
A $900B Oil Treasure Lies Beneath West Texas Desert - hourislate
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/permian-s-wolfcamp-holds-20-billion-barrels-of-oil-u-s-says
======
foxFive
I live in this neck of the woods, Midland is 30 minutes away and I often am in
town to work or play. On the one hand, I'm kinda glad that the oil is there,
those are big numbers especially considering that the price per barrel is half
of what is was two years ago. It will definitely boost the local economy. On
the other, we are just now starting to see the area begin to settle down from
the influx of workers who came to the area for jobs. When oil is booming crime
goes up, housing costs go up, and traffic gets dangerous. Not to mention all
the water that gets wasted from fracking. Water restrictions were just lifted
but the area cannot support more people for long. Groundwater is being
contaminated and soon what little above ground water sources we have will run
dry if the area continues to see growth, add to this the fact that the shale
formations will need to be broken up (by fracking) to access the crude and it
looks like even more water will be used, as well as increase the possibilities
of sinkholes and seismic activity throughout the entire basin. This is not
going to be enjoyable for the locals.

~~~
giardini
Open a small business installing water filtration systems on homes. It will be
a growth market for the next 50 years in many parts of the USA.

~~~
pryelluw
Do you have more info about that?

~~~
chronic6l
You want him to handhold you and tell you exactly how to make a quick dollar?
Ha.

~~~
pryelluw
Nope. Interested in what water filtration systems people are installing. Im
looking to install one as well.

~~~
dpc59
It depends on the quality of the water. Where I live there's too much chlorine
in it (nothing harmful but I brew beer so I need good water) and a 30$ brita
filter seals the deal. In places with really shitty water distillation is a
good place to start.

~~~
pryelluw
What are you using to measure the water quality?

~~~
toomuchtodo
You can get a water test kit from Home Depot for $10

------
sulam
Keep in mind that this is oil which needs to be horizontally drilled for,
meaning fracking. Fracking has destroyed water tables because of the chemicals
used and been linked to earthquakes in Canada. Not to mention that it is very
intensive in terms of water use.

But of course, while the oil is running there are lots of jobs created, at
least until OPEC decides they've had enough and drives the price of oil back
down.

Since this is Texas, I'm pretty sure the local community won't worry about
this stuff much (I grew up in Texas and have relatives who live just north of
this field's extent). Hopefully the benefits will outweigh the costs for them
-- it's not clear that this has been the case for North Dakota.

~~~
SwellJoe
Given the water situation in most of Texas, I find it unbelievable that anyone
is still pushing oil, especially shale oil, as an energy option anywhere in
Texas. And, yet, all those old oil barons are still pushing that agenda, and
still controlling the narrative at every level of government.

That same desert could house miles of solar panels and miles of wind farms.
But, very few people are pushing _that_ solution to the energy problem, even
though it is now price-competitive with fossil fuels to do so in places like
Texas, where both wind and sun are plentiful almost year round.

~~~
hueving
Oil doesn't have the same use cases as electricity. Until we have electric
planes, ships, heavy trucks, farm equipment and freight trains, there is still
a big place for oil in transportation.

Also, until we get some good energy storage solutions, we are just going to
run into the same problems of too much electricity during the middle of the
day and not enough in the evening.

~~~
foota
Wind is generally stronger at night. The issue with wind is intermittency.

~~~
dreamcompiler
Likewise solar. Solar contains a predictable component with a stochastic
component (clouds) overlaid.

~~~
nickik
Solar thermal can mostly solve the problem.

------
f_allwein
The value of 900B is wrong, apparently. Value of oil in the ground != value of
oil in a barrel.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/18/the-
midla...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/18/the-midland-
basin-wolfcamp-shale-is-not-worth-900-billion-thats-not-how-resource-
economics-works/#42ec45442197)

Plus, we're at a stage where we really need to leave a lot of oil in the
ground:

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/much-
wor...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/much-worlds-
fossil-fuel-reserve-must-stay-buried-prevent-climate-change-study-says)

~~~
matt_wulfeck
Also it provides security if we burn up everyone else's oil but keep large
reserves for ourselves.

