Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Peak Oil Demand


Recommended Posts

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1217473

The market's obsession with plummeting oil demand has been so pervasive in the past six months it even fostered a new theory -- peak demand.

Much like the peak oil movement gained momentum when oil prices were rising, now that they have collapsed some are convinced oil demand hit its highest point last year in many developed countries and will never return. They're also pumped by the commitment of many governments to support conservation and new alternative energy.

"There is a reasonable likelihood that OECD oil demand has peaked," Peter Davies, former chief economist at BP

PLC, told Reuters this week. Antoine Halff and Veronique Lashinski, energy analysts at the U. S. brokerage, Newedge, said: "More and more analysts are sold on the idea that U. S. oil demand peaked in 2007. The market meltdown is likely to entrench current demand losses not only in the U. S. itself but in the world at large."

By the time any recovery happens, depletion in old fields and lack of investment in expensive new projects will ensure that oil prices exceed their previous peaks before global supply reaches its previous peak. Peak oil was in 2008 not because that was the ultimate possible pumping year, but because an entirely unrelated banking crisis prematurely amputated global demand.

The peak oil community expected a prolonged hike in oil prices which would cause an increasing amount of economic pain in oil-dependent western economies, leading eventually to a banking/financial crisis. They were not expecting that the first burst upwards in oil prices as global demand threatened to match global supply would be the pin which burst the credit balloon which caused a banking crisis which caused a global recession long before high oil prices could wreck the global economy.

Funny old world, isn't it?

Most people have forgotten about peak oil for now. Oil costs $40 a barrel and the oil exporters are going to have to wait a while before the good times come back. But they will come back, and that's the real problem for us. House prices in the UK can't start to recover until the economy does and the UK isn't likely to recover until Europe and Asia do, BUT as soon as we start seeing any real vigour in the economic recovery the price of oil will start to rise....

I don't think we can look at old graphs of recoveries in house prices after crashes and expect what will play out in the next two decades to follow that pattern. This time the economic recovery will be uneven, because only those businesses prepared for a very different future will prosper and those stuck in the past will die. Properties with land will become ever more valuable.

Who knows, maybe one day people will be turning canalside restaurants back into warehouses...

Edited by UndercoverElephant
Link to post
Share on other sites

i wish there was more public awareness about peak oil. people just see large oil company profits and think, 'yes ill have some of that' and call for a windfall tax. they have no concept of the vast amounts needed for E&P, nor the implications for future supply if this money isnt spent now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peak oil is a very real issue, and I work inside of the supply side of the industry.

Fortunatly for all of us, there is plenty of oil left an the supply arguement is not the big issue.

The real problem lies within the demand side... who gets this oil? For now it is the USA. If that were to change, WAR becomes the issue.

Have you ever tried taking a chew toy away from a terrier?

End of debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peak oil is a very real issue, and I work inside of the supply side of the industry.

Fortunatly for all of us, there is plenty of oil left an the supply arguement is not the big issue.

Not right now it isn't. But it will be as soon as there is anything resembling a global economic recovery. Right now the problem is that the price has gone so low that the oil companies can't afford to invest in new fields. But that is because of an unprecedented drop-off in demand because of the biggest banking crisis in modern history, not because of anything to do with the amount of oil that is left. The issue here is what happens in three years time when the supposed recovery is going to get underway, and OPEC themselves are now warning that lack of investment will mean that supply will not be able to get back to 2008 levels.

Peak oil isn't about how much is left but about when the maximum flow rate occurs. It occured last year. This is no ordinary recession. It marks the end of a period of growth that started with the building of the canals in England and the industrialisation of our coalfields. We have just seen the period of the maximum rate of human consumption of the Earth's non-renewable resources. This is not just an economic crisis - it is an ecological crisis of the highest order and by that I don't mean that we are screwing up the environment for the rest of the Earth's species but that our own way of life as human beings has reached a turning point of unsustainability. We cannot go on like we have been for the past few decades. The physical system will not allow it.

The real problem lies within the demand side... who gets this oil? For now it is the USA. If that were to change, WAR becomes the issue.

How does a bankrupt nation with no oil fight a war?

Have you ever tried taking a chew toy away from a terrier?

This terrier has exhausted itself.

