifestyle.

Another element to this theory is one that I don't completely grasp, but it is said to have something to do with the practice of pricing oil on world markets in US dollars or "petrodollars". Apparently OPEC countries were threatening to change this to the Euro. It has been said that this would have a disastrous effect on the US economy. Having control in Iraq forestalls the change from petrodollars.

I think that the Bush administration essentially made the pitch to Blair that partnering with them in Iraq would mean that they will guarantee their access to some of that oil control. Britian's North Sea field is already well past peak production.

I think that Canada would have been involved, Chretien or not, if we didn't happen to have so much oil ourselves. When world oil supplies get tight, look for Canada to start nationalizing ours.

So, in my humble opinion, it's all about the oil and the leader's willingness to buy it with whatever amount of blood is necessary. In that sense, we are all complicit in this because of our high fossil fuel consumptive lifestyles. Bush and Blair are just giving those in the world's rich nations what they want, because none of us really wants to actually make substantial changes.

Vandave,

If there had been such a pact, the US would have given at least given tacit support for the Suez invasion in 1956. On the contrary, it was the US refusal to prop up Sterling which forced them to abandon their plans. Also as Pelao pointed out, the US were initially less then keen on the Falklands invasion... which breached their Monroe Doctrine of American Supremacy over North and South America.

The loss of the vote was a blow to Blair but not as serious as his detractors are pointing. There were many Labour members who support Blair but had conscientious objections to the 90 day policy... Chris Mullin (best known here as the author of 'A Very British Coup') for example.

GA... of course Blair won't "survive" this term; he's already announced he's not running again. The inquiry will never happen... nor does it need to. I think the facts were pretty clear then and are clearer now.

Vandave,

If there had been such a pact, the US would have given at least given tacit support for the Suez invasion in 1956. On the contrary, it was the US refusal to prop up Sterling which forced them to abandon their plans. Also as Pelao pointed out, the US were initially less then keen on the Falklands invasion... which breached their Monroe Doctrine of American Supremacy over North and South America.

The loss of the vote was a blow to Blair but not as serious as his detractors are pointing. There were many Labour members who support Blair but had conscientious objections to the 90 day policy... Chris Mullin (best known here as the author of 'A Very British Coup') for example.

GA... of course Blair won't "survive" this term; he's already announced he's not running again. The inquiry will never happen... nor does it need to. I think the facts were pretty clear then and are clearer now.

Good point. I guess I should have put more thought into my theory.

We all probably agree that the US had other motives for invading Iraq beyond their stated ones. It seems clear to me that Britain could see through the spin. So, I am left wondering why Blair joined in so quickly when the public support was not there.

I don't think I'm buying the secret agreement theory although on the surface it looks like a possible explanation. If it was a secret and negotiated by long dead politicians, what possible reason would present day leaders have for honouring it? Especially if it goes against their own perceived interests or beliefs?

I think such an agreement would be advantageous to both Britain and the US. With the US, they get the guaranteed moral support of a 'European' ally, along with some of Britains strategic assets (e.g. Diego Garcia).

In return, Britain has access to the military power of the US. It gives Britain more diplomatic power as it enables them to "punch above their weight". The British military isn't as powerful as it used to be.

Yes, I agree it can go against a politicians personal interests, but it is in the strategic interest of Britain. In the case of Blair, he took a massive risk by siding with the US position as the public in Britain were very much against the war.

GA... of course Blair won't "survive" this term; he's already announced he's not running again. The inquiry will never happen... nor does it need to. I think the facts were pretty clear then and are clearer now.
I did know that Blair said he wouldn't run again, FN. I remember that before the election the general assumption was that Brown would take over at some point. "Survive" was a bad choice of words, I meant that he may have to go sooner than expected.

I don't think that the facts are clear enough, and I think it's important in a democracy to get testimony on record about what kind of manipulation was engaged in both in Britain and in the US. Of course, Blair's successor will probably not want an inquiry to be going on when he's trying to get himself re-elected. Especially if he or some of his Ministers were involved in the deception.
So, I am left wondering why Blair joined in so quickly when the public support was not there.
O - I - L

So, in my humble opinion, it's all about the oil and the leader's willingness to buy it with whatever amount of blood is necessary.

