Special Analysis:
Hydrocarbon Battlefields
The Middle East lurches with no respite from one crisis of violence to the next in these opening years of the 21st Century. In 2002, a Western superpower attacked oil-rich Iraq, a country so debilitated by years of international sanctions that it had no substantive ability to repel the onslaught. Just prior to that invasion, the same superpower invaded Afghanistan, a nation strategically situated between oil reserves to the East and energy-hungry nations of the Western world. If not as dramatically violent, both China and Russia have moved aggressively to seal agreements with and diminish resistance by factions within nearby countries known to have large oil reserves, perhaps the most important among them being the Republic of Kazakhstan, where oil reserves girding and under the Caspian Sea represent perhaps one-and-a-half percent of all proven oil reserves in the world. Years in exploration, and at a staggering cost because of the particularly complex geology of the area, Kazakhstan is emerging as a target of commercial attention and investment by Western and Far Eastern companies and governments.The graphic below depicts the the Middle East and the eastern part of Eurasia.

The landform of eastern Eurasia varies incredibly: from cold, Arctic tundra to soaring mountains to hot, dry deserts, the scope of natural environments is simply breathtaking in its diversity. The political, social, and economic landscapes of this region of the world are no less diverse: from repressive Communist regimes to genuine democracies, and from extraordinary wealth to grinding poverty, the governments and peoples capture every manner of experiment in human social and political organization.
Vast, powerful nations abut small, weak countries, and always there exists the potential for armed conflict arising from competition for land, natural resources, and socio-political dominance. The Western Hemisphere, putatively led by the United States, strives to hold sway in the region, principally to ensure for its citizens security in both borders and in access to the wealth of nations in the Middle East and Asia; and while the resources to be had are many, access to and control of the hydrocarbon reserves are worth far more than their weight in money and blood. China, Russia, and other nations of the Orient, Europe, and the Middle East are every bit as willing as the United States to do what is necessary to secure those hydrocarbons for their own purposes.
The commercial competition for oil and natural gas from Eastern Europe, Greater Asia, and Asia Minor is fierce. With the economies of China and other countries in the Far East experiencing high current and projected growth rates, demand for fossil fuels to power these industrial boom economies is rising steeply, with energy needs of both manufacturers and emerging, vast middle classes outstripping local resources, which had been geared in the past to slow industrial growth and modest requirements by citizens. Largely because of the need to form a commercial bloc to compete with the West in general and the United States in particular, the Shanghai Coöperation Organisation (SCO) was formed in June of 2001: its members are China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Quoting from the SCO General Information Webpage, the stated purposes of the SCO are as follows:"[S]trengthening mutual trust and good-neighborly relations among member states; promoting their effective cooperation in political affairs, economy and trade, scientific-technical, cultural, and educational spheres as well as in energy, transportation, tourism, and environment protection fields; joint safeguarding and presenting regional peace, security and stability; striving towards creation of democratic, just, reasonable new international political and economic order."Efforts by the organization to further define its non-threatening nature are distilled to the assurance that, "...SCO is not a closed block and is not directed against any states and regions." Interesting in this regard is that the SCO has granted observer status to Iran, India, Mongolia, and Pakistan, with Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad making clear that Tehran will seek full membership; but the SCO recently rejected the application for observer status of the United States.
The altogether reasonable purposes stated officially by the SCO are rather less reassuring when considered in light of statements made by the advocates of the consortium. Azer Mursaliev, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Kommersant, explains the SCO as follows: "Combined powers of countries of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, both in military and economic area, allow them to open an independent stock exchange and trade oil and gas not in US dollars, but in any other currency, including Russian Rubles."
The sentiments offered above by Mr. Mursaliev offer proof positive to some that the long-standing denomination of oil contracts in American dollars is coming to an end. This is a particularly attractive doomsday scenario for the U.S. when considered in the context of Tehran's declared interest in full member status in SCO and its much publicized claim that it is planning to open an oil bourse that would use euros rather than greenbacks. Such a threat to the dominance of the petrodollar has led some to believe the United States would use the pretext of Iran's controversial nuclear power development program to attack the Persian nation and thereby cripple its nuclear ambitions and end its financial schemes. However, as was predicted here at The Dark Wraith Forums, the planned opening on March 20, 2006, of this new oil bourse did not happen and probably will not for months if not years, despite continuing efforts by Iran and some Western media outlets to represent the opening as imminent.
Without necessarily resulting to rhetoric about the SCO being an "OPEC with bombs," the organization is clearly and with good reason concerned about security issues, strategically primary among them being commercial control of resourcesspecifically (although not exclusively), recoverable hydrocarbon reserves. While China is now and will continue to be a producer of fossil fuels, its growing economy will demand more and more oil and natural gas to power its industrial base. Current projections place China's demand for oil at five million barrels per day by 2020.
