Iran threatens to use 'oil weapon' in nuclear standoff

[spindrifter]

Simon Tisdall in Tehran
Monday August 7, 2006
The Guardian


Iran warned Britain and the US yesterday that the international community could face a new oil crisis if the United Nations security council imposes sanctions on Tehran over its alleged attempt to acquire a nuclear weapons-making capability.
Speaking in Tehran, Ali Larijani, the country's chief nuclear negotiator and head of the supreme national security council, said Iran would be reluctant to cut its oil exports. "We do not want to use the oil weapon. It is them who would impose it upon us."

But Mr Larijani added that if the west did decide on sanctions, "we will react in a way that would be painful for them ... Do not force us to do something that will make people shiver in the cold."
Iran is the world's fourth largest oil exporter and is estimated to have the second largest oil and gas reserves.

<more>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1838645,00.html

[longship]

1. This is a clear escalation of rhetoric.

I am recommending this thread because of the fact that ChimpCo's response to this is not likely going to be anything that will tone down the rhetoric. I am increasingly of the opinion that this is not going to end up very well. Things are going to get much worse.

[BrightKnight]

10. .

[HereSince1628]

2. Scissors cuts paper, rock breaks scissors, paper covers stone...

somehow bringing the oil weapon to a thermonuclear attack seems pointless.
I hope they realize Cheney/Rumsfeld have no qualms about dropping some small yield nukes on Iran. Indeed I suspect they are looking for the opportunity to test more of their batshit crazy concepts of modern warfare.

[jmowreader]

4. You know what the "oil weapon" is, correct?

It is a very simple weapon, and very effective.

Iran stops loading tankers with oil, or at least cuts way back on shipments.

The price of oil goes through the roof.

It has been used before, and it always works.

[HereSince1628]

12. Yes I know what it is, I was here as a gas consumer the first 2 times

And I do believe by comparison the damage to the Iran and the Iranian leadership would be quite worse than anything experienced by the US. Cheney/Rumsfeld are just itching for an opportunity to obliterate Iranian military and its defense industry infrastructure. Iran refines very little oil and must import most of it's gasoline something an American embargo would draw down to a measly dribble.

As I remember it, the first time oil embargo took gasoline from about 40 to 55 cents (I paid rather close attention to price and availability at that time since my son was about to be born and it was a 35 mile ride to both the doctor's office and the hospital so gasoline in the car was important to us). And if you recall that was from a coordinated attack by OPEC members, not the action of a single nation.

During the past year we have experienced 15% to 20% price jumps across as little as a week to 10 days and it doesn't usually cause lines. Over the last year the increases have gone beyond 33%. The hike from $2.00 to $3.10 appears to have some permanence.

The rising cost of gasoline hasn't destroyed our economy, changed our regime or even bent its policies. But to be sure an American attack on Iran using both conventional armaments and battlefield nukes would destroy their economy and could kill hundreds of thousands if not millions.

[Skidmore]

17. Real wielding of the "oil weapon" would be to do a Saddam and

set the wells on fire, then retreat to the mountains and desert. Our military could not handle that, given its current state. I think our resources have been serverely depleted, regardless of the catapulted propaganda.

[Phrogman]

7. A few holes in the desert vs. possible total U.S. economic collapse

Lets get it into perspective, shall we?

[Deja Q]

3. Their weapon will be used. Then our people will freeze and starve...

Our people will not want this, so they will clamor for retaliation.

The US then uses its weapon.

Whether or not the oil flows after all that is a different story.

[SeaBob]

5. KNR

[gulliver]

6. Never fear. Secretary Rice is on it.

She's brainstorming with President Bush. So no problem.

[halobeam]

8. Today is Aug. 6th...... wonder what the PDB said today.

[Poll_Blind]

9. Fast-forward to hearing in 2008 "I seem to recall it said something...

...like...uh...Well, I only really remember the word determined..."

PB

[BrightKnight]

11. high lipid algae

sewage eating, CO2 breathing, nitrous oxide eliminating, 10,000 gallons per acre...

We really need an energy policy.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-10-algae-powerplants_x.htm

Doing this would be cheaper than a war.

[jmowreader]

13. There's only one LITTLE problem with that plan

Namely, biodiesel doesn't work in a gasoline engine.

I wonder how it would work in a turbine. I'm serious here.

The military has converted its aircraft from JP-4 fuel to JP-8. JP-8 was introduced about the time Humvees really started coming out, and the intent is to allow the military to take one fuel to the field, not three--in the old days you had motor gasoline (mogas) for jeeps, M-880 pickups, small engines and heaters; JP-4 for aircraft; and diesel for everything else. Now you have a little bit of mogas for the stuff that won't run on diesel, and JP-8 for everything else.

Which means that JP-8 is very clean diesel.

Now understand: one of the beauties of turbine engines is that you can run them on pretty much any flammable liquid--Jet A is kerosene, JP-8's diesel, you can even run them on gasoline for a little while although the excessive heat damages the engine. So biodiesel SHOULD work, if you could get all the water out.

[BrightKnight]

14. A realistic solution to fueling the diesel fleet is VERY BIG.

Diesel engines have water traps. Water has always been an issue with diesel fuel.

Water is only an issue with bio diesel if it is not processed properly. Some garage brewers have quality problems because they do not dry it properly. Full scale commercial Bio Diesel production is no is no more susceptible to water than Petroleum diesel.

Bio Diesel burns very clean and it is CO2 neutral.

Algae ponds 12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert might be used to produce all of the diesel we use. Salt or fresh water could be used.

Big oil and the farm lobby don't want this to happen.

[jmowreader]

15. Will this algae eat pig shit?

If it'll eat pig shit it'll save the world in more ways than one.

North Carolina is the world's second largest producer of pork, and it's all factory farmed. They deal with the effluent from their operation by pumping it into lagoons (an average hog lagoon holds a million gallons, and sometimes they break--spilling the million gallons of ripe pig shit straight into the nearest river) to ferment for a while, then spraying the fermented liquid waste on their fields.

From where it goes straight into the local watershed.

If this algae can thrive on hog-lagoon contents, the farmers will adopt this technology in a heartbeat.

[BrightKnight]

18. Livestock production generates far more effluence than humans.

Effluence from livestock production is almost all untreated. Why not turn it into another revenue stream.

Also, like the corn used for ethanol the processed algae can be used as livestock feed.

The Department of Energy study used a human sewage treatment plant.

The algae is more than 50% oil and it doubles in volume every 7 day. Stressing the algae has generated lipid contents of up to 90% in the laboratory. Genetic modification could increase the lipid content and growth rate. Extracting the oil is cheap and easy. Converting it to Bio Diesel is cheap and easy. It will burn cleaner than petroleum diesel in the existing fleet.

I hope that someone with a few bucks will get wild cat fever.

[hogwyld]

16. AS they say, Necessity is the mother of invention

Maybe we need to be totally cut off from oil before we get a big enough shock to develop alternative energy.