A lot of the oil theories just don't work when examined. The currency one is an especially weird one that would accomplish the opposite of what the U.S. economy needs.

A basic one that does (barely) work is opening Iraq up to development, which could have a moderate downward impact on prices (not enough to make it a strategy or to be the main 'driver' of SUV-Suburbia) and provide a large amount of investment room for companies that are getting too big to go after small oilfield investments.

The $ still don't work out under this, but there is the increased feasibility of using military $ to open up investment potential being easier to sell to voters than direct subsidies for energy companies...plus the military suppliers benefit. This is still quite a stretch. Far too much uncertainty compared to other ways for the companies to get the money and access.

Far more likely is a political leaning towards the invasion ('world view'), with some industry players egging them on and talking about all the wonderful things that could be done. I really don't think Iraq was a complex machination -- republican foreign policy view, more susceptible to favourable group-think, overly optimistic views on how the people could be helped = mess.

Far more likely is a political leaning towards the invasion ('world view'), with some industry players egging them on and talking about all the wonderful things that could be done. I really don't think Iraq was a complex machination -- republican foreign policy view, more susceptible to favourable group-think, overly optimistic views on how the people could be helped = mess.

I think this is the most likely situation.

I don't buy the oil theory either. The US and the west (including us) are willing to buy oil from all sorts of regimes. It would have been cheaper to just buy the oil from Iraq rather than invade and rebuild the country.

It would have been cheaper to just buy the oil from Iraq rather than invade and rebuild the country.
Maybe, Dave. It's just speculation on all of our parts here.

The Bush administration, in particular Dick Cheney, have been well aware of the peak oil issue for some time before it hit the mainstream. Matthew Simmons, who has written a book about peak oil and the diminishing output from Saudi Arabia is an energy investment advisor that Cheney had consulted with before 9-11. Speeches that Cheney made show that he was aware of the issue.

If the peak oil predictions hold $100 a barrel is only the start. As well with oil becoming scarce, no country wants to be held ransom by oil producing countries, especially the US. The effects of a finite quantity on it's market price may throw the whole cost issue out the window. Our industrial society needs oil to function, there is nothing that can substitute for it to a great degree on the horizon. Under that scenario, control of the supply may become far more important than its price.

Oil has to be involved in the calculations leading up to the Iraq War. If Iraq's main export was potatoes, none of us would likely know where it was on a map.

If the peak oil predictions hold $100 a barrel is only the start. As well with oil becoming scarce, no country wants to be held ransom by oil producing countries, especially the US. The effects of a finite quantity on it's market price may throw the whole cost issue out the window. Our industrial society needs oil to function, there is nothing that can substitute for it to a great degree on the horizon. Under that scenario, control of the supply may become far more important than its price.

Oil has to be involved in the calculations leading up to the Iraq War. If Iraq's main export was potatoes, none of us would likely know where it was on a map.

Peak oil theory has been around for anyone who cares to look for it for decades. Most forecasts still say it's somewhat in the future. Even if it isn't, there are limitations to war for Iraq oil.

There are substitutes for the majority of oil use (ground transportation) existing and on the horizon; oil is still cheaper than the alternatives. Control of oil is also somewhat nebulous, given a world price, but can be helpful if the profits are kept (turns the U.S. into an oil exporting nation if it keeps Iraq oil profits). The $ balance and political risk still doesn't work so well. $200+ billion can get you a lot of oil production in much safer jurisdictions, or fund a substantial amount of conservation, energy source conversion, etc. all with much less political cost, some with political benefit.

I agree that oil is a part of it, but smaller than most assume, unless the U.S. powerbrokers have difficulty with life-cycle cost calculations (aside: Bush probably would have trouble with life-cycle cost calculations :) ). I think the dominant factor was world view.

Peak oil theory has been around for anyone who cares to look for it for decades.
Yes it has, but it has been mostly ignored, even by those in the oil industry, who should have known better, until recently. I only first heard about it less than two years ago. The jury is still out on when the world wide oil peak will occur or if it has already occurred. It is commonly thought that we won't really know until we are past that point. Some think we are now at the world peak. Some pollyannas think that we won't hit peak until 2030, most think it will be somewhat sooner than that like 2010 - 2015.
I agree that oil is a part of it, but smaller than most assume, unless the U.S. powerbrokers have difficulty with life-cycle cost calculations (aside: Bush probably would have trouble with life-cycle cost calculations :) ). I think the dominant factor was world view.
I would probably have trouble with life-cycle cost calculations too. Can you please extrapolate Beej, on what you mean by "world view". If it was generally a political idea that Saddam was a bad man and should be removed, (which I just don't think is true, since he was a good enough man, when the CIA enabled his rise to power) then how did that draw Britain into it?

