The War on Oil Revisted
Philip F. Harris
May 05, 2006
Recent international events have added ?alternative fuel? to the fire for an American consumer and American government War on Oil. Activity in Latin American, China, Russia and Africa foreshadow things to come. If action does not come soon, we will be faced with a situation in which we will have to react to world energy events, rather than lead them.
Bolivia?s recent announcement that they were going to nationalize their domestic oil production provides a clue to the course of our oil future. Given world-wide oil shortages, increasing demand from developing nations and, the fact that reserves are at near peak, we are bound to see more demands for nationalization. Third world, oil rich nations are beginning to understand that they have what the rest of the world wants. With the opportunity to reap windfall profits from soaring prices, the lure of greater control of their own oil production must be too difficult to pass up. A good way for a demagogue to gain public support is to finally stand up to the West, provide funds for long overdue domestic programs, and to ?get back? at industrialized nations for years of colonialist attitudes.
Should these nations fear Western military intervention? Probably not. The situation in Iraq has shown third world nations that the massive military might of the West can do little in the way of keeping pipelines flowing with crude. There is no reason to believe that the situation would be any different in the jungles of Latin America or Africa.
In the past we often heard the phrase ?nuclear blackmail.? This was in reference to the fact that a nation with nuclear weapons could literally destroy any country which opposed its fundamental policies. At least as far as oil producing nations are concerned, they could care less if their enemies have nuclear capabilities. Radiated oil fields are of use to no one. The new phrase to be concerned over is ?crude blackmail,? a weapon that may be more powerful than the smartest of bombs.
If there is any doubt as to the possibility of this happening, you have to look no further than Russia. Their new form of ?pipeline diplomacy? is giving Europe grave concern. Being at the center of oil demands from both the East and West, they are positioning themselves to become the new crossroads for oil distribution. Do their pipelines come without strings? As recently as May 5th they announced that their priorities are geared towards meeting their own needs first and those of others second. One could easily support such a notion, if it wasn?t for the fact that they are using their large reserves as a tool for regaining lost influence once held by the former Soviet Empire.
Add oil starved China into the mix and you have a formula that spells disaster for the American consumer. Already, in search for secure supplies to feed their escalating industrialization, they are eagerly seeking to buy any and all oil that may become available. In Africa they have made deals to not only buy crude, but to heavily invest in oil infrastructure. This is being done with few, if any, strings. Such a policy is highly desired, and in contrast to, the typical Western approach of tying investment with social, economic and political controls.
The bottom line is that the West may soon be at the mercy of those very nations that we once dominated. Does this argue for renewed American and Western interference in the internal affairs of these nations? This had been our policy in the past, but it is no longer a viable option. We have not the will, the economy, nor the strength to take on the world for the sole purpose of reducing the price of gasoline and heating oil. The only viable solution is to end our dependence upon oil. More refineries are not the solution. Oil is finite and we will run out. There is nothing that will change that fact. If our culture and way of life is to survive, we must pledge the wealth of our nation, AND the excess profits of the oil companies, toward forging a new path towards renewable, sustainable, and environmentally friendly sources of energy. My next article will explore possible ways and tactics to win the War on Oil.
Philip F. Harris
Bolivia?s recent announcement that they were going to nationalize their domestic oil production provides a clue to the course of our oil future. Given world-wide oil shortages, increasing demand from developing nations and, the fact that reserves are at near peak, we are bound to see more demands for nationalization. Third world, oil rich nations are beginning to understand that they have what the rest of the world wants. With the opportunity to reap windfall profits from soaring prices, the lure of greater control of their own oil production must be too difficult to pass up. A good way for a demagogue to gain public support is to finally stand up to the West, provide funds for long overdue domestic programs, and to ?get back? at industrialized nations for years of colonialist attitudes.
Should these nations fear Western military intervention? Probably not. The situation in Iraq has shown third world nations that the massive military might of the West can do little in the way of keeping pipelines flowing with crude. There is no reason to believe that the situation would be any different in the jungles of Latin America or Africa.
In the past we often heard the phrase ?nuclear blackmail.? This was in reference to the fact that a nation with nuclear weapons could literally destroy any country which opposed its fundamental policies. At least as far as oil producing nations are concerned, they could care less if their enemies have nuclear capabilities. Radiated oil fields are of use to no one. The new phrase to be concerned over is ?crude blackmail,? a weapon that may be more powerful than the smartest of bombs.
If there is any doubt as to the possibility of this happening, you have to look no further than Russia. Their new form of ?pipeline diplomacy? is giving Europe grave concern. Being at the center of oil demands from both the East and West, they are positioning themselves to become the new crossroads for oil distribution. Do their pipelines come without strings? As recently as May 5th they announced that their priorities are geared towards meeting their own needs first and those of others second. One could easily support such a notion, if it wasn?t for the fact that they are using their large reserves as a tool for regaining lost influence once held by the former Soviet Empire.
Add oil starved China into the mix and you have a formula that spells disaster for the American consumer. Already, in search for secure supplies to feed their escalating industrialization, they are eagerly seeking to buy any and all oil that may become available. In Africa they have made deals to not only buy crude, but to heavily invest in oil infrastructure. This is being done with few, if any, strings. Such a policy is highly desired, and in contrast to, the typical Western approach of tying investment with social, economic and political controls.
The bottom line is that the West may soon be at the mercy of those very nations that we once dominated. Does this argue for renewed American and Western interference in the internal affairs of these nations? This had been our policy in the past, but it is no longer a viable option. We have not the will, the economy, nor the strength to take on the world for the sole purpose of reducing the price of gasoline and heating oil. The only viable solution is to end our dependence upon oil. More refineries are not the solution. Oil is finite and we will run out. There is nothing that will change that fact. If our culture and way of life is to survive, we must pledge the wealth of our nation, AND the excess profits of the oil companies, toward forging a new path towards renewable, sustainable, and environmentally friendly sources of energy. My next article will explore possible ways and tactics to win the War on Oil.
Philip F. Harris
Print
Email
