I was wondering about natural resources, oil specifically. We are almost certain that there is a limited amount of oil in the world. Either that or we are using it at an unsustainable rate. Let's assume that your country owns all the oil in the world. You know that it will run out (at the current rate of consumption) in 50 years. Do you agree or disagree that you/your country reserve(s) the right to: 1) pick and choose who you will sell oil to? 2) Set oil price according to your own country's long-term goals? 3) If you wanted, just decide to stop selling oil in favor of stockpiling it for future use. I understand that economically speaking, you're better off trading whatever you have in excess of your needs. But I'm just talking about a country's RIGHT to do so, if it chose to stop exporting oil compeletely? This stems from a discussion I was having with a friend. We were talking about the theoretical possibility that the Arab Gulf countries (mainly UAE, Saudi, Iraq, Kuwait) decide to stop exporting oil completely once they have invested in the necessary resources to take over drilling, refineries, etc. Would (for example) the US consider this a form of aggression or a declaration of war?
A country absolutely should have the rights to hold onto their own oil and use it how they please. But what would be unethical would be violating any contracts you have with other countries' corporations (say, Exxon having rights to a field or whatnot). History is littered with wars started over natural resources, so realistically, it would probably get a country invaded.
Yes* Yes, although the fact that there is a competitive market for oil means that raising your price will, to a significant extent anyway, shift demand to another supplier Yes* The US’s primary suppliers of oil are itself, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela, and imports from Canada are increasing with the further development of the oil sands. Today I believe the US gets between 5 and 10 percent of its oil from Arab Gulf countries, but in a decade or so I don’t think it will need to import any oil from that region. The oil sands are essentially replacing ME oil in the US. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/02/us-pipeline-keystone-middleeast-idUSTRE7110UE20110202 *I think there are at least two kinds of rights at issue here, moral/natural rights and trade laws. I think that the moral right to withhold has limits. If a country had all the food in the world, for example, and there was a food shortage, I would say that the country has the right to keep enough food to feed its people but it does not have the right to hoard excess food and let other starve.
cleverly disguised thread to point out that Arab countries are important The Arab countries you mentioned need to monetize their oil, so they wouldn't just hoard it for themselves. Sure, they could pick and choose who they sell it to, which would serve to drive up the cost of oil worldwide, as the supply chain became less efficient due to the imposition of these contraints. Those countries would have a tough time setting the price of oil, but the OPEC cartel has been trying their best since they first came on the scene. Very limited success.
I would deplete my resources at the slowest rate that would yield an average standard of living and adequate security for the people. Discipline, common sense and a denial of ostentatiousness and conspicuousness.
Good point. What if the country ruled that the contracts are invalid because they were signed under duress? Also, these contracts must have specific durations or termination clauses of sorts, right?
Cleverly disguised? lol What's the point monetizing when they will end up not having any oil? Also, I was speaking under the assumption that one country owns the oil. In a monopoly, pricing is highly flexible.
Hmm. I'd imagine in the real world, if you cut out OPEC, then Canada and Mexico are struggling to supply the US at an affordable price. The markets would go crazy really. You're right, demand will shift to the other suppliers. But there's a limit to how much they can supply, and a very huge limitation on how much/fast they can increase supply. I agree with you as far as the moral right goes. I just don't think moral rights have a place in politics unfortunately. It's actually in direct conflict with the stated purpose of a government and the concept of sovereignty. Doesn't it?
I'm not following what you're saying. Did you have a look at the links? Things have changed dramatically in the last decade or so. With the increased production from the Canadian oil sands the US is much less dependent on ME oil, and production at the oil sands is still increasing. In terms of total oil reserves, including the unconventional oil of the oil sands, Canada is second only to Saudi Arabia now. I would say the short answer is no. The long would involve a discussion about different levels of morality, and it would probably reverence Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development.
Europe is more captive to the ME's oil supply than we are. It's no coincidence most of those nations are despotic regimes. Oil is a curse unlike how some S. African nations are constrained by their natural resources. Playing ball with the west has been operating procedure for the last 40 some-odd years. Forcing random price instabilities is a surefire way of putting your head on the train tracks.
What I was trying to say was that if OPEC countries just stop exporting oil to everyone, then everyone would get affected because the remaining oil suppliers would not be able to meet the demand (or would be able to do so at an astronomical price). I think where your saying no, you actually mean it shouldn't or doesn't have to be that way (which I agree with). I don't think you're saying that morality does in fact play anything more than a cosmetic role in politics today?
It is a curse, but also a gift. Can you imagine how much worse this region would be with the same regimes in place but no oil? Obviously, these regimes would never be in place if not for oil, so that's just hypothetical.
The world would be a much better place if these countries with these regimes did not have all that oil.
It's interesting how you define the word 'world'. From my perspective, I think things would be worse, especially for people here since no one would bring media attention to issues which require it and I can't envision things being very different if the world has no use for us. If you look at Libya and how much press that's getting.. It's because of oil and proximity to Europe. Ivory Coast is basically not receiving any coverage > which is extremely disproportionate.
Or we find we have more oil (but expensive to produce) than we ever thought possible... http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/
I was reading Grizzled's links as well. Oil shale is the future, but I don't think it's the present. There are still issues to consider with: Energy reutrned on Energy invested (shale is 3:1, crude Saudi oil 10:1). Cost of extracting it Environmental issues (too much water needed) You could look at it inversely. Let's say crude oil is out, and shale oil is the most viable energy source. The US sits on roughly 75% of the world's known reserves (heavily disputed apparently) - how much will the US share? How flexible will they be with pricing? Will they allow international markets to determine the pricing knowing that it potentially means significant foreign ownership in a key natural resource?
Interesting concept morality and contracts. Tell it to conservatives/libertarians who believe in violating contracts with 300 million Americans for social security payments, pensions etc. BTW large corporations don't view violating contracts as a moral issue. I think they just view it as what is cheaper complying or breaching. Maybe Sam or some legal scholar can chip in on this.
I think that article is a little off. Canadian oil production and trade with the US is increasing dramatically, but it's mostly replacing Mexican and Venezuelan crude. Mexican crude production has fallen off dramatically since they nationalized their oil industry, and Venezuela's has been in a fairly steady decline as well, since Chavez fired all of the workers with any experience. Oil Sands crude is much closer to Venezuelan crude than it is Middle Eastern crude, so refinery modifications are much easier for that switch. I would expect US demand for Middle Eastern oil to remain fairly constant, and if the ME can produce it, the imports to remain fairly constant over the time period in the Reuters article.
There is significant foreign ownership in much of the American oil industry now. Why would that change with shale oil?