The graphic at left zooms in on the region around the Caspian Sea, bordered from the Northwest to the East by Kazakhstan and on the West by Russia and Azerbaijan. The areas in orange represent general fields of known hydrocarbon reserves. Even though these reservoirs represent no more than about 1½ percent of the world's total known reserves, they are nonetheless important for several reasons. First, the fields are relatively new, meaning they are still on the upswing in terms of realized yields; second, and crucially important, the fields are at a crossroads between the East and the West, offering opportunities for both Asian and European customers. The Atasu-Alashankou pipeline from the Caspian fields into China could alone deliver one million barrels per day at full capacity, meaning Kazakhstan has the potential to provide fully 20 percent of China's projected demand for oil in 2020. At the same time, even though Kazakhstan belongs to the SCO along with China, the West is an attractive market, as well. Furthermore, Russia has presented significant difficulties in Kazakhstan's dealings toward the East, attempting as it has to tighten its grip on hydrocarbons leaving the area by, among other things, imposing a "tax" it claims must be paid by the operators of the fields and pipelines.The graphic below lays in some of the Eurasian pipelines in existence, under construction, or in some stage of planning.

As daunting as the tangle of pipelines may appear, others either exist or will come into existence within the next ten years. Furthermore, while some of the pipelines represent crude products moving to refineries and ports, other pipelines represent conduits for products being delivered to final-use customers: for example, the pipeline that appears to go through the middle of Iran from roughly South to North will deliver natural gas from Kargh Island up to pipelines running both East and West to end users in Asia. On the other hand, the pipelines on the northern arc of the Caspian Sea are for transporting crude extracted from the oil fields there to intermediaries in both Asia and Europe.
The tangle of pipelines around the Caspian renders evidence of the strategic importance of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan; and even though both are members of the SCO, their own interests will to a great extent override any possibility of unwavering loyalty to their fellow members of that bloc. Specific to that point is the map at right, which depicts the area around and to the West and South of the Caspian Sea, with only one pipeline represented, the so-called Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, so named for the three major cities close to which it passes on its way from Azerbaijan clear to the Mediterranean. (Note that the pipeline shown east of the Azeri shore of the Caspian Sea is not part of the BTC pipeline but uptakes extracted Kazakh hydrocarbons moving west.) Its rather twisted path ensures, first, that it passes through only Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey, and second, that it swings around regions of those three countries where rebels and other restive groups could interfere with the operations.
Financing of the BTC pipeline comprises a 30 percent equity contribution by the companies involved, with the remaining 70 percent of project cost provided through lending by the International Finance Corporation, which is the division of the World Bank that lends to private companies. The distribution of ownership interests in the BTC pipeline is graphically presented at left. While some of the names may be familiar to Americans, others likely are not. BP is, of course, British Petroleum, a London-based corporation with world-wide operations principally having to do with energy-related products and services. ExxonMobil is also a familiar name: it is U.S.-based and stands as the largest integrated hydrocarbon products company in the world. UNOCAL is an American, wholly-owned subsidiary of Chevron Corporation, having been acquired in 2005 by Chevron to stave off an undesired takeover by a Chinese oil company. DeltaHess is a joint venture between the Saudi oil company Delta Oil and the American oil company Hess Corporation. Devon Energy Corporation is based in Oklahoma City and has oil and gas operations in North and South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Itochu is a diversified Japanese company with subsidiary interests in oil and gas exploration and exploitation. TPAO is the Turkish Petroleum Corp. (Türkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortakligi), a government corporation with oil and gas operations in Egypt, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Iraq. STATOIL is a Norwegian-based, integrated oil and gas company involved in exploration and exploitation operations along the coastal shelf of Norway, as well as in countries across the globe. LUKOIL Oil Company is a privately owned, Russian oil and gas company and is the largest company in its industry in Russia. SOCAR is the state-owned oil and gas company of Azerbaijan.While having no material impact on either the construction or the operation of the pipeline, criticisms of the project have been wide-ranging. Environmental concerns have been expressed regarding the potential for oil spills in ecologically sensitive areas along the route, particularly in regions like northern Turkey that are prone to large earthquakes. Claims about disruptions of local economies are persistent: for example, with three supertankers docking every day at the port outlet at Ceyhan, Turkey, local commercial fishing is said to have been severely disrupted. And allegations have been made of human and civil rights abuses that include uncompensated confiscations of land and local men being more or less forced to work on the line at inadequate wages. Little has been done to address any of the potential and actual adverse impacts of the BTC pipeline; and as the matter now stands, complaints will remain nothing more than minor background noise as BTC becomes an important link between oil fields in Kazakhstan and energy-hungry markets in Europe and the United States.
Ceyhan, Turkey, is close to the massive Incirlik Air Base, arguably the nexus of U.S. airborne military operations for all of Asia Minor and the Middle East. Warplanes from Incirlik provide ample security for the port its supertanker traffic.