Edited by UndercoverElephant
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.

It wasn't peak oil that make dinosaurs go extinct, therefore, a bit of carbon dioxide is not an issue. I personally don't buy into the Al Gore school of thought about global warming. Sure, if there was no oil, there would be no petro-chem cabal running the show. Besides, 99.999999% of what you know in our world relies on the petro-chemical industry, so there is no alternative.

Peak oil debate... I whole heartedly buy into the Hubbert model, but...The real truth is that only the upper echelon of government, intelligence, top tier geologists and oil execs know the real deal, and they are not about to release the truthful figures about the remaining reserves. If they did, and lets say, told us that there was only 10 years left, we would have mass panic, riots, and face total war. If they said there was 100's of years left, it would de-horn the petro-chems and potentially usurp governments.... and that'll never happen on our watch.

Like I said before, there is plenty left, and when it does run out, us humans are far more adaptable than the rest of the wild world. There may be a few lives lost on the way to a greener existence, but we will make it through.....

On the USA debate..... Bankrupt the US may be, but everyone needs them to sustain the standard of living we all enjoy, therefore, nations WILL keep buying US debt. Why? People like Western Liberal Democracy and the individual freedoms and prosperity it brings. Personally, well, I want the USA to be the world watchdog, even with their bumps and bruises. I like cheeseburgers, movie stars, political satire, automobiles, democracy, freedom of movement and the right to complain.

Add the fact that the US military is so powerful and technologically advanced that even all of the remaining world's military combined would not last more than a couple of days if they went toe to toe. You should know that Americans WILL NOT and DO NOT have to give up their global hegemony. Just look into thier military budget. It exceeds anything that most of the other modern countries COMBINED have. This is sustainable for them as long as they remain leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. Pretty easy when you can offer top scientists and thinkers a cozy modern house with a porche, big six-digit salaries and the freedom to choose how to spend it...versus the alternatives...which would you choose?

This current economic downturn is just a blip caused by widespread corruption which is a natural part of any cycle. This global economic recovery, it will happen in due course, but until capitalism has its day, free of government interferences, things will get worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm.

It wasn't peak oil that make dinosaurs go extinct, therefore, a bit of carbon dioxide is not an issue.

Right. Nice logic. It was a comet strike which wiped out the dinosaurs, therefore climate change isn't an issue. By the same logic: "It was climate change and lack of adaptability that wiped out the neanderthals, therefore deforestation isn't an issue."

I personally don't buy into the Al Gore school of thought about global warming.

It's a massive deal, but it is going to have to be dealt with by future generations. Climate change is the biggest threat to continued human life on this planet but there is absolutely nothing that an individual human being can do to prepare for it or offset the damage he or she is causing and perhaps more to the point it will take at least fifty years before climate change could bring down civilisation as we know it. Peak Oil, by contrast, is right here right now, and if you're sensible you'll take note of it and make your own personal decisions accordingly.

is[/i] a very large chunk, and there really isn't a realistic alternative to most of that. Which means that if we've chomped our way through 50% of the stuff then we're in very serious trouble indeed.

Peak oil debate... I whole heartedly buy into the Hubbert model, but...The real truth is that only the upper echelon of government, intelligence, top tier geologists and oil execs know the real deal, and they are not about to release the truthful figures about the remaining reserves.

I'm not sure the government actually understands the severity of the problem. They didn't see the housing crash coming. What makes you think they can see this? Attention span of toddlers. The geologists and oil execs know about peak oil but not many of them have all of the hard information they need because, as you say, it is not in the interest of the oil companies or the OPEC nations to tell the truth about what they've got left even if they've got all those figures themselves. What we do know is that Russia, Mexico and the North Sea have all already peaked and so have all of the OPEC countries. It follows that global oil production will never exceed 2008 levels, because by the time we get an economic recovery there will have been further depletion in the major big oil fields and lack of investment in new ones (and lack of discovery of new ones).

If they did, and lets say, told us that there was only 10 years left, we would have mass panic, riots, and face total war. If they said there was 100's of years left, it would de-horn the petro-chems and potentially usurp governments.... and that'll never happen on our watch.