~~~
saryant
This was official US policy for much of the post-war era and a large part of
the reason the US encouraged the development of oil fields in the Gulf.

In WWII the Allies deeply learned the benefits of having vast, safe oil
resources in lands untouchable by the enemy. US policy after the war called
for encouraging foreign development, especially by the US majors, in order to
keep our reserves in tact for the next war.

------
fanzhang
In a theoretical world, finding potential resources is always good. You have
the option to extract from it, or ban extraction from it -- which is no worse
than not finding it in the first place.

Put another way, shouldn't news of any new option be good?

It's interesting then that there's such negativity, or at least ambiguity, in
this thread. Is it because we've grown more pessimistic at the
irresponsibility of society?

~~~
mzw_mzw
It's interesting, but it's not surprising. There's a hive-mind on HN when it
comes to anything associated with oil. The most ludicrous, unscientific,
repeatedly debunked theories about environmental damage from fracking are
uncritically believed, conspiracy theories about "oil barons" and Mideast wars
are the order of the day, and of course you can't go five minutes without
someone happily reminding us all that soon God, er, global warming will punish
us sinners.

~~~
joelthelion
The world is on the verge of disastrous climate change. This fact is well
established. Why exactly are we supposed to rejoice at the news of more fossil
fuel reserves?

~~~
briandear
We've been on the verge of something since the beginning of time. In the
meantime society has to function and society runs on oil.

~~~
TeMPOraL
We have viable alternatives to running on oil and there are people actively
pushing to switch the society to other energy sources. It can be done, it _has
to be_ done if we want our grandchildren to have a livable conditions on this
planet.

The thing we need is for people to stop countering the change out of their
short-term interest in lining their own pockets.

~~~
emp_zealoth
There are no viable alternatives to oil apart from coal and nuclear, sorry

Not until we have an order-of-magnitude breakthrough in battery tech or some
new form of storage

Germany raised it's electricity price almost 3 times since it started it's
riddiculous renewable energy bs and they still are only ~25% renewables (And
they offshored their heavy, energy intensive industry that just packed up and
moved to China, to happily pollute even more than before)

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _nuclear_

There you have it. This is a _viable alternative_ that's safe, and green.

Germany did exactly the wrong thing IMO. They should've expanded their nuclear
capacity instead of shutting off perfectly good plans and starting to pollute
the world (proxying through China, as you say).

------
zabcik
Texas drilling and fracking regulations are on the chopping block. Soon we'll
have little to no leverage to limit drilling or demand environmental studies
to be done, so get ready for even more indigenous lands to get violated, even
more earthquakes caused from wastewater injection, and even more greenhouse
gasses released into our atmosphere exacerbating the already terrifying
effects of climate change. No matter how good the profit in the near future
might be, we're jeopardizing our ability to live on this planet by allowing
this to happen.

~~~
byuu
All headed by 70 year old rich men and politicians who won't be around to
suffer the long-term environmental consequences. And look at the age
demographics where most of their votes come from.

Yet everyone acts like it's a monstrous proposition when I state that voting
power should be weighted based on age rather than location like it is today.
Not that it matters, it's never going to change.

~~~
smsm42
You mean, like less you know, less real life experience you have - more voting
weight you get? Brilliant idea, that's what is missing in our politics - more
immaturity, childishness and inexperience!

~~~
byuu
I said it wouldn't be a popular sentiment. But as they say, democracy is two
wolves and one sheep deciding on what to have for dinner.

Some rise above it, but human nature is inherently selfish. These 70 year olds
have grandchildren too, and they're smart enough to play the politics game so
I am sure they understand the overwhelming science on this issue, yet they
clearly just don't care. And this election makes clear that we can't rely on
the voting base to be well informed.

It's a valid concern that one voter only has to worry about their decisions
for the next five years, but the rest have to for the next sixty years. Yet we
have no problem with prioritizing based on life expectancy when it comes to
organ donor recipients, charging more for life insurance based on age, etc.