The final graphic, presented at left, appears at first glance to be the same as the BTC pipeline route graphic presented earlier in this article. Careful inspection may be needed to see the addition: it can be found as a pale extension of the BTC pipeline from its outlet at the southern end of Turkey, down the eastern coastal waters of the Mediterranean, and ending in Israel. Officially announced in May of this year, the projectwhich will be financed by "foreign economic backing"actually comprises four underwater pipelines that will carry fresh water, electricity, natural gas, and oil from Asia Minor to Israel, which will resell some of the oil, thereby not only securing for Israel vital resources it needs, but also putting the Jewish State on the world map as a trader in the fossil fuels so important to the growing, energy-hungry nations of the Far East, which is the market into which Israel plans to sell its oil surplus.Astute readers of the map above will note that this pipeline complex runs down the entire Mediterranean coast not only of Lebanon, but also of Syria. As of the publication date of this article, Israel is striving to eliminate the threat posed by the relatively well-armed Lebanese militant political faction Hizballah. In view of the proposed pipeline, that threat has considerably less to do with the rockets Hizballah has been aiming at northern Israel in recent times than with the possibility that the militants could disrupt the construction and integrity of the underwater pipeline bundle. Moreover, a hostile government in Damascus arguably poses a far greater risk to the security of the pipelines than any threat presented by a menace like Hizballah, indicating that Israel must go far beyond its current campaign of destroying or otherwise crippling Hizballah. Strategically, far more important is removing the danger that Syria could disrupt construction and/or operation of the pipeline bundle. Not dealing with Syria soon would quite likely disabuse Israel's "foreign economic backing" of any interest in financing a project constructed in such a potentially hostile region of the world.
The Dark Wraith will allow readers now equipped with the information from this article to make their own predictions about the direction current Israeli military operations will take in the days and months ahead.
<< 29 Comments Total
Methinks Israel is getting a little too big for its britches. Killing innocent people for oil. I thought oblt America did that.
I liked it better when we were teaching the world to sing. We are in big trouble and are too stupid to know it.
Thanks for the English lesson. I would have used girdling instead of girded. And I would have been wrong. Dictionaries are so helpful.
I apologize if this is a bit off the subject, but based on your economics background, I would really welcome a scholarly economic analysis of the BP Alaskan pipeline shutdown. Intuitively, it seems very possible that even with their decreased production, BP may stand to make quite a bit of money due to the increase in prices. I tried to perform a very rudamentary analysis, and it seems that BP's gross daily revenue is nearly a million dollars more per day now, and prices are sure to go up even more. In my field, Electricity Markets, witholding capacity like this is a commonly known trick to drive up prices and increase profits. Enron did it in California. Unfortunately, I just don't have the background to do any justice to the subject, so I would appreciate your thoughts on the subject.
Funny how little tidbits like this never make it into mainstream news analyses. It is, however, surprising that it hadn't been noted earlier.
Very nice catch, Wraith.
For information, Palast has an article posted on the Alaska shutdown. The corrosion is apparently nothing new, nor is BP's timing in its 'discovery'.
Ummm, how can opening a larger front, to include Syria, "protect" the construction of that pipeline? It would seem to me that open hosilities would make it so much easier for Syria to pick off the workers on any such construction attempt. Are you thinking that Israel figures itself strong enough to conquer and control Lebanon, Syria and Iran?
Or do you think that Israel is counting on our troops? Wow, that would be a major miscalculation on the part of the Israelis. Huge.
Good afternoon, Imoral Majority.
Your question is related to one asked by Father Tyme on the thread from the last article. I had held off answering that question in part because the next article here at The Dark Wraith Forums will be a Pulp Economics explanation of the economics concept of "elasticity"—specifically, the elasticity of demand and how it drives consumer reaction to price changes.
In summary, in economics we describe and measure consumer demand in terms of how strongly people move toward or away from a product when the price of it respectively falls or rises.
Start with the so-called Law of Demand:
When the price of a product rises, consumers tend to buy a smaller quantity of that product; when the price of a product falls, consumers tend to buy a greater quantity of that product.
Note the use of the word "tend": the Law of Demand does not declare that this will always, forever, and in every situation happen. It is, instead, a rational behavioral tendency.
Now, here is the formula for the price elasticity of demand:
(% change in quantity demanded) ÷ (% change in price)
The is a so-called "pure" number: it has no units (the units in the numerator's components and in the denominator's components all cancel out). All it does is tell us by what percentage quantity demanded changes for a one percent change in price.
Try this: suppose the price of a product goes up by, say, 10%, and this causes the quantity consumers demand of the product to fall by 8%. Using the formula to calculate the price elasticity of demand for the product, we get
—8% ÷ 10%
= —0.8
(The negative on the original 8% was there because the quantity demanded fell. In fact, just about all price elasticities of demand should be negative, since the signs of the numerator—the percent change in quantity demanded—and of the denominator—the percent change in the price—should be opposite because of the Law of Demand.)
So, we found for the example given that the price elasticity of demand was —0.8, and you will notice that, in the case of that product, the consumers' reaction was less than the price change: the eight percent drop in quantity demanded is less than the ten percent rise in the unit price.
Now, let's look at another scenario. Suppose the price of a product goes up by, let's say, 20%, and consumers react by purchasing 30% less of it. In this case, the price elascticity of demand would be as follows:
—30% ÷ 20%
= —1.5
So here we have a product where consumers react considerably more strongly to the price change. In fact, consumer reaction as a percentage is half again as sharp as the price rise, itself.