It's not about how long there will still be oil in the ground. The crisis happens when the growth in supplies stops, not when supplies stop completely. Without possible growth in global oil supply, there can be no more global economic growth. Peak Oil destroys economics as we know it at the peak, not at the end of the supply.

But your general point is correct, of course. If the government just came out and told people the truth then they would panic, so they won't tell the truth. However, it is not possible to lie to people about the price of oil so the truth will still come out in good time.

On the USA debate..... Bankrupt the US may be, but everyone needs them to sustain the standard of living we all enjoy...

Really? Why do we need a bunch of people who consume far more than their fair share of resources and export nothing but bad debt? The US is only useful as long as it can service its own debts.

therefore, nations WILL keep buying US debt. Why? People like Western Liberal Democracy and the individual freedoms and prosperity it brings.

Are you American by any chance? What you are saying belongs to the history books, not the present. The rest of the world just realised that they don't actually need the US anymore - either economically or politically.

Personally, well, I want the USA to be the world watchdog, even with their bumps and bruises. I like cheeseburgers, movie stars, political satire, automobiles, democracy, freedom of movement and the right to complain.

Add the fact that the US military is so powerful and technologically advanced that even all of the remaining world's military combined would not last more than a couple of days if they went toe to toe. You should know that Americans WILL NOT and DO NOT have to give up their global hegemony.

THEY HAVE ALREADY LOST IT.

Just look into thier military budget.

Then look at their national debt.

It exceeds anything that most of the other modern countries COMBINED have.

So does their national debt.

Edited by UndercoverElephant
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I am a Scot/Irish mix, actually. But sir, I have studied politics, engineering, served in the armed forces, and work in the oil industry from time to time, and am passionate about humanity. I dont worry about peak oil, and there will be an alternative to oil some day, which is a tall order and a daunting task etc... but I imagine it will be equally as damaging to the enviroment.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that climate change is a grave concern to everyone. So is mass extinction from other means. Just be careful from just exactly where you are getting your facts to base your arguement upon. I think your concerns lie more on the population side. We humans do like to procreate, and those mouths need food, water, and shelter. If you are truly a green, what would you have these people do? Resort to the stone age? Mass killoffs? Pandemic?

Your arguement has a few holes. If you are so certain about the remaining crude stock globally, then I assume you have done some research and can cite some of your references. I would be interested in seeing where you are getting the facts, as I work in the industry and cannot tell fact from fiction. Marketing has such a huge part to play in this theatre.

The green lobby are fond of stating far fetched facts, as is the state and business community. In my opinion, climate change is less important to a government than tax collection is. This whole carbon trading/allowance, green taxes et al, is just a new fancy way of getting people to relinquish their money to the state and feel good about doing it. A bit of fear mongering goes a long way for the taxman. Besides, every time I breath I create carbon dioxide, as do all animals, plants, volcanoes, and countless other natural phenomenon. Where are the scary shows about the fluctuations in the suns radiation? Is there going to be a breathing tax?

I like Amercia. Sure they have had some bad moments and ugly politics, but the people there are very resourceful and have a spirit that the world aspires to. I have visited various parts of their country over the years and would say thats is a pretty amazing place. You can have anything you want, as long as you are willing to work hard to get it, and if you should fall, you do get to have a second chance. There is no such ideal in the UK.

You gotta love that they will send their soldiers to die in a far off land to protect YOUR life and liberty, even as a Brit. Remember WW2?

That huge military budget will serve to protect your way of life, and your childrens, and their childrens children for as long as the majority of the worlds citizeny want it that way. I'd say thats going to be a long time.

I don't personally want to try the alternative....

Or would you prefer to live in a hovel, mine raw materials by hand, have your children die in infancy of disentry or polio, and subside on a handful of beans and a fish head? I take it that since you are using electricity generated with fossil fuels, on a computer generated with fossil fuel derivates to lambaste me on this website, on the internet, that you are a sunny day green campainer type. Like I said before, 99.99999% of our lives depend on the petrochemical industry, and there are NO alternatives. You probably wouldn't be alive today if it werent for oil.

