Topic: USA: 50 years since the beginning of the oil embargo - page 2. (Read 220 times)

What do you mean by "main"? You know that US is the biggest consumer of energy and currently despite the high production, they face a deficit of about a 7 million barrels of oil per day. They cover that huge deficit by importing oil from mainly West Asia.

Because of this massive consumption and deficit US can never become a major global supplier. The reason why you see a country like Saudi Arabia export this much oil is because they have a tiny domestic consumption (3 million bpd I believe)!

You mean the Strategic Oil Reserves?
Over the past year because the oil production by OPEC in general and also oil exports to US has decreased, that has forced them into releasing their strategic reserves at about 2-3 million barrels per day to cover the difference. It is currently sitting at its lowest.

I did some calculations a while back that if I recall it correctly those reserves at best case scenario (no embargo) would last us less than a year. But in case of an embargo (7 million deficit) they would last about a month or two considering the ridiculously huge oil consumption by United States which is between 19 to 20 million bpd.

Another problem is that the oil US has which they are extracting is also running out! At this rate of extraction it will only last 3 or 4 more years. As you may know, when you tap into these resources their extraction becomes harder. In other words if today they are extracting something like 12 million bpd, next year they will be able to extract less like 9 million bpd because of pressure drops and other complications as it reaches the end.
That means the 7 million bpd deficit would grow even bigger.

You mean the embargo? It's hard to say but right now I'd say the chances are little to none. If things take a turn for the worse it is possible though.

In theory it might be possible but in reality it will be impossible to achieve again.
The embargo will never happen because the US and EU will not lose a political influence in the middle east, rich countries there still need US and EU.
Too many factions in the middle east, and many of them busy fighting with each other.

And i think the withdrawal from Afganistan is a smart move, why would US waste money, resources, and human lives for a corrupt gov who done nothing but only waste the money from the US tax payers?
Well, US is the one who lose interest on Afganistan.

I think that the US will lose political influence. The first call was the withdrawal of the army from Afghanistan. Direct global conflicts are unlikely due to the presence of nuclear weapons in many countries, but economic wars will exhaust opponents. The US and Europe will not win a guerrilla war against a billion people in the Middle East.

Much has changed since that date, and it seems that the United States and the rest of the world powers have understood the lesson. These countries have begun to adopt policies to contain countries that have banned the export of oil and gas to them. Today, all countries in the region are friends of the United States, and the United States has military bases in all of those countries, and I mean here Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the Emirates, in addition to overthrowing the Iraqi regime and continuing pressure on the Iranian regime. Do you really think that there are those who still dare to carry out these movements that are hostile to the direct interests of the West?

Things were different since 1971, and the United States’ dependence on oil or the US dollar on the petrodollar agreement is no longer what it was in the past. Therefore, trying solutions of the past will not change reality. In addition, any oil crisis will affect China, which is a strategic goal for some countries that may try to hinder Chinese development, in short. Energy is an effective weapon in a state of peace, such as influencing voter attitudes and changing political orientations, and it is less effective in a state of war.

Theoretically yes. Practically - no, at least not in that format. In 1973, this was a full-fledged agreement between countries with some common interest. At that time, this was a response to the help of the West, and primarily the United States, in favor of Israel, which defeated the armies of several countries. Historically, it sounded like this: "...the Arab countries that are members of OAPEC*, as well as Syria and Egypt, announced their refusal to sell their oil to countries that supported Israel in the war with Syria and Egypt."

*OAPEC is a permanent international organization. The organization has 11 members: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia and the UAE.

But, 50 years have passed. And many of these countries have qualitatively, mutually beneficially integrated into the Western economy, and live very well from this.

Conclusion 1. In this situation, if the attempt at a new “oil embargo” is supported, it will be by a noticeably smaller number of countries. Moreover, the largest players, whose incomes depend on oil consumption by the Western world, will definitely not support it.

After this, the United States and other countries that survived the embargo began to actively develop oil production in their own countries in order to protect against such antics. And they succeeded.

Conclusion 2. If you try to repeat the embargo, a commensurate loss will not be achieved to the countries against whom it was started.

We take into account that this process today was provoked not by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but by a certain group of rogue countries that are facing big problems because of their status. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is quite a staged production to incite a new large-scale war that will lead to a geopolitical confrontation between the West and the Middle East, with the possibility of strong negative pressure on oil production in the region.
Also, taking into account the “methods” of economic terror, I will assume that the initiators of the new oil crisis are even more interested in the destruction of oil production in the region than in a controlled embargo. They need total benefit from the global crisis in the oil market.

Conclusion 3. There will not be an embargo in the form that was in 1973, we assume that it will simply be a global military conflict, which “by accident” will cause very serious destruction and complicate oil production in the region, which will lead to global, previously unseen problems in everything world.

https://www.bbc.com/russian/international/2013/10/131016_us_oil_embargo_anno
"October 17, 2023 marks 50 years since the start of the 1973 Arab oil embargo. On the eve of this anniversary, it was announced that the United States is about to become the main producer of oil and gas on the planet, leaving behind the current champions - Russia and Saudi Arabia.

The embargo was declared on October 17, 1973 in response to US President Richard Nixon's order for Operation Nickel Grass, which supplied US weapons to Israel. The latter was at that moment repelling attacks from Egypt and Syria, who intended to return the territories captured by the Israelis during the Six-Day War of 1967."

I think everyone has long forgotten about this story, but after it the United States began to accumulate oil reserves.
The situation in the world is very difficult now, but do you consider repeating such a scenario in 50 years?