Now, let's put these two examples together to form a rule of sorts.
If the price elasticity of demand for a product is between zero (no reaction) and negative one, we say demand is "price inelastic."
On the other hand, if the price elasticity for a product is below negative one, we say demand is "price elastic."
So, with "price inelastic" products, consumers do not react much to price changes; but with "price elastic" products, consumers react strongly to price changes.
Okay, so what's driving the price elasticities of demand for various products? In principle, several factors might be involved; but even though the specifics can get tricky for specific products, the concepts, themselves, are pretty reasonable.
First, when there is no "close substitute" for a product, people will be unable to get away from a price rise. That means products with no close substitutes will tend to be more price inelastic.
Second, products that are necessities tend to be more price inelastic, too: if you have to have something come Hell or high water, you're going to pay whatever jacked-up price the manufacturer charges.
Third, items that are very small parts of your overall budget tend to be more price inelastic. Suppose a small candy bar goes from 50¢ to 60¢. That's a whopping 20% increase in the price of the candy bar, but most people will simply eat it. (Forgive the pun, there: economics humor is as lame as it gets.) That means, when the price of a candy bar goes up by a rather large percentage, the percentage drop in the number of candy bars sold is fairly minimal.
The fourth reason is really noteworthy. Price elasticity of demand for a product tends to be considerably more inelastic in the short run than in the long run. In other words, at first when a price shoots up, people will tend to pay it, partly because the search cost for alternatives far exceeds any benefit that could be gained if something cheaper that served the purpose could be found. But in the long run, once those search costs can be spread over more time, people often will find alternatives to a jacked-up price item, and they'll be able to substitute away from it.
There are other factors involved in the particular price elasticity of demand for a product, but those are the big ones.
Now, let's talk briefly about what this means to a company's revenues, and it's not all that hard to figure out: when the price elasticity of demand for a product is inelastic, a company that raises its prices will earn more revenue; on the other hand, when the price elasticity of demand for a product is elastic, a company that raises its prices will earn less revenue.
The logic is straight-forward (and the math isn't all that tough, either, believe it or not). If demand for a product is price inelastic, the company raises its price, and it loses some sales (that's the Law of Demand: price goes up, quantity demanded goes down) BUT the company gains more on unit price than it loses on unit sales. Alternatively, if demand for the product is price elastic, the company raises its price and its revenue falls because it's losing more in unit sales than it's gaining in unit price.
Got all that? Cool.
Now, what's the price elasticity for gasoline? Estimates vary, and most of them are short-run elasticities. Taking that into consideration, the price elasticity of demand for gasoline might be around, oh say, —0.16, which means that, when the price of gasoline goes up by 10%, the quantity of it consumers demand falls by a mere 1.6%. That has as its corollary, from the explanation above, that whenever gas prices go up, revenues for the sellers go up dramatically simply because very little drop in quantity demanded occurs.
Now, the long-run price elasticity of demand is going to be somewhat higher, meaning that, as people are able to substitute away from fossil fuel burning car engines or at least move toward more fuel efficient vehicles, they'll be reacting more strongly to these price increases, so the oil companies' revenues won't be going up as dramatically every time the price of fuel goes up because of one crisis or another. But in the short run, as long as people cannot and will not substitute away from gasoline, and as long as people see their fossil fuel burning, internal combustion engines as a veritable birthright, they'll eat the price rises simultaneously with bitching about them and the obscene profits the oil companies are making.
They'll also probably be a little fussy about all the people in the Middle East who have to die because of the oil companies, which have every rational incentive in the world to do anything and everything to keep the profit pipelines flowing, even if that means a whole lot of Arabs, Persians, American GIs, women, children, old people, and even the occasional dog that can't get out of the way of a bomb must in the process close their eyes forever.
The Dark Wraith will do this analysis again and in more depth in a full-blown post.
Thank you for the response, Dark Wraith. I look forward to reading the full post.
Good afternoon, Debra.
Forgive me, but I must confess that your comment about "girdling" versus "girded" gave me an irrepressible grin for a while. Your initial word choice wouldn't have been entirely inappropriate, as are some pseudo-homophones that get pressed into service with unexpectedly humorous consequences.
My favorite was the story told by James Kilpatrick, whose acerbic, conservative columns were far better known than his other syndicated columns collectively called "The Writer's Art," wherein he discussed points of English grammar and usage. He would on occasion quote from a newspaper or magazine article where word usage had gone bad, as in the case of the newspaper that was describing an accident where a car had gone over an embankment. The writer of the column wanted to tell readers that the car was so far down in a gulley that a winch had to be used to pull the car out. Unfortunately, the writer of the report instead told readers that the attending tow truck had used a "wench" for the job.
Indeed.
The Dark Wraith worries sometimes about men who expect women to do everything.
Oh Dark One, regards. Excellent post, as usual.
The very idea that BP did not pig their lines for so many years simply tells me that they don't care one wit about providing a product at a good price. That I have not yet heard anyone really bitching about major utilities and energy providers doing basic preventative maintenance says alot.