Anyways, its been a slice to have a good rant on here today. Thanks for the feedback, and keep your axe sharp.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but I am a Scot/Irish mix, actually. But sir, I have studied politics, engineering, served in the armed forces, and work in the oil industry from time to time, and am passionate about humanity. I dont worry about peak oil, and there will be an alternative to oil some day, which is a tall order and a daunting task etc... but I imagine it will be equally as damaging to the enviroment.

There will be no alternative to oil. Oil isn't just the world's favourite fossil fuel, it is also the raw material used for the production of almost everything - agrochemicals, drugs, plastics...

There is only one fuel source which could replace oil and that is nuclear fusion. If physicists work out how to produce more energy from fusion than it takes to sustain the reaction, all bets are off. However, I'd bet most of my STR fund that we won't see nuclear fusion plants in my lifetime. Nothing at all can replace oil as a raw material. We already know what is available on the Earth in terms of chemical substances and we already know most of chemistry. Science and technology cannot compensate for a lack of required energy of physical substances. ON top of that, it's not just oil we are running into the "peak" of. There is a whole bunch of other rare elements which are running short and there's no way to replace them either.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that climate change is a grave concern to everyone. So is mass extinction from other means. Just be careful from just exactly where you are getting your facts to base your arguement upon. I think your concerns lie more on the population side. We humans do like to procreate, and those mouths need food, water, and shelter. If you are truly a green, what would you have these people do? Resort to the stone age? Mass killoffs? Pandemic?

As long as those people are informed of the facts it is their choice what they do. Nobody is going to volunteer to be part of the dieoff. I guess everybody will do their best to survive and some will fail. I am expecting Europe to end up having to build something like the Berlin wall, except to keep people out instead of keeping them in.

Your arguement has a few holes. If you are so certain about the remaining crude stock globally, then I assume you have done some research and can cite some of your references. I would be interested in seeing where you are getting the facts, as I work in the industry and cannot tell fact from fiction. Marketing has such a huge part to play in this theatre.

Not sure where to start.

At the point of maximum production last year, do you believe anyone but the Saudis had any spare capacity? And do you believe they had anything up their sleeve but heavy crude for which there aren't sufficient refineries?

The green lobby are fond of stating far fetched facts, as is the state and business community. In my opinion, climate change is less important to a government than tax collection is.

...until Hurricane Katrina happens.

This whole carbon trading/allowance, green taxes et al, is just a new fancy way of getting people to relinquish their money to the state and feel good about doing it. A bit of fear mongering goes a long way for the taxman. Besides, every time I breath I create carbon dioxide, as do all animals, plants, volcanoes, and countless other natural phenomenon. Where are the scary shows about the fluctuations in the suns radiation? Is there going to be a breathing tax?

I have no intention of arguing with you about what should be done about climate change. As far as I am concerned that would be a debate about how quickly to shut the stable door after the horse has already bolted.

I like Amercia. Sure they have had some bad moments and ugly politics, but the people there are very resourceful and have a spirit that the world aspires to. I have visited various parts of their country over the years and would say thats is a pretty amazing place. You can have anything you want, as long as you are willing to work hard to get it, and if you should fall, you do get to have a second chance. There is no such ideal in the UK.

Everyone has a right to their opinion.

You gotta love that they will send their soldiers to die in a far off land to protect YOUR life and liberty, even as a Brit. Remember WW2?

You also gotta remember that they stayed well clear until their own shipping started being taken out, and that immediately after the war, when the UK was financially ruined and had lost its empire, and their industry and economy was untouched, they refused to provide us with any money. Well....they made us a loan which we did not finish repaying until last year.

We owe them nothing.

Or would you prefer to live in a hovel, mine raw materials by hand, have your children die in infancy of disentry or polio, and subside on a handful of beans and a fish head?

You think that is what will happen if the might US of A topples? We don't need them. Let them go to hell.

Edited by UndercoverElephant
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but I am a Scot/Irish mix, actually. But sir, I have studied politics, engineering, served in the armed forces, and work in the oil industry from time to time, and am passionate about humanity. I dont worry about peak oil, and there will be an alternative to oil some day, which is a tall order and a daunting task etc... but I imagine it will be equally as damaging to the enviroment.

Oil is the most energy dense substance that is not radioactive. It is so valuable and we are p1ssing it away on trips to the shops. Without it we cannot have pesticides or petrochemicals. Food production is stuffed. To think that something else will come along is just wishful thinking.

