Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
drrayjo

Commercial Falklands Oil

Recommended Posts

Commercial oil recovery in the Falklands? One to keep watching, notwithstanding the furore about deep water drilling.

Edited by Cicero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the BP disaster this would have been big, but the future of deep water drilling is now in some doubt. If there is a big useable oil find in the Falklands, all it would do is buy the world a few more years before the inevitable oil famine kicks in as the world uses up this finite resource at an ever increasing rate

Edited by blankster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the BP disaster this would have been big, but the future of deep water drilling is now in some doubt. If there is a big useable oil find in the Falklands, all it would do is buy the world a few more years before the inevitable oil famine kicks in as the world uses up this finite resource at an ever increasing rate

Or rather worryingly we would start to fight resource wars. Iraq is was arguably a resource war.... TSHTF when two+ major powers decide to make a grab of a resource at the same time. And tbh such wars would probably be infantry wars as nobody can afford to field large numbers of advanced weapons. Which means me and you on the front lines, massive meat grinder type war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or rather worryingly we would start to fight resource wars. Iraq is was arguably a resource war.... TSHTF when two+ major powers decide to make a grab of a resource at the same time. And tbh such wars would probably be infantry wars as nobody can afford to field large numbers of advanced weapons. Which means me and you on the front lines, massive meat grinder type war.

They'll just divvy up the world like they did last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll just divvy up the world like they did last time.

Only if they manage to agree, if they agree no problem, but when one country suddenly decides it wants more and the others disagree then its time to stop talking and time to start fighting. And countries being ruled by people will invariably demand the whole pie to themselves.

At which one power will say something silly like yeah what the hell you gonna do about it I've got more guns than you. Power A and power B pretend to relent but make an agreement to club together to destroy power C and share the spoils together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or rather worryingly we would start to fight resource wars. Iraq is was arguably a resource war.... TSHTF when two+ major powers decide to make a grab of a resource at the same time. And tbh such wars would probably be infantry wars as nobody can afford to field large numbers of advanced weapons. Which means me and you on the front lines, massive meat grinder type war.

You clearly have no understanding of modern "war".

There will never be another big war involving troops on the ground.

The troops don't go in during an actual WAR until the ground has been cleared. Infantry, tanks and trucks in a ground assault would be annihilated from the air. The invention of guided ground to surface missiles has changed warfare completely. Consider the Apache helicopter. It can hide behind trees or a hill with just the sensor array on top of its rotor stack visible. Then in about 10 seconds its computer can scan the battlefield, identify several hundred targets, pick the 16 best targets and fire off 16 hellfire missiles. And a flight of 6 can share data so only 1 ever needs to shows it sensor array.

Look at the Iraq war. By the time the troops went in there was little or no resistance and all significant military facilities and equipment had been erase by air strikes.

The "cost" of war is never considered during the war, as the winner gets to bill the loser for all their "costs" anyway.

Troops are used on the ground after the fact or in "police" operations where one side (usually the US) has a massive military advantage. Any actual war between 2 comparable forces would involve lots of bombing until there was not a lot left on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not winning the war that counts, it's holding the territory.

The best model for that is having a client government, of course, but it has to be effective. Otherwise you have to commit large numbers of your own troops for the long term.

Two thoughts here.

The unemployed have been joining armies for centuries. The British Army recruits heavily in areas of high unemployment.

How can bust economies afford expensive technical hardware? See proposed cuts in the UK.

Edit: punctuation

Edited by Snugglybear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly have no understanding of modern "war".

Look at the Iraq war. By the time the troops went in there was little or no resistance and all significant military facilities and equipment had been erase by air strikes.

What you are describing isn't a war, what you are describing is when there is a massive imbalance of force. The war with iraq wasn't a war by any measure of the word it was a massacre. 40 year old tanks against modern stuff where they had no solutions to things like Apaches.

The USA hasn't fought against anybody who has been able to fight back for 60 years. The Iraqis simply had no weapons capable of threatening the US military, no decent SAM systems, very few anti tank missiles, nothing to send carriers to the bottom of the sea.

Even if the US and or Nato forces were to prevail (note that Europe and the US would be independent powers where it is in their interests to grab) the losses would be phenominal. For instance Israel thought they could steam roll Hezbollah in Lebannon, what they saw was their tanks explode on a regular basis. As a result the major advantage was erased and the IDF bought lots of soldiers home in boxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not winning the war that counts, it's holding the territory.

The best model for that is having a client government, of course, but it has to be effective. Otherwise you have to commit large numbers of your own troops for the long term.

Two thoughts here.

The unemployed have been joining armies for centuries. The British Army recruits heavily in areas of high unemployment.

How can bust economies afford expensive technical hardware? See proposed cuts in the UK.