I am disturbed that so many don't understand the concept of infrastructure. Or budgets either, for that matter.
While I still pay very close attention to your articles and sometimes even learn something from them, surely not everyone is so stupid as to not see just how well this violin is being played.
All we need now, well there are alot of things that could happen that would turn the economy on it's ear.
BTW, I've never owned a vehicle with more than 4 cylinders. For 35 years.
Thank you Dark Wraith for the continuing education.
Woof.
Good evening, Dark Wraith.
Just to note that most facilities have an annual shut-down for basic maintenance.
In reference to BP's Prudhoe Bay shut-down, I think the larger refiners will still run as much as they want through them, while the smaller independents will run a little short. Refiners that took a shut-down earlier in the year will reap a profit.
Good evening, Dark Wraith.
Oddjob is back, at least for a short while, and appears to be well.
Great post, by the way.
Good evening, Mr. Shakes.
I am glad that OddJob has made a cameo appearance. I saw him on my radar awhile ago, so I figured he was haunting his old sites for the evening.
It's good to see you over here, by the way. I was wondering if you'd get a chance to see this article. It was more than a week in the making, in part due to the deterioration of my computer. The graphics for this post actually accelerated its decline. I lost a total of 128 Megs of RAM because of the overheating that happened as I was working on the primary map, which has an original scale of 1300×1000 pixels and takes up 21 Megs of hard drive space. I am tempted to offer that original map as a poster at my e-store, maybe so people can put little pins in it wherever a new conflict breaks out in eastern Eurasia or the Middle East.
That does seem a little tacky, though, doesn't it? Profiting from war is so... so... Neo-connie.
'Neo-connie'?!
The Dark Wraith might have just coined a new pejorative.
Good evening, blackdog.
I am wondering how many people here saw the article I published at Big Brass Blog and The UnCapitalist Journal last March about an oil spill in that pipeline. Although Big Brass Blog no longer exists, which means the articles there cannot be accessed anymore, you can read it at The UnCapitalist Journal by clicking here.
Looking back on how I reported it at the time, I could have been a little more aggressive in pointing out that the spill was disconcerting for several reasons: first, it took several days before anyone was even aware that there was a leak slowly oozing crude into the ground; and second, even after they were fully aware of the spill, the pipeline folks didn't know right away where the hole was in the pipe! That's not a good sign, you see, because the first place you look for a leak is at the joints near the ground oil (although sometimes, if the pipe is on a grade you have to follow the trail of oil back up the underbelly of the tube), and you should know exactly what to do to find the leak, even though you could have crude all over the underside of the pipe initially obscuring the hole. The fact that they couldn't find the hole tells me (speaking here from my days working in the oil and gas industry) that you're talking about a degraded pipe where a lot of corrosion on the inside had finally managed to work its way to the exterior; and the damage on the outside is not conspicuous because it's the just the end result of really bad things going on in the interior where you can't look very easily. In other words, the leak last March was just the beginning of the exterior evidence of a deterioration that had been going on inside the pipe for a whole lot longer and to a whole lot greater extent.
Alas, though, I did want to report the spill rather more to the factual side without resorting to too much speculation. Nevertheless, the problems we're hearing about now have been around for some time, and the pipeline managers could have and should have dealt with those matters well before now; but that would have meant the announcement of the line shut-down would have occurred when the oil markets weren't as totally spooked as they are these days.
The Dark Wraith does like to see a balance between maintenance of physical equipment and maintenance of obscene profits.
Good morning, Dark Wraith.
I enjoyed your quote:
There once was a Senator named Joe,
Who was told by the voters to go.
He lost to Ned,
because he said,
"I enjoy being Dub-ya's ho'!"
After reading so many articles where he was catching up to Lamont, I was getting a bit worried. The first thing I saw when I logged on, was that Lieberman lost the primary! HOw about that!?!
Oh, yes. I enjoyed the main feature, Hydrocarbon Battlefields , too. Interesting stuff. It's great to be able to learn about more without having to google when you don't really know what you want to find out. Your articles tend to teach what I want to learn, plus stuff I didn't know I wanted to learn until after reading the article. In fact, those graphics about the pipelines existing, and the ones being planned are quite appreciated.
Good morning Dark One,
Wow. I learned a lot last night from a friend at Happy Hour about how oil works and now I have learned even more from your post. Those maps are great too.
I don't have anything to add because I'm just trying to learn all about it and try to understand why the US has to be all caught up in this when we could probably "conserve" and not have to deal with foreign oil at all... but god forbid, there is too much money to be made at the expense of expendable citizens of the world.
The whole thing makes me sick and there is probably no way to escape it and no place to go.
Good Morning Dark Wraith:
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis. It's refreshing to have a fact base to build upon. The supply/demand/price lecture will be gratefully attended while wearing my small-time-capalist hat.