Some think we are now at the world peak. Some pollyannas think that we won't hit peak until 2030, most think it will be somewhat sooner than that like 2010 - 2015.

I would probably have trouble with life-cycle cost calculations too. Can you please extrapolate Beej, on what you mean by "world view". If it was generally a political idea that Saddam was a bad man and should be removed, (which I just don't think is true, since he was a good enough man, when the CIA enabled his rise to power) then how did that draw Britain into it?

There is a lot of uncertainty about when peak oil will be reached, but there are credible forecasts for the 2030 area, as well as before and after. What are your total resources, peak production rate and production curve shape (symmetrical, skewed) assumptions to get you to 2010-2015?

Most people have trouble with life-cycle cost calculations, but I hope that they would familiarize themselves if they were going to attack a nation based on the calculations. :)

The CIA enabling him doesn't mean they ever thought he was good, or have to continue thinking that he was. It does mean they thought he was less bad than the alternatives at the time.

More recently he was severly embarrassing the UN, and funding bombers in Israel (not Al-Quaeda, though). A generally bad person, of many in the world. Combine this with republicans' fundamental belief that democracy and prosperity is 'doable' by externally forced revolution, a previously demonstrated desire by Saddam to take over neighbours and a relatively crappy military (North Korea and Iran are far more dangerous.).

He was a target that fit the U.S. Republicans quite well to spread peace and democracy while ridding themselves of an embarrassment and increasing stability in a region with a dangerous history and a large share of world oil production (very different from going after Iraq's oil). This is where I think oil may come into it more credibly.

As for Britain, that is the big question. Oil is a weaker argument than for the U.S., they are much more capable of implementing efficiency programs (big cars are not a right of passage and the country is much easier to get around) and the people opposed the war from day one.

I don't know why Britain did it, but if they did it for oil then there is a serious intelligence problem there. It's possible Blair is just a true-believer about spreading peace and democracy and bought the flimsy intelligence. Other things are also possible.

Without the US, the Brits would have had a very difficult time winning the war.

This is not true at all. The US assisted with some satellite imagery, and with the latest version of the Sidewinder missile. Important, but without them Britain still would have won. No US ships or aircraft, or other military force, was involved in the conflict.

There is a lot of uncertainty about when peak oil will be reached, but there are credible forecasts for the 2030 area, as well as before and after. What are your total resources, peak production rate and production curve shape (symmetrical, skewed) assumptions to get you to 2010-2015?
That was just a very rough average on my part of many of the peak estimates that I have read. I believe that the 2030 and post 2030 figures are based on US Geological Survey estimates, that seem to be out of whack with many others. Even oil companies such as Chevron are now admitting that the peak may be sooner.

Estimating the world peak is very difficult and inexact and involves a great deal of guesswork, from what I've read. But many of the predictions seem to be in a similar range, not many venturing into the 2030 and beyond area.

The official figures for oil reserves from many countries are suspect and open to interpretation, especially Saudi Arabia. There is some evidence that their figures were greatly inflated during the 1980s for economic reasons. The researchers have to make an estimate by applying what they do know about the various oil fields and coming up with figures based on that.

Figuring out what new oil is out there to be discovered is also something that is inaccurate. New discoveries are dropping year after year, so the researchers must have to construct a formula to average this out. A massive new discovery might shift the prediction by a several months or a year.

He was a target that fit the U.S. Republicans quite well to spread peace and democracy while ridding themselves of an embarrassment and increasing stability in a region with a dangerous history and a large share of world oil production (very different from going after Iraq's oil). This is where I think oil may come into it more credibly.

As for Britain, that is the big question. Oil is a weaker argument than for the U.S., they are much more capable of implementing efficiency programs (big cars are not a right of passage and the country is much easier to get around) and the people opposed the war from day one.