Further, voting is already inherently unfair and weighted based on where you
live thanks to the electoral college and every state getting two EC votes
automatically. Some states result in voters having four times the voting power
of people in other states. That and all the people living in guaranteed blue
(California) or red (Texas) states effectively have no vote in practice. The
same is even more true of senate representation, with two senators for every
state, regardless of population.

You look at something like marriage equality, and per Pew research, 71% of
millenials approve yet only 38% of the silent generation do. Yet the issue has
a serious chance of being reversed due to Trump's inevitable Supreme Court
picks. And our generation will be stuck with the fallout of that (and every
other social issue that's bound to come up in the future) for likely 40+
years.

Look, I'm aging too. I'll be old soon. What I'm saying will already affect me
as well. But this is just a matter of basic fairness.

This administration is going to push us well over the edge on carbon
emissions. Our grandchildren and beyond will pay dearly for the harm that's
going to be done. Those responsible will be long gone by then. That is not
fair.

~~~
smsm42
> But as they say, democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding on what to
> have for dinner.

That's why USA is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

> but the rest have to for the next sixty years.

If you delude yourself with the idea you know what's going to happen in the
next 60 years, you overestimate your abilities in such a way it's not even
funny.

> You look at something like marriage equality, and per Pew research, 71% of
> millenials approve yet only 38% of the silent generation do.

So?

> Yet the issue has a serious chance of being reversed due to Trump's
> inevitable Supreme Court picks.

Based on what? Trump's position is that the issue is settled.

> And our generation will be stuck with the fallout of that (and every other
> social issue that's bound to come up in the future) for likely 40+ years.

There are a lot of SC decisions that the right didn't like. There are a lot of
SC decisions that the left didn't like. Some of them change, some of them
don't. I don't see how anything here is new or has anything to do with
anything - there always will be some decisions somebody won't like. Trump pick
would make SC as balanced as it has ever been - 4 lefty judges, 4 righty
judges, one swing vote (Kennedy). Simplifying, of course, but that's what it
is.

Moreover, SC running ahead of public consensus is not usually a good idea. The
continued abortion struggle is a proof - there obviously wasn't/isn't public
consensus, and the issue is still a hot topic.

With gay marriage though, the issue is much closer to public consensus and I
predict it will vanish from public discussion (except of course panic
propaganda on par with "Republicans are going to recreate slavery!") very
soon.

> Look, I'm aging too. I'll be old soon. What I'm saying will already affect
> me as well. But this is just a matter of basic fairness.

No it's not. Nothing you said has anything to do with "basic fairness".

> This administration is going to push us well over the edge on carbon
> emissions.

I have no idea what that sentence means. I suspect neither do you.

> Our grandchildren and beyond will pay dearly for the harm that's going to be
> done.

That's always true - whatever we do, our grandchildren and beyond will have to
deal with it. That's kind of by definition.

> Those responsible will be long gone by then. That is not fair.

I agree. I'd like to stick around for the next 1000 or so years, just to see
what happens. Unfortunately, so far nobody found a way how. Very unfair!

~~~
byuu
> So?

So maybe people that will be dead in five years shouldn't be deciding social
issues for the next sixty.

The silent generation had their lifetime "where men were MEN, women stayed in
the kitchen, and gays didn't exist!"

Now it's our turn to have a diverse society where people can be whoever they
want to be.

> Based on what? Trump's position is that the issue is settled.

Is Trump going to nominate himself for the Supreme Court, then? It's not up to
Trump how his nominations will rule on the issue. But based on endless cases
as evidence (5-4 party line splits), a conservative court _will_ reverse
Obergefell v Hodges the second it gets the chance.

It's not 100% certain, but the odds are very good if any of Ginsberg, Breyer,
or Kennedy are replaced. The odds go up _dramatically_ for two, and I would
bet my life savings on it happening within 5-10 years if all three were
replaced by Trump's administration.

> There are a lot of SC decisions that the right didn't like.

Correct, because Kennedy was less socially conservative, we managed 5-4 in
Obergefell. But on fiscal issues, Citizens united was 5-4, Hobby Lobby was
5-4, gutting the voting rights act was 5-4, etc.