The thing about the Middle East in general, and Lebanon in particular that has me alarmed is the high degree of surprise the main actors seem to be dealing with. I have indeed grown weary (weary i tells ya) of the endless stream of Neocons proclaiming "Nobody predicted that" regarding things that any rational, thinking person would have seen coming miles away.
As I stated in an earlier thread, the high level of surprise has been leading to swifter more reactive actions. When a more prudent course would be to hold still, they continue going forward, when the sensible thing to do would be to withdraw, they escalate. Hizbullah shoots more rockets when they have a golden opportunity to refrain and allow the citizens of Beruit, Qana and Tyr some needed breathing room if only to bury their dead. Instead of calling for calm, the Iranian leader calls again for the destruction of Israel as the only path to lasting peace. It's so insane that all my efforts at trying to predict or devine the results have come to naught.
I cannot shake the image of being driven in a bus at a high rate of speed, somewhere, in dense fog.
That would, of course, be the "fog of war" about which we've been hearing so much lately, Mistrel Boy.
And it frustrates me to no end that careful analysis from facts instead of disreputable prior assumptions leads the neo-cons from one "nobody could have predicted that" to the next "nobody could have predicted that."
It doesn't take that much effort to walk through and deduce likely consequences. It doesn't take much more to go the next step and use inductive reasoning to get to probable outcomes of alternate policy actions. Sometimes I just shake my head, especially at the American people, who want simplistic analyses without all the nuances that swiftly sweep away easy, feel-good solutions.
Lord! but this is a good century for despots and fools. I suppose the last century wasn't much better; but for God's sake, the neo-conservatives have actually packaged stupidity and made a mint by selling it.
The Dark Wraith wishes the FDA would look into the warning label on the Extra-Large portions of Stupid Policies™ being sold these days.
Good afternoon Dark One. Always a pleasure to get an education from a realist. I do have a question to pose, and I'm sure it's been asked before. When are the oil corporations and the neocons interests going to split? I would think that constant war would eventually, especially a possible limited nuclear war(if there can be such a thing) cut into the bottom line. If the American economy crashes, and the world economy along with it, Big Oil is going to lose trillions of dollars, would it not? Or am I missing something here? The only other explanation would be utter and complete insanity.
DW,
I think we might be underestimating (misunderestimating) the neo-con high command. Rove isn't your run-of-the-mill conservative. Credit is due him for incredible foresight to get Cheney/Wolfowicz PNAC to fruition.
It's hard to think of him as so brilliant at political conniving that he can't add 2 + 2.
This is fairly obtuse but if he can step back and look at the bigger picture then make decisions based on what he sees, why do we presume that these 'little problems' that keep popping up are spontaneous and not his doing? His track record IS impressive.
Computers can analyze and project a multitude of potential occurrences given suitable data. Rove has that data and when needed seems capable of manufacturing it. Always one step ahead of the next situation. We are cattle being led to slaughter. By the time we take action on one incident, he has another in the making.
I guess you can do a lot with a couple of trillion in Swiss banks.
Isn't it time we went on the offensive?
Do I give him too much credit?
Good morning, Mr Wraith.
By reading the Dark Wraith Forums, I learned that raiding my neighbor's refrigerator is not "free," but represents a huge opportunity cost.
Now, I learn that to look elsewhere for food would result in an initial price elasticity due to the search costs.
Lucky I just got a coupon for a free pizza in the mail.
Hey! Wait a minute....
Is this pizza free?
Regarding Blackdog's comment about BP not pigging their lines until recently, I was just reading a timely story by Greg Palast on that very subject.
BTW, what happened to Big Brass Blog? Are they considering moving to a new site? I'm very happy to hear about the recent appearance of Oddjob- I'd hate to think that he'd been whisked away by Homeland Security or John Ashcroft's successors. :)
Good evening, Dark Wraith.
It's good to be back. Work has been simply insane for the last few months, and I have been left with little energy for anything else. But good lord, was it worth it. The stellar review that resulted from all my efforts culminated in a gobsmacking 4% increase in pay. A number which barely keeps me ahead of the bullshit inflation figure the Fed cranks out. I shudder to think at the insult my less fortunate coworkers must have received. However, thanks to the law of substitution we have little to worry about. We can eat some dirt and then go gas up our cars with horse piss to celebrate (if you thought this example of economics humor was lame, btw, then you only have yourself to blame).
Anyway, this was a good post because, as others have pointed out, it dives beneath the surface clutter and reaches down to the real casus belli: oil. And there I was thinking that Israel merely wanted to pound the shit out of Hizbollah and maybe take a swipe at those Iranian nuclear facilities along the way. I should have known better.
It's interesting that while the powers that be continue to insist that peak oil lies over the distant horizon, they are each jockeying their chess pieces around that map of yours in an effort to be the best prepared for a crisis thay all claim doesn't exist: We could build a bunch of wind farms and stuff, but think of the cash we can make if we corner the oil market in a time when demand is outstripping supply! Let's build tanks, instead! Yeesh. Thank God I am no longer eligible for the draft.
Good evening, Mr. Shakes.