Your arguement has a few holes. If you are so certain about the remaining crude stock globally, then I assume you have done some research and can cite some of your references. I would be interested in seeing where you are getting the facts, as I work in the industry and cannot tell fact from fiction. Marketing has such a huge part to play in this theatre.

You say that you are convinced about Hubbert's peak. He said that peak discovery precedes peak oil production by about thirty years. Peak dicovery was in the 1960s. More than half of oil producing nations re in decline

http://www.theoildrum.com

Or would you prefer to live in a hovel, mine raw materials by hand, have your children die in infancy of disentry or polio, and subside on a handful of beans and a fish head?

I fear this is what will happen, whether wish it or not.

http://dieoff.org/

Link to post
Share on other sites

You had better rethink your statement that Britain owes America nothing for WW2, or rather, go say that to a serving American soldier, any WW2 veteran, any merchant seaman, as I reckon you will end up with a boot up your ar$e for being so ignorant of the dead.

That lend lease you refer to is the very reason why you are able to post on this website and don't speak German. I don't have to justify that arguement.

Ahh, ignorance is bliss.

So, on the peak oil debate... Well, the facts are blurred, the research is flawed, only a few select individuals have access to the most accrurate data, and there are still discoveries to be made. There will be a peak, but when that actually happens(ed) is anybodys guess. And by the time we as a civilization realize it, well, we will have come up with an alternative. We humans are ingenious and will adapt, as we always have. We lived for millenia without oil and will do so again. After all, we once believed that the flat Earth was the centre of the universe.

But when it comes down the consumption of the waining reserves, it's going to get ugly, and mass scale resource/oil wars are a very real threat, and oil will be the least of your worries that time.

I reckon you won't be asking America for help when the $hit hits the fan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You had better rethink your statement that Britain owes America nothing for WW2, or rather, go say that to a serving American soldier, any WW2 veteran, any merchant seaman, as I reckon you will end up with a boot up your ar$e for being so ignorant of the dead.

We have repaid our debt to the US, and then some. Plus I do not fear american aggression towards me. I will not lie down and be their poodle. You can if you like.

So, on the peak oil debate... Well, the facts are blurred, the research is flawed, only a few select individuals have access to the most accrurate data, and there are still discoveries to be made. There will be a peak, but when that actually happens(ed) is anybodys guess. And by the time we as a civilization realize it, well, we will have come up with an alternative.

This is wishful-thinking of the most severe sort. The peak has already passed and we haven't come up with an alternative.

We humans are ingenious and will adapt, as we always have. We lived for millenia without oil and will do so again.

We probably will, yes, but there will be quite a lot fewer of us.

But when it comes down the consumption of the waining reserves, it's going to get ugly, and mass scale resource/oil wars are a very real threat, and oil will be the least of your worries that time.

I hope so because I hope I will be living in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of pigs and chickens.

I reckon you won't be asking America for help when the $hit hits the fan.

They will have enough on their hands dealing with their own problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wading into this debate...

Britain owes America nothing for WW2 - it was a partnership that was mutually beneficial. Had the Allied forces failed in either Europe or APAC, the result would have been an aggressor-nation dominating a significant resource-rich environment which would have created a new superpower easily capable of competing with any of the existing superpowers' national interests. Britain (and the thousands of soldiers, pilots and sailors who died prior to US-involvement) provided a foothold for democracy on the western front - this foothold prevented Hitler him from committing all his forces to the eastern front and ultimately allowed the allies (now including the US) to amass the troops for the drive to Berlin. Had Britain not held the fort, the US would have had no such staging post, making it very difficult to defeat Hitler (who was allied to the American's primary enemy, Japan). And let's not forget the Russians who fought so doggedly and who kept the eastern front open allowing the western front to be compromised so fatally. And then let's not forget the countless other nations who fought on the side of democracy, including those nations who were not even run as democracies at the time.

Millions died from more nations than I care to mention and all allied nations had equal amounts to lose if either Japan or Germany or both were able to consolidate their positions - to say that Britain owes the US for winning the war is preposterous and is an insult to the families of those who died (from all nations). Rant over! :rolleyes:

As for peak oil - it is something to be concerned about, the current drop in demand is a temporary situation as emerging market economies industrialise at rates never seen before. The price of oil will resume it's steady march upwards as demand increases post-recession in the next few years. However, I too believe that we will develop new technologies for energy creation but we must not be complacement...