I don't know why Britain did it, but if they did it for oil then there is a serious intelligence problem there. It's possible Blair is just a true-believer about spreading peace and democracy and bought the flimsy intelligence. Other things are also possible.
I simply don't believe that leaders anywhere go to war, especially a war of aggression, rather than a defensive one, based on any kind of fuzzy ideas about peace and democracy. To me, when I see that as a stated reason, I rule that out immediately. What's the old saying ... "Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity".

Anyone who leads a country, especially a major power like the USA or Great Britain is not an idealist in these matters. This is realpolitik and bringing peace and democracy to Iraq is nothing more than spin.

Although Britain doesn't have the same suburban oil guzzling habits as the USA (and Canada, to be fair), their need for oil is essential. Their North Sea is becoming played out, and the thought of getting in on the ground floor with the USA on an oil control scheme in the Middle East would have seemed very attractive. Likely this was the real attraction for many of the "coalition of the willing" participants.

I agree with you that hoping to increase the general stability of the oil-rich Middle East was likely a consideration and a side benefit that they would see as much more achievable if they could establish a permanent military presence in Iraq. Of course their actions are producing just the opposite of stability.

They may have known this would happen but the added instability may have been thought of as an excuse for even greater military incursions there. Iran and Syria have been on Bush's radar, but now he may have a hard time expanding his war. Unfortunately for the Bush regime, the US public seems to be getting tired of the war and waking up to the fact that they were manipulated into going there.

I think it was Churchill who said something like: The people of the United States will always do the right thing in the end ... after trying out every other possibility first. :)

It's possible Blair is just a true-believer about spreading peace and democracy and bought the flimsy intelligence.
Oh yes, and by the way, the Downing Street memos put the lie to that. Blair knew the intelligence was BS long before the invasion. He and his people knew it was a tool for beating the war drums.

I don't buy the oil theory either. The US and the west (including us) are willing to buy oil from all sorts of regimes. It would have been cheaper to just buy the oil from Iraq rather than invade and rebuild the country.

Yes, whil oil is important to the whole thing, especially the proximity of Saudi oil, there is a lot more to it.

Like a lot of historical events there is a convergence of events and personalities that creates unexpected outcomes. 911 created an opportunity for Bush to play a leadership role and to feel very much that he is the right man for the times - defending western values etc etc. For Blair a generous observer will note that Saddam was not a pleasant chap and there was, at one time, reasonable evidence of a desire to have some unpleasant weapons. Combine this with Blair's presidential style of leadership and, at the time, very large majority, and arrogance plays a role. Then we have the added twist of the French and German approach, which suits Blair becuase he has other issues with them ovr the EU.

It seems clear that Churchill was the right man in the right place at the right time in 1940. History may well judge that Bush in particular was exactly the opposite, making matters worse rather than better.

This is not true at all. The US assisted with some satellite imagery, and with the latest version of the Sidewinder missile. Important, but without them Britain still would have won. No US ships or aircraft, or other military force, was involved in the conflict.

Thatcher said that without the US, they wouldn't have got back the Falklands.

Thatcher said that without the US, they wouldn't have got back the Falklands.

Sure, she had to thank Ronnie. It was a tough time for the Americans: they had been receiving lots of British support regarding a hard line against the Soviets (deployment of Cruise & Pershing in Europe for example) and owed the Brits. However, the US also did not want to be seen to be supporting an Imperial power hammering a South American state. In the end, Thatcher got the help she wanted, which was for the US to recognize the UK's right to reclaim territory taken against international law.

The fact remains, no war-winning material help was given.

When I attended an oilfield tech school in Houston in 1976, pretty much ALL of my profs told me that "we've only got about 25 years of petroleum reserves left...including as-yet unfound fields".

They also told us that we'd best "make your money in this business NOW and save it...because it will all end rather soon!"

These were the best experts in the field who were saying this, BTW. At an oilfield university that was world class (we had students from all over the planet at this place).

Wellll...guess what? They were WRONG! In a big way.

What we now know...and what I have personally seen from spending about twenty five years analyzing oilfield data on a multitude of exploration wells...is that we have hardly scratched the surface of what's available. We've simply found most of the petroleum thats easy to get at. The rest will be a bit harder to extract.

And we still have a whole bunch of it in existing wells that we haven't managed to liberate yet. When I first started out in the oilpatch it was an accepted fact that we could only get at about one THIRD of the available oil in any given field. The rest was simply not economically viable.