Yes, I am to have a raise in for this coming year: a combination of seniority and cost of living will, since the last one, reflect an annualized increase of just over three percent, which means that in real terms I shall still be making less than I was four years ago, which was in real terms less than I made ten years ago. This year, between my various teaching gigs—which demand enough work from me to suck my brain dry—I'll break 22 grand. (That's right: $22,000. Who says teaching isn't the way to untold riches?)
Fortunately, I actually like Ramen noodles. Even more fortunately, not only do the Powers That Be worry a little too much about my classroom popularity to ice me, but I'm also somewhat on the indispensible side because I know how to do the inter-campus TV courses, as well as the brain-bender online courses, which by the way are using software from the dominant company in the industry that should have been taken out and shot years ago for its inability to actually move forward from the hazy era between DOS and Windows.
Sorry for that little rant, there. I sometimes forget that, as an economist, I know very well that a reasonably efficient market pays its production factors the values of their respective marginal products. In plain English, that means I'm being paid what I'm worth; and a Classical economist would be very quick to point out that, if I don't like the situation, then I can move on unless I am already doing that which reflects my greatest productivity. A Keynesian wouldn't be of much more comfort: by such reasoning, the only way an economy can continue to grow in real terms with excess growth of the money supply as the propulsion is if at least one factor of production is unable to capture its share of the inflation being generated by the growing overhang of money; so as long as the compensation to labor lags the general inflation rate, real output can continue to grow and the remaining factors of production—land, physical capital, and the reward to the risk of ownership—can capture their share of inflationary price rises and real output increases.
God! but I love economics.
And yes, it is my considered judgment, backed by the evidence as I have offered it in this article, that the current "Middle East crisis" is no 'crisis' at all; it is, instead, business as usual. The command of resources valuable in a given era is the root of great suffering visited upon those who must live, fight, and die for the wealth of nations and the nobility that backs the sovereigns thereof.
Israel wants to be a player. It will do what is necessary to achieve that goal, and it will face its ancient enemies in its quest, as it has many times before.
The difference this time is that, unlike at many crucial times in the history of its people, Israel is far better armed and therefore far more likely to succeed in its ambitions.
Mr. Shakes, you and I—and many who visit here—are not 'far better armed': consequently, we must adjust our ambitions accordingly. I have come to realize at this late time in my life that knowledge is power only to the extent that power can be fashioned to include a hazy understanding of the full scope of the common life's destiny.
And yet, Mr. Shakes, we nevertheless live on, laugh occasionally, and reach deep within ourselves to find the courage to smile at the irony while raging at the insanity of it all.
Such is the good life, one that ends with a furrow in the brow and a grin on the lips.
The Dark Wraith is glad you're back, Mr. Shakes.
Good evening, Dad the Realist.
I'm going to tell you something that might upset you and a number of my other readers and friends here. It has to do with a certain way of thinking: an understanding, if you will, about nuclear weapons. It is not necessarily a view to which I subscribe, even though I do see the way the reasoning and factual basis come about from generation to generation.
I'll tell you a story to illustrate the point.
One of the old nuclear physicists who was in college in the late 1960s and early 1970s likes to describe life on the college campus at Berkley in that era. He and his fellow "quant jocks"—the young men who were steeped in math and science courses—were being bathed in a world of equations, calculations, data, and models having to do with the stuff of dreams and nightmares: the precise numbers involved in making a rocket go where it was supposed to, the exact dimensions of beams to make a bridge withstand the loads anticipated for it, the perfect quantities for the metrics of an internal combustion engine's parts so it would run at peak efficiency, and all manner of other things that require unblinking ability to deploy awesome mathematics to the industrial cavern of the modern age.
This fellow—a young, hot-shot physics student—would try to sit on the quad and enjoy the springtime air, but he was vexed by the loud megaphones coming from the leaders of the student demonstrations against the war (and against all manner of other things, too, of course). He couldn't help but listen every now and then. The one particularly agitated student protester was haranguing his listeners about the nuclear bombs that were going to kill everyone: a nuke hitting LA was going to burn everything to a cinder on their beautiful campus, that's what it was going to do; and the only way to stop that from happening was "unilateral disarmament NOW!"
The physicist says that he grabbed his notebook of paper and his slide rule, and he quickly went to work figuring out exactly what a nuclear bomb of, say, one megaton would actually do to the campus if it hit downtown LA.
Sure enough, it would not create even "a warm breeze" (in his exact words) at the campus.
The physicist in retrospect laments wryly that this, of course, didn't matter at all at the time: the young student protester—being a vibrant, intense, dedicated leader—would be believed. He would also get fucked by all the pretty hippy girls, and he'd get pleasurably stoned and drunk every night, and he'd finish his major in philosophy and ultimately get his Ph.D. and live happily ever after in the cloistered halls of academia.
That was exactly what happened, too, by the way.
The physics student couldn't find a girl interested in a "numbers creep," and he didn't have any interest in finding sycophantic students to join him and his friends at the table in the student union where they'd throw equations, numbers, books of data, and ideas around half the night.