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for peak oil - it is something to be concerned about, the current drop in demand is a temporary situation as emerging market economies industrialise at rates never seen before. The price of oil will resume it's steady march upwards as demand increases post-recession in the next few years. However, I too believe that we will develop new technologies for energy creation but we must not be complacement...

Technologies use energy. Energy is a very different "thing" from a technology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You had better rethink your statement that Britain owes America nothing for WW2, or rather, go say that to a serving American soldier, any WW2 veteran, any merchant seaman, as I reckon you will end up with a boot up your ar$e for being so ignorant of the dead.

America was a late entrant and made a lot of money out of WW2.

And if the Russians hadn't lost 20 million dead on the Eastern Front, nobody would have noticed America's contribution. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
You had better rethink your statement that Britain owes America nothing for WW2, or rather, go say that to a serving American soldier, any WW2 veteran, any merchant seaman, as I reckon you will end up with a boot up your ar$e for being so ignorant of the dead...

I reckon you won't be asking America for help when the $hit hits the fan.

WWII:- The US had been supplying both sides with arms until they decided which side they thought most likely to win. Ford Werke A.G. remained under US ownership throughout the war and used slave labour.

The US only agreed to join in after taking all UK gold reserves to pay for armaments (including gold left for safe keeping by invaded European countries), and imposing an agreement on 'free trade' which clearly meant the dismantling of the British Empire. We had to give British territories away for US military expansion into the Carribean, Churchill gave away all our military secrets, intelligence information, our lead in atomic weapons research, jet engine designs, radar, sonar (the cavity magnetron) - all "inventions that changed the world". Lend Lease only came in after the British Empire was effectively broke. We got virtually nothing back in return.

Lesser Known Facts of WWII:

In a memorable speech, Churchill asked America "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." But America wouldn't 'give' anything without payment. After two years of war, Roosevelt had drained Britain dry, stripping her of all her assets in the USA, including real estate and property. The British owned Viscose Company, worth £125 million was liquidated, Britain receiving only £87 million. Britain's £1,924 million investments in Canada were sold off to pay for raw materials bought in the United States. To make sure that Roosevelt got his money, he dispatched the American cruiser USS Louisville to the South African naval base of Simonstown to pick up £42 million worth of British gold, Britain's last negotiable asset, to help pay for American guns and ammunition. Not content with stripping Britain of her gold and assets, in return for 50 old World War I destroyers, (desperately needed by Britain as escort vessels) he demanded that Britain transfer all her scientific and technological secrets to the USA. Also, he demanded 99 year leases on the islands of Newfoundland, Jamaica, Trinidad and Bermuda for the setting up of American military and naval bases in case Britain should fall.

Of the 50 lend-lease destroyers supplied to Britain, seven were lost during the war. The first was taken over by a British crew on September 9, 1940. After 1943, when no longer useful, eight were sent to Russia, while the others were manned by French, Polish and Norwegian crews. These destroyers were renamed when they arrived in Britain. All were given the name of a town or city, hence the term 'Town Class' destroyer. During the course of the war, Britain had received 12 Billion, 775 million dollars worth of goods under the Lend-Lease program. In June, 1940, transfers of outdated stocks of weapons and planes to Britain amounted to $43 million.

Battle of the Atlantic:

.... the US joined the war, by declaring war against Japan in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. Germany then declared war on the US and promptly attacked US shipping.

Dönitz had only 12 boats of the Type IX class that were able to make the long trip to the US east coast, and half of them were removed by Hitler's direct command to counter British forces. One of those was under repair, leaving only five ships to set out for the US on the so-called Operation Drumbeat (Paukenschlag). What followed is considered by many to be one of the most victorious naval campaigns since Trafalgar.

The US, having no direct experience of modern naval war on its own shores, did not employ shore-side black-outs. The U-boats simply stood off the shore of the eastern sea-board and picked off ships as they were silhouetted against the lights of the coast. Worse, the US commander, King, was a terrible anglophobe and rejected the RN's calls for a convoy system out of hand as the whimperings of weaklings. Instead he saved the US's destroyer fleet for action in the Pacific against the Japanese, leaving the U-Boats free to do what they wanted.

