Peak oil is at the door, is the driver for Bush's policies
|
|
Energy is of vital importance to all organisms. Homo Sapiens have prospered as a species not only because of superior intellect, but also because of their ability to capture artificial supplies of renewable and non-renewable energy. These artificial supplies consist of the work of draft animals, stored carbon (plants), fossil carbon (oil, coal, and natural gas) and primordial energy (nuclear). Of these energy supplies, oil is most vital, as there is no effective substitute for liquid fuels in transportation and for oil as a feedstock for petrochemicals. It is becoming increasingly apparent that world oil production has reached a peak or will shortly, after which worldwide supplies will be unable to meet demand. The US peaked in 1971 and solved the problem of diminishing oil production via imports; however, once the world peaks, there will be nowhere to turn to for more supply. The peaking of world oil production has extremely serious economic, geopolitical, and social/behavioral consequences as Homo Sapiens enters the post-peak era. "Peak oil" is regarded by some scholars to be the greatest challenge yet faced by our species, since the Earth's carrying capacity itself has been artificially enhanced by the availability of cheap non-renewable energy.
The Bush administration fully understands peak oil, yet refuses to level with us other than to parrot platitudes such as "America is addicted to oil!". Since Bush/Cheney came to office, they have put peak oil center-stage in foreign policy. Our presence in Iraq is driven by peak oil, our saber-rattling with Iran and Venezuela is driven by peak oil, and our immigration policy (read: Mexico) is driven by peak oil. BP understands peak oil, and the depletion of Alaskan resources; that is why they slacked off on maintenance of the Alaskan pipeline. Why invest in infrastructure; Alaskan production is toast. Baked in a Tandoori oven, if you prefer. Here in the southwest, Iraq, Iran, Alaska and South America seem far away, but Mexico is close at hand.
We (the US) stand to lose big-time as Mexico's oil depletes and their exports to the US stop. Mexico has long been a net exporter of crude oil, and has been one of the US's most important suppliers in the years following the USA's own peak in domestic production. Objective data point to Mexico's oil production peaking soon (if not already), following which a steep decline is unavoidable. The supergiant field Cantarell, second in size only to the Saudi's Ghawar, is falling off a cliff. Accordingly, Mexico's importance as a crude supplier to the US will plummet in the next 5-10 years, which will sharply curtail supplies from one of our three biggest providers (a group including Canada and Saudi Arabia).
Not only will Mexico's economy suffer, Mexico's government stands to be in chaos, as it is financed in large part by revenues from Pemex. Mexico cannot even think of looking for deepwater oil as the government has skimmed off all the profits and left none for reinvestment. As their economy hemmorages, the flood of economic refugees will make today's situation appear to be a trickle.
Anticipating this, Bush/Cheney tell us we need a big fence to keep the refugees out, while letting us naively believe we must do so for other reasons. As Mexico plummets, it just gives Hugo Chavez more leverage to dictate terms and conditions to us. Bush and Cheney will next find a reason to invade Venezuela. Already our military presence in Colombia has more to do with protecting oil flows than curtailing the flow of drugs.
If Mexico were 20-30 years away from the oil peak and able to further raise production (and specifically exports to the US in preference to China), it is doubtful we would be seeing the border issue on Bush's radar screen. That is not to advocate a lifeboat ethics relationship with Mexico. We will soon be just as miserable in El Norte.
The Bush administration fully understands peak oil, yet refuses to level with us other than to parrot platitudes such as "America is addicted to oil!". Since Bush/Cheney came to office, they have put peak oil center-stage in foreign policy. Our presence in Iraq is driven by peak oil, our saber-rattling with Iran and Venezuela is driven by peak oil, and our immigration policy (read: Mexico) is driven by peak oil. BP understands peak oil, and the depletion of Alaskan resources; that is why they slacked off on maintenance of the Alaskan pipeline. Why invest in infrastructure; Alaskan production is toast. Baked in a Tandoori oven, if you prefer. Here in the southwest, Iraq, Iran, Alaska and South America seem far away, but Mexico is close at hand.
We (the US) stand to lose big-time as Mexico's oil depletes and their exports to the US stop. Mexico has long been a net exporter of crude oil, and has been one of the US's most important suppliers in the years following the USA's own peak in domestic production. Objective data point to Mexico's oil production peaking soon (if not already), following which a steep decline is unavoidable. The supergiant field Cantarell, second in size only to the Saudi's Ghawar, is falling off a cliff. Accordingly, Mexico's importance as a crude supplier to the US will plummet in the next 5-10 years, which will sharply curtail supplies from one of our three biggest providers (a group including Canada and Saudi Arabia).
Not only will Mexico's economy suffer, Mexico's government stands to be in chaos, as it is financed in large part by revenues from Pemex. Mexico cannot even think of looking for deepwater oil as the government has skimmed off all the profits and left none for reinvestment. As their economy hemmorages, the flood of economic refugees will make today's situation appear to be a trickle.
Anticipating this, Bush/Cheney tell us we need a big fence to keep the refugees out, while letting us naively believe we must do so for other reasons. As Mexico plummets, it just gives Hugo Chavez more leverage to dictate terms and conditions to us. Bush and Cheney will next find a reason to invade Venezuela. Already our military presence in Colombia has more to do with protecting oil flows than curtailing the flow of drugs.
If Mexico were 20-30 years away from the oil peak and able to further raise production (and specifically exports to the US in preference to China), it is doubtful we would be seeing the border issue on Bush's radar screen. That is not to advocate a lifeboat ethics relationship with Mexico. We will soon be just as miserable in El Norte.