Now it is (fifty bucks a barrel says it is). And methods of extraction have taken a quantum leap from the old vacuum tube days of my youth.

And...don't even get me started on the subject of natural gas. We can run almost anything from today's technology on natural gas (cars, powerplants, etc.)...and there is enough of that right here in Canada to power all of our great grandkids into withering old age quite comfortably, thank you.

Plus we can make more, if we want to. We have the technology.

Bottom line here?

The people who loudly proclaim that "it's all about the OIL!" on any subject...be it Tony Blair and the British Labour Party, or on the subject of George W. Bush and Iraq...

....Are talking through their hat. They're spouting politically motivated nonsense that has been spoon fed to them by their handlers. It a party line, nothing more. No basis in actual fact at all. This is patently obvious.

Re-read all of their posts and you will see it yourself.

(Numerous studies have clearly shown...) Pretty much whatever the people who have commissioned those "studies to show". This is NOT big news to any thinking individual.

That's about it.

Trust me on this. Or look for yourselves. The reality is out there.

I believe that the 2030 and post 2030 figures are based on US Geological Survey estimates, that seem to be out of whack with many others.

I simply don't believe that leaders anywhere go to war, especially a war of aggression, rather than a defensive one, based on any kind of fuzzy ideas about peace and democracy. To me, when I see that as a stated reason, I rule that out immediately. What's the old saying ... "Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity".

I think it was Churchill who said something like: The people of the United States will always do the right thing in the end ... after trying out every other possibility first. :)

The USGS estimates are the only really comprehensive independent world estimates and did not include many oil resources (intentional focus based on data and definitions). Middle East reserves are highly uncertain and a 2010 peak is a real possibility, but a 2030+ peak is also a real possibility. Most of the under 2010 estimates are based on little more than world reserves, some added chunk to appear 'optimistic' and a Hubbert curve.

I think many Republicans truly believe that forcing democracy on unstable nations increases U.S. peace. I don't believe them to be right. However, combine these believers with other interests (fear, money, etc.) and you can form a large coalition.

What we now know...and what I have personally seen from spending about twenty five years analyzing oilfield data on a multitude of exploration wells...is that we have hardly scratched the surface of what's available. We've simply found most of the petroleum thats easy to get at. The rest will be a bit harder to extract.
Gerry, since we've gone back and forth on this many times on this forum and you've yet to provide anything to back up your "facts" other than anecdotes about working in the oil biz, even though you've been asked to numerous times, I have only one thing to say. You are full of it! You're giving us a big pile of Mr. Floatie (http://www.poopvictoria.ca/photo-gallery/atct_album_image?b_start:int=0) here. :D

Give us something to back up your arguments. Geez, even Chevron disagree with you and has acknowledged that we are rapidly heading to an energy crunch. Then again, the biogas emanating from one ehMac poster on Salt Spring could power the planet for centuries. :D

Browse through this thread (http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=24768&page=1&pp=40) to see MacNutt's bankrupt arguments and how he fails to prove them.

I think many Republicans truly believe that forcing democracy on unstable nations increases U.S. peace. I don't believe them to be right. However, combine these believers with other interests (fear, money, etc.) and you can form a large coalition.
I think that is what many Republicans say for public consumption. I think that many Republicans and Democrats for that matter, don't really give a damn about democracy in other countries. They also don't seem to give a damn about democracy in their own country. Their entire motivation has to do with US interests and what they think will further them. I don't believe that most of those people think that an actual democracy would further those interests, but it is important to use that terminology for PR reasons. I believe that the mentioning of democracy is window-dressing and is usually code for "bringing in a government that the US likes."

Note that they are actively campaigning against the current democratically elected Venezuelan government and trying to spread the perception that it is an illegitimate government. If it were the 60s now, they probably would have already set the coup in motion.

I am not too worried about the energy situation. I think Gerry is correct, there is a lot of oil left in this world. As Gerry said, only a fraction of oil has been removed from current geologic formations due to the cost of withdrawal. As new technologies are developed and as prices increase, the amount of oil available goes up significantly.

There is enough coal in North America to provide electricity for between 1 and 3 centuries.

Fusion is a real possibility and a reactor is currently being planned. (www. iter.org).