The first boats started shooting on January 13th, 1942, and by the time they left for France on February 6th they had sunk 156,939 tonnes of shipping without loss. After six months of this the statistics were equally grim. The first batch of Type IX's had been replaced by Type VII's and IX's refueling at sea from modified Type XIV Milk Cows (themselves modified Type IX's) and had sunk 397 ships totalling over 2 million tons.

It wasn't until May that King saw the error of his ways and instituted a convoy system. This quickly led to the loss of seven U-boats. But the US did not have enough ships to cover all the holes, and the U-boats continued to operate freely in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico (where they effectively closed several US ports) until July.

The U-boat crews called this the second happy time.

Britain had to pay for all these losses, and sadly many US merchant seamen lost their lives for nothing.

After the War when we needed to borrow money badly to rebuild the US leant us nothing for years as we had nationalised the railways, steel production, created the National Health Service, so the US thought of the UK as becoming Communist. The near collapse of the British economy meant that the US got all our best scientists and engineers, and were able to develop all the British technology that gave the US such an economic advantage after the war. We were left in poverty, with bread rationing coming in for the first time after the war. There will be others who have a much more detailed knowledge of how the Americans dealt with us after WWII, and effectively took us from the leading world power to a second rate country. The US and the USSR just carved the world up between them and left the UK with nothing. Poland who we had allegedly gone to war to protect was unfortunately left in Stalin's hands. Oops!

The US forced the UK and France out of Egypt during the Suez crisis. They didn't even help us during the Falklands War.

At the end of the day all the millions who died (on all sides) had been misled about what they were really fighting for

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find all this terribly hilarious. The misplaced faith in a has-been Superpower so busy bleeding itself dry in some god-forsaken sandpit halfway across the world that it could get its **** handed to it by just about anyone who fancied giving it a go is particularly amusing.

The entire US military was built to fight a week-long war against the Russians in Germany. They have been trying to adapt, but are not doing it nearly fast enough. The current period of prolonged, low intensity desert warfare has all but neutered them. Their Navy and Air Force are still formidable, but it's Armies that win wars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I find all this terribly hilarious. The misplaced faith in a has-been Superpower so busy bleeding itself dry in some god-forsaken sandpit halfway across the world that it could get its **** handed to it by just about anyone who fancied giving it a go is particularly amusing.

The entire US military was built to fight a week-long war against the Russians in Germany. They have been trying to adapt, but are not doing it nearly fast enough. The current period of prolonged, low intensity desert warfare has all but neutered them. Their Navy and Air Force are still formidable, but it's Armies that win wars.

Yes it is a god forsaken sandpit, but it is a sandpit with the worlds 4th largest proven oil reserves!

Good lord. Don't be so naive! Most of you have no idea what you are talking about! at all!!!

The reason the Yanks and lapdog Britain invaded Iraq was to secure the oil and gas fields. Saddam was a paper tiger and past his expiry date, but nonetheless a good reason to send in the troops for the sheeple. Invasions are always easy, occupations are always difficult. Check out the Carthaginian, Roman, and British empires! Yes, history argues that America cannot hold an empire indefinitely!

Energy security was the prize, and the military objective was completed with the famously infamous Bush/carrier broadcast, unfortunately the occupation will never be complete, as it is impossible to win the hearts and minds of a conquered people. Just roll your globe over a few degrees and check out Palestine/Israel. Yes its been ugly, and will remain ugly, but what were the alternatives?

You are correct that they are haemorrhaging money in keeping the combat forces there to act as police, but incorrect in your assumptions about warfare altogether. No armed forces on earth pose a threat to the Yanks, even those with nuclear weapons, as they would probably never get a chance to fire them. Even if they did, that avenue is a non-debate due to the perils of MAD.