You're deluding yourself if you think the USSC in its current state is
anything but _extremely_ hyper-partisan. And yes, that applies to both sides.

> Trump pick would make SC as balanced as it has ever been - 4 lefty judges, 4
> righty judges, one swing vote (Kennedy)

Replacing Scalia won't change the dynamic in any way, that is correct. Clinton
making that pick could have pushed it to the left, but I'm betting they
would've magically confirmed Merrick Garland within the week had the democrats
won the white house and senate.

> Moreover, SC running ahead of public consensus is not usually a good idea.
> The continued abortion struggle is a proof - there obviously wasn't/isn't
> public consensus, and the issue is still a hot topic.

Yeah, those darn activist judges in Loving v Virginia and Brown v Board of
Education. We should always wait for popular opinion to catch up on what's
right. /s

> With gay marriage though, the issue is much closer to public consensus and I
> predict it will vanish from public discussion

I sure hope you're right. But Trump voters made the gamble with _my_ marriage,
not theirs.

> No it's not. Nothing you said has anything to do with "basic fairness".

I'll respond with an equally compelling counter to your argument here -- "yeah
huh, it does so!"

Anyway, like I said, my opinion means nothing here. There's a snowball's
chance in hell of us moving from proportional voting power based on physical
location to proportional voting power based on age. Consider it my opinion,
and we'll agree to disagree.

> I have no idea what that sentence means. I suspect neither do you.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(climatology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_\(climatology\))

(And no, I'm not a climate scientist. But I trust them a lot more than I trust
oil and gas companies trying to protect their profits. See: tobacco companies
in the '60s.)

~~~
smsm42
> So maybe people that will be dead in five years shouldn't be deciding social
> issues for the next sixty.

You say it as if you know for sure you won't be dead in five years. It's nice
to be a prophet.

> The silent generation had their lifetime "where men were MEN, women stayed
> in the kitchen, and gays didn't exist!"

Sorry, it's a load of hateful baloney. That generation fought for real civil
rights. This generation fights for right not to be served sushi because it's
cultural appropriation, not to be subjected to a words of a slightly
controversial speaker, because it's "unsafe", and needs coloring books and
play-dough to cope with losing an election. That's the generation that
seriously claims they feel physically unsafe when somebody challanges their
beliefs to the point of being unable to function and needing to be sequestered
in a specially designated space, or they will break down completely. Not
that's not I am saying about them, that's what they say about themselves. And
that's the people claiming to have superior role? Puh-lease. You wanted play-
dough, you get play-dough.

> It's not 100% certain, but the odds are very good if any of Ginsberg,
> Breyer, or Kennedy are replaced.

Keep talking about disenfranchising your opponents, and 4 years of Trump
become 8, and you get it for sure.

> Is Trump going to nominate himself for the Supreme Court, then?

Nope, but it is reasonable to think the will nominate somebody who thinks like
him. Otherwise all talk about who he's going to nominate is pointless.

> You're deluding yourself if you think the USSC in its current state is
> anything but extremely hyper-partisan.

And by "extremely hyper-partisan" you mean "not always deciding how I like
it."

> But Trump voters made the gamble with my marriage, not theirs.

Votes for Trump had literally nothing to do with gay marriage question. It
wasn't an issue in the campaign, and Trump himself is on record saying it's
settled. That's what his voters voted for. So really there's no gamble,
there's no there there. It's done, it's ok to move on. Using this question in
order to criticize Trump could lead to only one outcome - when someone other
than Trump arises who thinks it's not settled, he'd look like someone
discussing legitimate current issue of the day, not something that was decided
and agreed on years ago. Do you really want to fight for that?

> I'll respond with an equally compelling counter to your argument here --
> "yeah huh, it does so!"

Except you started with such argument. If you claim you proved Fermat theorem,
it's on you to provide the proof. If you claim equal vote is unfair, it's on
you to prove so. So far your proof was mostly whining about how old folks
ruined everything. That's not a proof, it's just bellyaching.

>
> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(climatology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_\(climatology\))

Nice story. Except nobody knows where it is, what it means and how it works.
It's basically a fairy tale. Nobody ever demonstrated any scientific proof of
existence of it.

------
sporkenfang
I know those people would be glad for the money, but damnit it was 80
Fahrenheit on Friday and it's nearly Thanksgiving. Whatever's going on with
the weather, humanity doesn't need to be making it any worse.