When you consider all the other possible energy sources (wind, geothermal, tidal, fission, solar, natural gas) in addition to fusion (an unlimited clean source of energy), there isn't much to be concerned about.

And this is only the supply side of the equation. We have a plenty of efficiency to gain on the demand side.

I think Gerry is correct, there is a lot of oil left in this world.
Did you read the Gas thread? I don't want to derail this one, more than it already has been.

If it were the 60s now, they probably would have already set the coup in motion.

I think they would have assasinated him in the 60s. There seemed to be a preference for anyone but socialists.

My personal approach would be to let the socialist go in and ruin the country -- it's the only way voters learn. :)

Gerry, since we've gone back and forth on this many times on this forum and you've yet to provide anything to back up your "facts" other than anecdotes about working in the oil biz, even though you've been asked to numerous times, I have only one thing to say. You are full of it! You're giving us a big pile of Mr. Floatie (http://www.poopvictoria.ca/photo-gallery/atct_album_image?b_start:int=0) here. :D

Give us something to back up your arguments. Geez, even Chevron disagree with you and has acknowledged that we are rapidly heading to an energy crunch. Then again, the biogas emanating from one ehMac poster on Salt Spring could power the planet for centuries. :D

Browse through this thread (http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=24768&page=1&pp=40) to see MacNutt's bankrupt arguments and how he fails to prove them.

Yeah...GA. And the guys at Chevron don't have a single thing to gain by promoting this fallacy that what they are selling is RARE and about to become even RARER and MORE EXPENSIVE. ;)

Too funny. Laddie...you are very easily led. This has become rather obvious to many of the people who regularly read this board. Sorry...but that's the simple truth.

Want more proof about how much oil is really left on this planet? And where it might be found?

Then consider this:

-MOST of this planet earth is covered by oceans. Two thirds of it, actually. We have only nibbled at the edges of this dominant area in our search for oil. And low spots with adjacent moutain ranges are the very best places to find large traps for hydrocarbons. This is where we find it on land. The world's oceans are FULL of mountain ranges that we know nothing about. Nothing at all.

And...consider this...the oil that we find is almost ALWAYS a result of microscopic marine life that has been trapped and undergone anerobic decomposition. Ocean critters...NOT "dead dinosaurs". (think about this for a moment).

-ALSO...the collapse of socialist societies like the Soviet Union and the radical western-style economic reform of former communist states like China has now opened up all sorts of brand new areas of exploration that simply weren't available to us just a few years back. It will take decades to fully explore these areas for all of the available hydrocarbon reserves. But it already looks very promising. What used to be the communist Soviet union is already producing as much oil as Saudi Arabia ever has. China has, potentially, hbundreds of years of oil reserves. Hordes of my oilpatch buddies are now exploring China for new hydrocarbon reserves. And they are FINDING LOTS!

And we have only gotten started on it. The best is yet to come.

Bottom line? There is more oil and gas than we, or our great-grandchildren, could EVER use, still locked in the basic sedimentiary rocks of this planet we call earth. And we can make more natural gas with current technology. Enough to last forever and a day...if we choose to do so.

Certainly enough to last until we can manage to perfect nuclear fusion or zero point energy or something like that.

Probably even enough to get us to the point where we can figure out how to power all of our current technology with butterfly thoughts, in order to please all of the whacko greenies.

But then they'd have to find something NEW to bitch about. Whilst gnashing their collective teeth and rending their garments in a loud public protest against pretty much everything that relates to our modern civilisation.

They'll NEVER be happy. No matter WHAT we all decide to do. No matter HOW wew choose to power our modern society.

And these very same whackos would be the very FIRST people to freak out if the lights suddenly went off.

Trust me on this. ;)

I would love to see how furious Bush gets when Blair has to step down!!!

Total and utter nonsense Gerry.

Myself and others have debunked your points on this subject several times over now, so I can't be bothered to do it all over again. I'm not biting this time.

Believe what you want. Make up whatever unsubstantiated fantasy info that you want. Your rep on this board will assure that not many others will trust you on it.

MacNutt's probably right on this one with regards to the level of fossil fuels left. But, what he doesn't take into account is the difficulty and expense it will take to extract those reserves. This is quite evident when he says that:

low spots with adjacent moutain ranges are the very best places to find large traps for hydrocarbons. This is where we find it on land. The world's oceans are FULL of mountain ranges that we know nothing about.

