4 ms·

Would be humorous in retrospect if all the dire forecasts about "peak oil" turned out to be the opposite problem: collapse in demand for oil.

toomuchtodo 10mo ago
Can you expound? A problem in demand for oil for whom (besides perhaps petro states that cannot meet their budgets at low global oil prices [1] [2])? [1] https://i.ibb.co/0jDyB6mX/Crude-Price-Forecasts-Are-Below-Levels-Needed-for-Budgets.png https://i.ibb.co/0jDyB6mX/Crude-Price-Forecasts-Are-Below-Le... [2] https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/ https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/
- SoftTalker 10mo ago
  Yeah, any major economic change can be destabilizing. Particularly if there are powerful incumbents who want to maintain the status quo. We fought a civil war over that sort of thing. So a "problem" in that sense, not that it wasn't the right thing to do.
jacquesm 10mo ago
That would be one of the better outcomes because there are a number of things for which it is very hard to use other stuff as a substitute. Oil is way too precious to be burned up.
seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
China doesn't have much oil. There dependency on oil is a huge weakness, and they are easily blockaded as well, making the problem of importing oil in wartime problematic as well. Their move away from oil is more national security even if it does help the environment.
- palmotea 10mo ago
  > There dependency on oil is a huge weakness, and they are easily blockaded as well, making the problem of importing oil in wartime problematic as well. How are they "easily blockaded"? I thought their shipbuilding capacity exceeds that of the US, and their navy is now larger.
  - seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
    Look at a map, China doesn't have open access to the ocean. They have Japan, Taiwan in their way, the only help out they have is the South China Sea, but even that is crowded and relies on Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia not being again them. They can only really get oil from the middle east through the straight of Malacca (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malacca_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malacca_dilemma), which is really easy to cut off. It doesn't matter if you can build lots of ships if the US navy can take them out as they leave port into the open ocean. So overland is their best option, but Russia is huge, lacks infrastructure (no oil pipelines in the far east), and anyways, isn't always China's friend. Western China abuts some Central asian countries with oil (and Iran in the middle), but again, not so friendly, lots of mountains to get trains through, and it is still far away from East China where the oil is actually needed. So...they have lots of coal and are really pushing into renewables and nuclear. Nuclear is the kind of thing where you can stockpile a few thousand years worth of fuel with a few ships from Australia in peacetime. And if your economy relies more on electric trains and cars, you are going to be ok if someone cuts off or restricts your oil supply.
    - palmotea 10mo ago
      > It doesn't matter if you can build lots of ships if the US navy can take them out as they leave port into the open ocean. If China can build lots of ships, it can build lots of warships. I'm skeptical the US Navy would have it that easy. Also, as the US Navy ships trying to enforce a blockade would be getting pelted by land-based anti-ship missiles.
      - seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
        The USA can also hammer them from nearby island based airbases. It isn’t easy to just saturate them with ships. Maybe if they can make breakthru with drones. Right now their best strategy is just be exposed less by making people drive EVs instead of gasoline vehicles. It also has other benefits like getting the rest of the world off of oil, and being able to sell the cars and clean energy production needed to do that, and also cleaner air. China wins 3 way here, so it’s really a very smart choice for them, and it gives them even more money to draw on to continue building a modern military.

toomuchtodo 10mo ago

Can you expound? A problem in demand for oil for whom (besides perhaps petro states that cannot meet their budgets at low global oil prices [1] [2])? [1] https://i.ibb.co/0jDyB6mX/Crude-Price-Forecasts-Are-Below-Levels-Needed-for-Budgets.png https://i.ibb.co/0jDyB6mX/Crude-Price-Forecasts-Are-Below-Le... [2] https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/ https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/

SoftTalker 10mo ago
Yeah, any major economic change can be destabilizing. Particularly if there are powerful incumbents who want to maintain the status quo. We fought a civil war over that sort of thing. So a "problem" in that sense, not that it wasn't the right thing to do.

jacquesm 10mo ago

That would be one of the better outcomes because there are a number of things for which it is very hard to use other stuff as a substitute. Oil is way too precious to be burned up.

seanmcdirmid 10mo ago

China doesn't have much oil. There dependency on oil is a huge weakness, and they are easily blockaded as well, making the problem of importing oil in wartime problematic as well. Their move away from oil is more national security even if it does help the environment.

palmotea 10mo ago
> There dependency on oil is a huge weakness, and they are easily blockaded as well, making the problem of importing oil in wartime problematic as well. How are they "easily blockaded"? I thought their shipbuilding capacity exceeds that of the US, and their navy is now larger.
- seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
  Look at a map, China doesn't have open access to the ocean. They have Japan, Taiwan in their way, the only help out they have is the South China Sea, but even that is crowded and relies on Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia not being again them. They can only really get oil from the middle east through the straight of Malacca (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malacca_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malacca_dilemma), which is really easy to cut off. It doesn't matter if you can build lots of ships if the US navy can take them out as they leave port into the open ocean. So overland is their best option, but Russia is huge, lacks infrastructure (no oil pipelines in the far east), and anyways, isn't always China's friend. Western China abuts some Central asian countries with oil (and Iran in the middle), but again, not so friendly, lots of mountains to get trains through, and it is still far away from East China where the oil is actually needed. So...they have lots of coal and are really pushing into renewables and nuclear. Nuclear is the kind of thing where you can stockpile a few thousand years worth of fuel with a few ships from Australia in peacetime. And if your economy relies more on electric trains and cars, you are going to be ok if someone cuts off or restricts your oil supply.
  - palmotea 10mo ago
    > It doesn't matter if you can build lots of ships if the US navy can take them out as they leave port into the open ocean. If China can build lots of ships, it can build lots of warships. I'm skeptical the US Navy would have it that easy. Also, as the US Navy ships trying to enforce a blockade would be getting pelted by land-based anti-ship missiles.
    - seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
      The USA can also hammer them from nearby island based airbases. It isn’t easy to just saturate them with ships. Maybe if they can make breakthru with drones. Right now their best strategy is just be exposed less by making people drive EVs instead of gasoline vehicles. It also has other benefits like getting the rest of the world off of oil, and being able to sell the cars and clean energy production needed to do that, and also cleaner air. China wins 3 way here, so it’s really a very smart choice for them, and it gives them even more money to draw on to continue building a modern military.