~~~
deepitee1
The effects we're feeling in the South US are mostly from the La Nina[1], but
there is actually something interesting happening with the Arctic ice this
winter. It's still below zero up there, but we might end up with a northern
channel in about 4 years if it stays this warm. It isn't just about the ice
that has formed, but the speed that it's forming. It's significantly slower
than recent years[2]. This was caused in part from storms[3], so now the
rapidly warming temperatures can cascade in the next years with darker water
and thinner ice. Also, the methane crater explosions in Sibera can't be
helping...[4]

[1][http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/la-nina-
arrives/](http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/la-nina-arrives/)

[2][http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/11/Figure2a.png](http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/11/Figure2a.png)

[3][https://robertscribbler.com/2016/11/18/arctic-storms-
sparked...](https://robertscribbler.com/2016/11/18/arctic-storms-sparked-
severe-polar-warming-sea-ice-melt-for-november-2016/)

[4][http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-exploding-
permafrost-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-exploding-permafrost-
methane-craters-global-warming-2016-6)

~~~
giardini
deepitee1 says:

"we might end up with a northern channel in about 4 years if it stays this
warm."

A "northern channel"? Do you mean a wider "Northwest Passage" from the
Atlantic to the Pacific oceans?

------
themgt
I like that it's called the "Permian Basin". We're literally digging up the
sequestered carbon from hundreds of millions of years ago and putting it back
up into the atmosphere to rapidly recreate the climate of that period.

~~~
eru
Your comment is catchy, but not very accurate.

That period lasted millions of years. All the CO2 we are blasting into the
atmosphere will be absorbed by the oceans in thousands (or at most ten
thousands) of years.

(It's taking a while, because the surface layers of the oceans can only absorb
so much, and mixing into the deeper layers takes time.)

~~~
xapata
As the oceans absorb CO2, the acidity increases. Not so great for our
preferred fish species.

~~~
BurningFrog
Probably true, but the fact that we eat all those fish is a far bigger short
term problem.

I heard somewhere (rumor alert) that jellyfish and other species we don't like
to eat are taking over much of the oceans, since we ate most of the fish.

~~~
giardini
Open a small business harvesting jellyfish. It is already a growth market in
Asia and will be a growth market for the next 50 years in many parts of the
USA:

"Southern Fishermen Cash In On Asia's Taste For Jellyfish":

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/01/28/267836803/sou...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/01/28/267836803/southern-
fishermen-cash-in-on-asias-taste-for-jellyfish)

"Jelly Balls Harvested by Boone Seafood Darien Georgia":

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laArO6Yk-W0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laArO6Yk-W0)

------
PeterStuer
20 billion barrels of oil sounds a lot until you realize that the world
consumes around 35 billion barrels per year. All this fracking comes at a huge
environmental cost and all this to keep hanging on to our fossil addiction for
a few more quarters.

------
ChuckMcM
These things always amaze me, $900B which, if they extracted it all at once
would deflate the price of oil to less than $10 a barrel and make everyone go
broke.

For reference the US consumed 7 billion barrels in 2015[1] so this represents
basically nearly 3 years of consumption by the US with no imports at all. And
world consumption has been nearly flat for a while.

[1]
[https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6)

~~~
imaginenore
That statement is false. It entirely depends on how fast you sell it. If you
dump it all on the market at once, it can go way way below $10. Or you can
take it slow and not affect the price much at all.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Technically the statement is accurate, but I understood that you disagreed
with the hypothetical.

That said, there is a lot of evidence and history that supports the notion
that OPEC only managed to keep oil prices high by threatening member states
with retaliation if they under cut the "standard" price. And at the same time,
people who were in a position to undercut that price (Venezuela, Russia,
Brazil) did so in order to get more foreign currency faster.

It is always a balance of incentives. The market clearly will buy oil at lower
prices if given the opportunity.