Anyone else realize that when he talks about "low spots" with adjacent mountain ranges he means valleys? That these are valleys between submerged mountain ranges whose peaks don't go near the ocean surface? That these valleys are miles and miles below the ocean surface and then you begin drilling? :eek:

Frightening what happens when you look behind the curtain, isn't it? :D

IronMac, NL has just started to pump oil from its third off-shore well, and there is another off-shore well slated to begin production in the next few years. As well, reports indicate that Hibernia, our first off-shore oil well, has a larger reserve than first expected.

Obviously, NL is not doing the drilling or the pumping. The larger integraded oil companies have bought the rights to do this, and we receive various royalties from this production.

Whether MacNutt is right or wrong doesn't really matter that much. There is still quite a lot of oil left and we have a market economy which is going to distribute it efficiently. As reserves deplete, the prices will rise and all those unviable sources of oil and alternative energies and conservation technologies will become viable. We're sure to take a hit - we are very dependent on oil - but it's not like this will happen overnight and will leave our SUV's and factories stranded. There seem to be a lot of Malthusians out there... the theory seems so sound but the fact his predicted doom never happens is a testimony to the human ability to adapt.

Yes, but that's continental shelf...same as with North Sea and Gulf of Mexico. True deep-blue ocean drilling and extraction is a pipedream in our lifetime as far as I'm concerned.

Whether MacNutt is right or wrong doesn't really matter that much. There is still quite a lot of oil left and we have a market economy which is going to distribute it efficiently. As reserves deplete, the prices will rise and all those unviable sources of oil and alternative energies and conservation technologies will become viable. We're sure to take a hit - we are very dependent on oil - but it's not like this will happen overnight and will leave our SUV's and factories stranded. There seem to be a lot of Malthusians out there... the theory seems so sound but the fact his predicted doom never happens is a testimony to the human ability to adapt.

Sadly, I suspect you are right, at least to to some degree. It is sad because we are unlikely to take any significant steps to stop environmental destruction until we are forced to, and if lack of oil isn't one of the pressures, that just makes real change so much further off.

Whether MacNutt is right or wrong doesn't really matter that much. There is still quite a lot of oil left and we have a market economy which is going to distribute it efficiently. As reserves deplete, the prices will rise and all those unviable sources of oil and alternative energies and conservation technologies will become viable. We're sure to take a hit - we are very dependent on oil - but it's not like this will happen overnight and will leave our SUV's and factories stranded. There seem to be a lot of Malthusians out there... the theory seems so sound but the fact his predicted doom never happens is a testimony to the human ability to adapt.
I don't really have the time to get into this for a few days at least, just to restate what I have posted in the past. All the arguments I made against MacNutt's reiterated fantasy, that he never provided any answers to, are in this thread from earlier this year: Price of Gas Rant (http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=24768&page=1&pp=40). This is a large and complex subject that requires a lot of time and energy to comment on.

One thing I will say now is the economic argument against oil depletion, ignores some basic facts that you would think economists would be able to grasp very easily. Some of the first oil extracted yielded 100 barrels to every 1 barrel of equivalent energy needed to pump out and refine it. The current oil we are pumping now averages around 30:1. Some of the more difficult oil as we drain out the worlds oil fields yields barely more than 1:1, such as the huge Alberta oil sands. If you include the energy use cost of cleaning up and preserving the environment, since the oil sands require incredibly vast amounts of fresh water to process, it is arguable that the oil sands are actually uneconomic, meaning they provide less energy than the energy used to extract it. But, if we get to the point where we are utterly dependent on that grade of crude, we won't quibble about the environment much. I have read estimates that as much as 25% of the remainder of the worlds oil will yield less than 1:1, but I think no one actually knows what that amount may be.

This means that there is no point at all in extracting that oil for energy uses, although we may want to use it for some of the other uses for oil, lubrication, chemicals, plastics. It doesn't matter much if the price of oil is a million dollars a barrel, if it requires more energy to get out of the ground than it yields, it will make no sense to pump it. If you have to spend a million and one dollars on energy to get a million dollars worth of oil, you won't bother.