Edit: punctuation

Yup, thats one of the reasons big future wars are going to be infantry wars... its all well and nice having gold plated advanced weapons, but if you can't afford or don't have the fuel to run them then you have some pretty big problems! Which is the reasoning behind resource grabs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are describing isn't a war, what you are describing is when there is a massive imbalance of force. The war with iraq wasn't a war by any measure of the word it was a massacre. 40 year old tanks against modern stuff where they had no solutions to things like Apaches.

The USA hasn't fought against anybody who has been able to fight back for 60 years. The Iraqis simply had no weapons capable of threatening the US military, no decent SAM systems, very few anti tank missiles, nothing to send carriers to the bottom of the sea.

Even if the US and or Nato forces were to prevail (note that Europe and the US would be independent powers where it is in their interests to grab) the losses would be phenominal. For instance Israel thought they could steam roll Hezbollah in Lebannon, what they saw was their tanks explode on a regular basis. As a result the major advantage was erased and the IDF bought lots of soldiers home in boxes.

The problem is - and the IDF had this as well - in 'limited wars' you are generally not allowed to simply vaporize resistance. Even in Vietnam, the US was restrained from vaporizing Hanoi and, critically, the shipping in North Vietnam's harbors. With that capability restrained, the fight can be made far more close-quarters, which plays into the hands of your [Freedom Fighter/Terrorist] (delete as appropriate).

Think of WWII - in France, we (UK and US) forces killed more French than the Germans did, simply through inaccurate bombing and artillery. This is because it was a war of more-or-less equals; we could have refused to use our massive air and artillery advantages, but we would have ended up in a WWI style stalemate if we had - indeed we would never have landed in Normandy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is - and the IDF had this as well - in 'limited wars' you are generally not allowed to simply vaporize resistance. Even in Vietnam, the US was restrained from vaporizing Hanoi and, critically, the shipping in North Vietnam's harbors. With that capability restrained, the fight can be made far more close-quarters, which plays into the hands of your [Freedom Fighter/Terrorist] (delete as appropriate).

Think of WWII - in France, we (UK and US) forces killed more French than the Germans did, simply through inaccurate bombing and artillery. This is because it was a war of more-or-less equals; we could have refused to use our massive air and artillery advantages, but we would have ended up in a WWI style stalemate if we had - indeed we would never have landed in Normandy.

I think both of you've got the wrong end of the stick, I mean resource grab wars rather than invade and occupy type wars like WWI or WWII or Korea. Currently there are enough countries to grab without interfering with each other. China hoovers up Africa, the USA grabbed Iraq.

TSHTF is game theory when the number of countries grabbable is highly limited. Game theory descibes that if you grab the resource you are better equipped to grab the next resource. Eventually TSHTF when two major powers make a grab at the same time.

For instance lets say Iran was the last source of oil on the planet. If China makes a grab for it the Russians New Federal Europe and the US will see this. If China grabs it to the winner the spoils... so all of the above will move forces in to grab it for themselves. At which TSHTF. Its not a case of defeating the resistance anymore, kind of closer to the Korean war whereby the home countries sending the forces in are not directly threatened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For instance lets say Iran was the last source of oil on the planet. If China makes a grab for it the Russians New Federal Europe and the US will see this. If China grabs it to the winner the spoils... so all of the above will move forces in to grab it for themselves. At which TSHTF. Its not a case of defeating the resistance anymore, kind of closer to the Korean war whereby the home countries sending the forces in are not directly threatened.

But in the resulting scuffle you have to try to avoid damaging the infrastructure so badly that reconstruction in order to extract the resources becomes too costly if/when you eventually win, thus making the resources exorbitantly expensive.

This means considering very carefully whether blasting everything in sight is in your long-term interests.

I'm not taking into account the native population here, because the politicians and generals rarely do, and I'm trying to envision* what they would do.

* note buzz word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think both of you've got the wrong end of the stick, I mean resource grab wars rather than invade and occupy type wars like WWI or WWII or Korea. Currently there are enough countries to grab without interfering with each other. China hoovers up Africa, the USA grabbed Iraq.

TSHTF is game theory when the number of countries grabbable is highly limited. Game theory descibes that if you grab the resource you are better equipped to grab the next resource. Eventually TSHTF when two major powers make a grab at the same time.

For instance lets say Iran was the last source of oil on the planet. If China makes a grab for it the Russians New Federal Europe and the US will see this. If China grabs it to the winner the spoils... so all of the above will move forces in to grab it for themselves. At which TSHTF. Its not a case of defeating the resistance anymore, kind of closer to the Korean war whereby the home countries sending the forces in are not directly threatened.

Fair enough - although I'd point out that you cannot actually extract oil without some political stability. Witness Iraq - were the place stable and economically open, it could reach between 6 and 10 million barrels/day oil production in a decade or so. But as long as power struggles are going on and political uncertainty reigns, oil production will stay in the doldrums.

All the more reason to move to a nuclear powered economy, in any case...

Share this post


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.

  • 142 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.