I came across the following item:
LINK
As nearly as I can tell, the price of energy is in a long-term uptrend. Market prices for almost anything fluctuate due to any number of factors, but the overall trend has been up. It seems likely to continue in that direction. If the price goes up, fewer people can afford it; some call this “demand destruction”. The author of the item in the link above suggests this is producing a significant impact on relatively poor nations.
A number of the nations listed at the link - places such as Pakistan and Nigeria - seem to be having problems with social instability and increased susceptibility of some elements of the population to the terrorist message. There seem to be exceptions - China and India appear to be experiencing shortages, but don't seem to have instability. On the other hand, increased energy disruptions might interrupt the China and India’s rapid growth, resulting in a variety of problems.
Disruptions of energy supply - whether of electricity, gasoline, or something else, will tend to reduce economic activity, thus damaging the future prospects of nations that cannot afford fuel.
My understanding is that large, rapidly growing populations with substantial numbers of young males, and without economic opportunities, are spawning grounds for terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. These individuals could further disrupt the economy of the affected nations and, perhaps, other nations as well.
So, if the trends (energy prices up, availability down, growing populations) continue, it seems likely that the various national economies will degrade. And if that's true, the problem with terrorism, whether in the style of Nigeria and MEND, or Pakistan and the Taliban, seems likely to increase too. Perhaps the MEND model will spread as the general population of third world nations becomes poorer at the same time oil revenues benefit the ruling classes of such nations.
My conclusions are, first, that oil supplies will experience greater disruptions in the future than might be indicated by history and second, that more of the world will become fertile ground for terrorist recruiting. The secondary effect of the foregoing, then, would be a reduction in supply greater than geologic factors alone might imply.
If it is appropriate to do so, I would appreciate any thoughts about the premises and assumptions made, the factual data, and particularly about the conclusions.
Linear Mode