I am not American, but have served with them, and I personally know that they have more toys and technology than the rest of the worlds forces put together. Put it this way, just ONE full laden Nimitz-class carrier battle group including the destroyers, frigates, tankers, and submarines could quite easily wipe out ANY military threat. The technology in the F22 B2 F117 and cruise missiles, UAV's , their airborne ECM and jamming systems, laser microwave and sonic armaments, NBC warfare capabilities, command and control network, and satellite and subsea listening networks are beyond most peoples comprehension; finally the Americans have complete control of the worlds information and communications systems, excluding of course tin cans and pieces of string.

Let me state that there is no alternative to Western Liberal Democracy. The Soviet Union collapsed because only the most ruthless and violent prospered within the system, as the citizens lived in penury and a conscript army carried out a hopeless invasion in Afghanistan. We won. The cold war ended because we enjoy a more peaceful, fair, and prosperous life! I believe that is what all free thinking people in the world want. Just look at America's top academics. Most come from outside and are soaked up like a sponge...by personal choice. Yes there is now an economic glut in which a lot of ill informed and greedy peoples noses have been put out of joint, but it will pass and there will be another period of prosperity (or war, eek!). What political societal system do you want to live in?

In the long term, the cost of the this invasion will be covered 1000's of times over by facilitating the West's exclusive rights and access to the oil. This is not a new idea or dynamic shift in policy for the Americans. I refer you to an encyclopaedia of choice to read up on the Carter doctrine.

Finally, the one fatal flaw in all these peak oil arguments is the future of miniaturization. We will be creating ever smaller and more handy dandy devices and mechanisms which require less and less energy to run. As far as heating and cooking.... well I believe it will as it has always been; you either fend for yourself and live off the grid, or accept what is available on the day and pay accordingly. You can also make your own lifestyle and residence more energy efficient and be proud of your achievements!

Or you can be a closed minded, sky is falling, serial complainer... a riot at parties type and such. I worry that some people are far to panicky about this peak oil issue; hopefully you will come to grips with reality and quit living in fear and loathing humanity, and forcing the rest of us to put up with your militant and in-your-face rants. We don't live in a Utopian society....do you?

Finally, all this anti-American sentiment is a bit farcical, especially considering the source of it comes from the greatest failed empire in history!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough of the American bashing already. The text clearly states the phrase 'military threat'. To clear things up, an insurgent is not considered a belligerent, or a military threat in the traditional sense, so don't be such an ignorant twit. The military is not supposed to act as a police force, unless you want soldiers patrolling your neighbourhood. Next, I also stated that winning a war is easy, occupation is not. Ghandi brought about the biggest ever defeat to British imperialism. All the swords and cannons in Britain's once mighty armed forces could not defeat him.

What is it with the anti-American sentiment in here? I'm beginning to think that these forums are too often frequented by fascist nationalistic types. If you want ugly politics and a farcical military, you need to look no further than your mirror!

Now you lot can return to your doom and gloom.

Edited by cashinmattress
Link to post
Share on other sites
Enough of the American bashing already. The text clearly states the phrase 'military threat'. To clear things up, an insurgent is not considered a belligerent, or a military threat in the traditional sense, so don't be such an ignorant twit. The military is not supposed to act as a police force, unless you want soldiers patrolling your neighbourhood.

So the Americans are stuffed if all the bad guys disband their traditional military structures and invest in non-conventional warfare?

Seems like the only people to benefit from all that nuclear stuff is the military industrial complex. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Peak demand? That definitely hasn't happened unless you are taking a short term view over say 10 years max. The Far East will eventually fill our demand and then some.

Not necessarily. This is only true if you assume that global supply can keep up with demand at 2008 levels. 2008 already looked like it might be the peak, simply because supply had reached its ceiling. But with the collapse is demand due to the financial crisis the price of oil has collapsed meaning the oil industry can't afford to invest in expensive new projects that might have been able to keep potential supply at 2008 levels. By the time global demand starts significantly increasing, that supply ceiling will have fallen, meaning the price hits 2008 levels before the same level of supply has been reached. That in turn will cause more demand destruction, ensuring that 2008 was the peak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, fantastic, I'm looking forward to a miniature Nimitz Class Carrier, will I be able to put it on a key chain?

So, who uses the most oil in the world? That's right, the American military. And who is causing all the trouble in the world? That's right, the American military. I'm afraid the Fourth Reich are our enemy. Fortunately they can be easily defeated. A couple of goat herders with AK47's should suffice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.