This goes for all the fantasy deep sea oil etc. as well, if it even exists. Energy return on energy invested has to be greater than 1:1, the dollar price of oil is irrelevant to that equation. Surely the price of oil will have an effect on every last bit of oil that is greater than 1:1.

As for the notion that there are vast undiscovered pools of oil laying around, I'll need something more than MacNutt's "trust me on this" to believe that fantasy. New discoveries peaked in the 1960s and have been getting steadily less, year by year. 80 per cent of oil being produced today is from fields discovered before 1973. There are still new discoveries being made but they don't come anywhere close to making up for new demand. When you look at a chart of discoveries compared to the exponential upward curve of demand, you see two lines going in exactly opposite directions. Even if one or two new giant super-fields were discovered by one of MacNutt's buddies tomorrow, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to increasing demand, providing a few extra months at the world's current and projected usage.

I am hopeful that once the world realizes the fix we are in, which probably won't happen until it becomes abundantly clear we are past peak, the price will start to rise a lot and we will be extremely motivated to adapt and adopt other solutions. My favourite includes learning to live a less energy intensive lifestyle. If we do not it will probably be forced on us anyway, but it would be better if we actively planned for and chose it in advance.

Any dollar we spend on transit and train infrastructure now, while the energy cost of building it is still cheap would be a great investment. We should be doing that right now and rapidly. And we shouldn't spend another dime on expanding road capacity or bridges, unless it's for providing transit access.

We should also be pouring buckets of money into alt energy research. While fusion energy seems to be a dead end so far, if it could be made to work that would be a huge boon to our world. We can't count on it though, it's only speculative research.

I am also hopeful that photovoltaic can be improved from being less than 1:1 at present. There is some indication that it can.

Wind power has a great upside and we should be investing in this massively, again while the cost of building infrastructure using fossil fuels is still cheap. A study at Stanford earlier this year estimates that there is enough wind blowing around the world that could be converted, using present day tech, to 40 times the amount of electricity used worldwide in 2000.

Biodeisel is uneconomic, having a negative EROEI and impractical for mass usage, since the amount of farmland required to grow soybeans for fuel would be greater than we currently use now for food.

I do not believe some of the more panicky scenarios promoted by some peak oil proponents, but every day that we go on without recognizing the iceberg that is coming takes my thoughts a little more into the Malthusian realm. The hubris of the Titanic story is a perfect metaphor for our time. We are not unsinkable.

If you're interested check out the Peak Oil Primer (http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php) on Energy Bulletin.

Oh look, I just used an hour that I didn't have on this post. :D

We should also be pouring buckets of money into alt energy research. While fusion energy seems to be a dead end so far, if it could be made to work that would be a huge boon to our world. We can't count on it though, it's only speculative research.

It's not a dead end. It has already been done. They are about to build a test reactor in Europe. The planning stages have already begun. Read about it. They figure it could go commercial in about 40 years. We have enough coal and oil to last 100's of years.

I'm not worried.

I am hopeful that once the world realizes the fix we are in, which probably won't happen until it becomes abundantly clear we are past peak, the price will start to rise a lot and we will be extremely motivated to adapt and adopt other solutions. My favourite includes learning to live a less energy intensive lifestyle. If we do not it will probably be forced on us anyway, but it would be better if we actively planned for and chose it in advance.


It is not always best to do things early and there are various degrees of 'early'. There is a necessary balance between now and tomorrow.

The U.S. could have shifted to majority renewable energy 30 years ago, but the cost would have crippled them, and for no good reason. Many technologies are getting better and better, but they're not worth pursuing if they're money losers (including accounting for environmental affects), despite how good they may feel. Solar and wind are getting better, but a wholesale switch to them now would be irresponsible. Many efficiency technologies save money now, but others are a large waste...buying 20 years before their prices come down accomplishes very little.

Public transit would be a great development goal, but it is not just about energy, it is wrapped tightly with social choices and a basic taxation and funding structure that favours suburbs. This needs to be addressed politically starting now so that as the energy efficiency and production technologies become better, we don't have an institutional bias holding them back. It's a question of being ready to take advantage of changing technology.

There are numerous energy options going forward, the only ones that would result in a substantial negative affect on our society involve a twit politician triggering a war over a non-problem...which brings us back to our different views discussed earlier. Smooth segue, huh? :)