Not-so-slick oil battle

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Rising powers China and India set to fuel intense energy fight

By ERIC MARGOLIS

MUMBAI, INDIA -- Energy security has become the primary and most immediate strategic concern of Asia's two rising giants, India and China.
In my book War at the Top of the World (third, updated edition out later this month), I cited a little-noticed CIA study estimating that when China and India reached South Korea's 1999 level of economic development, in about 2030, their combined demand for oil would surpass today's total world oil production.
In fact, China's and India's blazing economic growth, rising more than 9% a year, means they may reach South Korea's GDP a decade or more earlier than expected. Alarm bells are ringing in India and China over the ongoing scramble for new sources of oil.
Last fall, I attended the Chinese-African summit in Beijing, the culmination of a masterful campaign by China to lock up Africa's energy and mineral resources. China, which efficiently integrated its energy and military policies, has been using financial and military aid to lock up oil concessions in Africa and Asia.
Indian officials in Delhi and the business community here in Bombay/Mumbai are deeply worried China may soon have secured all available remaining oil supplies not controlled by the United States. They are clamoring for action to secure energy supplies for India and assure its continued economic growth and expanding military power.
India's modest domestic oil production has been waning, forcing it to import 70% of its oil. India's imports account for 3.2% of world oil imports; China's 7.6%; the U.S. 25%; and Europe 26%.
India, quite clearly, is being left way behind in the stampede to secure energy supplies. Its oil imports will need to double by 2030 from the current 2.4 million barrels daily to sustain growth. China's imports should reach 12 million barrels daily.
Since most of this oil will originate from the Gulf or Indonesia, both Asian superpowers are rushing to deploy deep-water naval forces to protect their oil lifelines, just as the U.S. has done since before World War II.
POWERFUL NAVY
China is building a fleet of modern attack submarines, some nuclear-powered, missile-armed surface combatants, and extending the range of its land-based naval aviation. The People's Navy has gone from being a weak "brown water" coastal force to a true "blue-water" navy that could even challenge the U.S. 7th Fleet in a clash over Taiwan.
But China is unable to project naval power into the vast Indian Ocean and Gulf due to its lack of bases and air cover. Here, India holds a major advantage.
India's modern aircraft carrier, long-ranged shore-based aviation, and modern, Russian-supplied attack submarines and frigates armed with deadly cruise missiles will give India maritime dominance over the entire Indian Ocean from the coast of East Africa to Australia. Only the U.S. Navy could challenge India's sway over the Indian Ocean.
China's securing of port rights in Burma, warm relations with East African states, and expanding influence in energy-rich Central Asia worries India. At the same time, India's surging naval power has deeply alarmed Pakistan, whose oil lifeline through the port of Karachi could be quickly severed by an Indian naval blockade.
Having come late to the Monopoly-like game of grabbing as many key oil properties as possible, India is now racing to make up for lost time. Being a democracy prone to debilitating party politics and infighting, India cannot operate with the ruthless strategic efficiency as Communist China, but it knows time is running out.
COUNTERING U.S. THREATS
What this means is that some time soon, India's strategic energy and political interests are going to start actively competing in the Mideast with those of the region's hegemon, the United States. To no surprise, some of India's recent naval improvements, notably its powerful anti-ship missiles, appear aimed at countering any potential future threat of action by the U.S. Navy.
The five-way contest between the U.S., India, Japan, Europe and China for Asia and Africa's energy resources promises to be fascinating. Welcome to the new Great Game.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2007/03/11/3731156-sun.html
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Is it realy a new game or just the next period of the same game? This game whatever the case was described with some detail in the fiftys, about the time the term" PeakOil" was introduced. Add that term to "Growth and Developement" and we have the Eco-Wars, a period of planetary history that has no good outcomes. Nor is it likely to have any clear winners, unless you view shivering in your burned out basement waiting for your cabbage to ripen as good.
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
Thats a good post about the rising giants of India and China's energy needs. I sure hope they find something other than fossil fuels to supply the increases from here on... its gonna need a heck of a lot of solar panels and windmills, but it is possible if individuals each do their own production for domestic uses at least. We, here in Canada, should be pushing for that to happen over there, to fight global warming. At least some Chinese individuals using solar panels on their own homes would eliminate that particular need for fossil fuel produced electricity, which will help ease the demand for oil. Eh?

I hope this is related - I submit an article about the USA's drive for oil, called: "From Afghanistan to Iraq: Connecting the Dots With Oil"

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47489/


I doubt that India and China will follow this type of path to get their oil - maybe they will see it is not worth it, and go for renewable energy instead. Interesting article though , eh
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Good article Karlin.

I never use to be one of the those war foe oil types but my mind is changing on that.

Iraq was never in trouble until it used the words nationalize and oil in the same breath and if you look at the lead up to the war in Iraq, behind the scenes France, Russia and Germany were negotiating for a share of Iraq's oil.....the U.S. it seems wanted it first.
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
war for oil

It does seem to be that way - a war for oil. The official excuse of "a war on terror" just doesn't add up when we see that there are MORE terrorists, and no threats/bombs/attacks on the American mainland since 9/11. It just doesn't seem to be much of a risk anymore, does it?

So that leave OIL. It must be a War for OIL. The Bush team was planning for an Iraq occupation way back in 1998, with the PNAC and the Carlyle Group.

I am copying a section from that article, I hope it makes sense on its own - I really hope everybody will at least READ that article, even if it doesn't change their minds.


http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47489/

[same link as in my first reply]

Cheney's group, the memo said, was "melding" two apparently unrelated areas of policy: "the review of operational policies toward rogue states," such as Iraq, and "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields." The memo directed the National Security Council staff to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as the "melding" continued. National security policy and international energy policy would be developed as a coordinated whole. This would prove convenient on September 11, 2001, still seven months in the future.

The Bush Administration was drawing a bead on Iraqi oil long before the "global war on terror" was invented. But how could the "capture of new and existing oil fields" be made to seem less aggressive, less arbitrary, less overt?

During April of 2002, almost a full year before the invasion, the State Department launched a policy-development initiative called "The Future of Iraq Project" to accomplish this. The "Oil and Energy Working Group" provided the disguise for "capturing" Iraqi oil. Iraq, it said in its final report, "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war ... the country should establish a conducive business environment to attract investment in oil and gas resources."

Capture would take the form of investment, and the vehicle for doing so would be the "production sharing agreement."
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Good article Karlin.

I never use to be one of the those war foe oil types but my mind is changing on that.

Iraq was never in trouble until it used the words nationalize and oil in the same breath and if you look at the lead up to the war in Iraq, behind the scenes France, Russia and Germany were negotiating for a share of Iraq's oil.....the U.S. it seems wanted it first.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/50207-hunt-oil-manifest-destiny-new-millenium-part-ii.html

Nope, just control.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Interesting ideas. Here is some stats on American oil imports.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html

the top five source of US imports oil from are:

Canada
Saudi Arabia
Mexico
Veneuel
Nigeria

The US is not dependant on Iraqi oil. US hegemony in the middle east is about controlling China, India and Europe.

Here is some more food for thought:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/31/content_387140.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3499155.stm

http://www.energybulletin.net/3929.html