So one could imagine an act of economic warfare where the oil and gas reserves
were developed as quickly as possible and shipped to Europe at a steep
discount to cut into the revenues Russia makes selling oil and gas. Thus
putting a huge crimp in their economy which makes their military spending cut
into their social programs more deeply causing internal unrest and
dissatisfaction.

That certainly would not be in the best interests of the companies pulling the
oil out of the ground, but it could be in the best interests of the US policy
makers.

My original point was that the $900B number was specious, you cannot take the
'estimate of reserves in barrels' x 'the spot price of oil' and call it the
'value'. The quantity is _material_ to the commodity price on the market and
so moving it through the market will change the net value.

------
diafygi
Remember all the threads recently about fake news?

"The Midland Basin Wolfcamp Shale Is Not Worth $900 Billion - That's Not How
Resource Economics Works"

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/18/the-
midla...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/18/the-midland-
basin-wolfcamp-shale-is-not-worth-900-billion-thats-not-how-resource-
economics-works/#7dd018a72197)

~~~
smsm42
Frankly, I resent the trend to call anything one disagrees with or find some
problem with "fake news". Fake news is specific phenomenon and this has
nothing to do with it.

True that the 900B estimate is nothing to do with actual monetary value of the
deposit - it's just a size estimate expressed in terms most understandable by
common person. Maybe it is misleading - though quantifying "a real lot of oil"
to make it comprehensible is not an easy task, and writing "well, there's lots
of oil but we have no idea if we can get to it and how much would that cost"
is a bad headline. But the correction that 900B figure is just a sort of "car
analogy" to estimate the size and not the actual worth is true. It does not
mean original article is "fake news" \- it's true news, just using one
somewhat misleading illustration.

~~~
gozur88
I didn't find the headline misleading. It's no different than when people say
there's $10 trillion in platinum out in some asteroid. People understand there
are extraction costs.

------
alphydan
To put this in perspective, let's assume that there are indeed 75x10^9 barrels
of oil. Fracking typically can only extract around 10% of the oil-in-place
(the rest is too expensive to recover once the reservoir pressure drops, even
at $100/barrel)[1].

The US consumes 19 million barrels a day [2], so (75000
barrels*0.1)/(19bpd)/(365 dpy) = 1 year. All that oil would be burnt in a
single year if it was the only source!

[1] Consequently, the recovery factors for shale oil are typically lower than
they are for shale gas, ranging from 3 percent to 7 percent of the oil in-
place with exceptional cases being as high as 10% or as low as 1 percent.
[http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/pdf/overvi...](http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/pdf/overview.pdf)

[2]
[https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6)

------
yread
Good for them. Leave it there

------
joelthelion
You mean a $900 billion CO2 nightmare?

~~~
Gibbon1
Consider that to get that 900 billion worth of oil we'd probably have spend
400 billion in extraction costs. Over all likely better to spend that on
renewables instead.

------
beedogs
And it should remain in the ground. All of it.

------
zhaphod
whatever the value, I hope it stays buried.

------
woodandsteel
Considering long-term energy trends, I think we will have here is a major case
of stranded assets.

------
youdontknowtho
if they keep it up then it will be beach front property before long...

------
kleigenfreude
Fuck this fucking oil shit. Fuck it

------
beedogs
How does a comment like this get downvoted on HN? Is everyone here an oil
industry shill?

~~~
BurningFrog
Some people honestly have different opinions and world views than you, without
being corrupt, stupid or evil.

~~~
xapata
Yes, but on some issues, otherwise smart people hold amazingly ignorant
opinions. I'm sure you can find examples no matter which side of the issue
you're on.

------
StanislavPetrov
Too bad we have to burn all that carbon first and we can't just pump it right
into the atmosphere. At least we get to inject toxic wastewater into the
ground and cause some earthquakes in the process.

------
andrewvijay
So this means middle East will get some relief from wars?

~~~
saryant
Or their internal divisions spiral out of control as Gulf petrostates receive
the double-punch of declining oil revenues and weakening security alliances,
causing them lose the ability to buy off their own citizens while at the same
time, foreign powers lose their need for the current regimes.