The physicist went on to a career designing nuclear weapons, first as an officer and then as a civilian. He and his fellow (what we now call) "geeks" built the massive engine of mutually assured destruction that, by luck or brilliance, managed to keep that nuke from ever landing on LA, where it would have killed several million people at the same time it proved that hot-headed young rebel thoroughly wrong.
Many, if not most, military planners know very well that the Earth would not come to an end with a nuclear exchange. They really, truly, earnestly, and genuinely believe that; and they have all kinds of information to back up that belief.
To you and I, Dad the Realist, nuclear war would be the end of everything: it would be a human catastrophe with no parallel in history. Society as we know it would be so wrecked that civilization, itself, would teeter on the abyss of irrelevance. Many ecosystems would be disrupted irreparably. The extent, dimensions, and depth of the disaster would be beyond imagination.
But that's not how a planner would see it. Civilization would proceed onward, primarily because the military had planned for such a timea time we call a "twilight scenario." More importantly, even if one were to cabin a discussion of nuclear war within the scope of a nuclear exchange by two superpowers, both would endure the first, second, and even third volleys. Now, take the use of nuclear weapons out of scenarios of "exchange" and instead consider what would happen when a limited use of nuclear devices was employed by a single nuclear state: you are talking about very limited consequences: in a single use of a handful of such weapons, a country that was attacked would be heavily damaged. The functionality of the victim nation's infrastructure would be compromised beyond usefulness; perhaps hundreds of thousands of individuals would be killed, maimed, or otherwise turned into refugees; and the capacity to wage retaliatory war would be utterly and pretty much permanently crippled.
That's how a military planner would see it.
So, no, nuclear war is not unthinkable to those people, nor is it entirely unthinkable to those in very high political and business positions who see nuclear war in that same way. It would be horrific, disruptive, and otherwise very bad; but it wouldn't be the end of the world as we know it.
And if it were a matter of a "better" military, political, and/or business environment in the aftermath of the destruction, it would be worthy of consideration.
Or, at the very least, of contingency planning.
The Dark Wraith trusts you understand why I've written what seems perilously close to an apology for the monsters among us.
No Wraith, I don't see it as an apology, it's a realistic assessement and I appreciate the candor.
If the time ever came that this scenario happens, I pray that I live long enough to extract my pound of flesh from these "people".
Good Morning Dark Wraith:
Nothing like a little sunny prognostication to start the day huh? The scene I remember well from Dr. Strangelove is the one where the main characters (most played by peter sellars) are in the "war room" and they realize the game is up. they start going to the "survival" plans, mineshafts, beautiful women (at an acceptable level of beauty to keep the men interested in repopulating the earth).
While I agree and take a small measure of comfort in knowing that they probably can't incinerate us in one big volley or even two or three. I worry about a world where that has become somehow acceptable. I can also imagine neoconnies (great perjorative by the way) talking about how the failure of will in the afghan or iraqi conflict was in not being strong enough to use nuclear capability. i have heard tactics wonks lament not nuking the chinese from korea, and not going nuke on haiphong and hanoi. if they ever get the picture that they can use these things and survive we will all be in some truly deep kim chee.
To you and I, Dad the Realist, nuclear war would be the end of everything: it would be a human catastrophe with no parallel in history. Society as we know it would be so wrecked that civilization, itself, would teeter on the abyss of irrelevance.
Exactly; kind of a societal EMP if you will.
This post is absolutely fantastic, Wraith. When you mentioned addressing the oil pipelines on your Forum, I never would have guessed it would have taken so much work. Thank you so much for these extraordinary and excellent details.
This puts another more realistic perspective on what the true goals seem to be in the M.E.: control of all the land and all the resources?
Blood for oil?
Quoth the Dark Wraith:
8/08/06
If economics weren't so darned good at explaining war, greed, and man's inhumanity toward his fellow man, the subject would be altogether unworthy of study by the civilized scholar.
Most appropriate.
Interesting thoughts and discussion in the comments.
Still, I need to have hope.
Good evening, Moody Blue.
I have to tell you, this article generated a fair amount of interest. It seems that most people were entirely unaware of the pipeline deal—which, by the way, has been in the works for several years.
I thought it was kind of interesting that this article got picked up by some news aggregators (but not one of them came here; they were all grabbing the feed from the cross-post I did of this article at The UnCapitalist Journal). One of the news aggregators' editors wrote the summary for the article by saying that the article was about the author's (that's my) claim that the Shanghai Coöperation Organisation is an "OPEC with bombs"!
No, that's not what the article is about, for Heaven's sake; I just quoted in passing a somewhat over-the-top statement made by some academic sort (a fellow who, I suspect, is a shill for the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, given where he managed to get that rather incendiary statement initially published).
Grr.
Fortunately, anyone who actually read my article clear to the end found out that it is obviously not primarily about the SCO at all.
Still, it would be nice if the more mainstream news media would at least get the news right.
I suppose I should be grateful for the publicity, although I wish at least some of it had been directed here rather than to the cross-post. Oh, well, we take what we can get as far as exposure goes.
The Dark Wraith should be happy that not too many new readers came here when the house was such a mess.