 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - The lounge
Subject: iraqi oil
Original Message 1/40 10-Feb-03 @ 06:39 PM - iraqi oil
came across this:
"At present, oil companies from France, Russia, and China have contracts to help develop Iraqi oil fields. Europe depends far more upon oil from Iraq than America (only a tiny fraction of U.S. oil comes from Iraq, about six percent). Oil from Iraq, indeed oil from the entire Middle East, ranks higher among European national interests than American. For some years, the United States has been moving to draw the preponderance of its oil from our own hemisphere, mostly from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, and to cut back steadily on its use of Middle Eastern oil, to the level now of 26 percent of its annual. Europe is far more dependent on Iraqi oil, and far more involved with the Iraqi oil industry. I believe the U.S. should form a consortium of nations currently under contract to develop Iraq's oil fields, prominently including Italy, France, Russia, and China."
from http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak021003.asp
and my reason for posting it is to ask, if oil were not a factor, what would people say it would be?
its easy to say the US "wants the oil" but if we only get 6% from iraq and only 25% from the mideast in general it seems europe has a much larger interest in iraqi oil than the usa...
i am not trying to sway anyone one way or the other, just curious as to what the "2nd" reason would be...
should this be in the "bush is a *****" thread? :-)
jamey
"At present, oil companies from France, Russia, and China have contracts to help develop Iraqi oil fields. Europe depends far more upon oil from Iraq than America (only a tiny fraction of U.S. oil comes from Iraq, about six percent). Oil from Iraq, indeed oil from the entire Middle East, ranks higher among European national interests than American. For some years, the United States has been moving to draw the preponderance of its oil from our own hemisphere, mostly from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, and to cut back steadily on its use of Middle Eastern oil, to the level now of 26 percent of its annual. Europe is far more dependent on Iraqi oil, and far more involved with the Iraqi oil industry. I believe the U.S. should form a consortium of nations currently under contract to develop Iraq's oil fields, prominently including Italy, France, Russia, and China."
from http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak021003.asp
and my reason for posting it is to ask, if oil were not a factor, what would people say it would be?
its easy to say the US "wants the oil" but if we only get 6% from iraq and only 25% from the mideast in general it seems europe has a much larger interest in iraqi oil than the usa...
i am not trying to sway anyone one way or the other, just curious as to what the "2nd" reason would be...
should this be in the "bush is a *****" thread? :-)
jamey
Message 2/40 10-Feb-03 @ 06:51 PM - RE: iraqi oil
I thought we were only allowing Iraq to sell small quantities of oil at the moment to pay for mdeical supplies?
So under normal circumstances we'd be taking a lot more off them, right?
So under normal circumstances we'd be taking a lot more off them, right?
Message 3/40 10-Feb-03 @ 07:03 PM - RE: iraqi oil
i wouldn't think so if only 26% comes from the middle east altogether... that seems to be a strategic shift cuz the US oil was nearly all from the middle east in the past wasn't it?
jamey
jamey
Message 4/40 10-Feb-03 @ 07:14 PM - RE: iraqi oil
Actually, Saddam has been going around the sanctions with the help of the international community. Very little, if none, actually goes to the things that it should go to.
It appears that the US has been decreasing it's dependance on Middle Eastern oil for years, and I've seen the 26% figure in a number of places. It seems that the Bush administration is pushing less and less dependance on Middle Eastern oil.
However, the major suppliers aren't expected to be able to keep up with demand, though. The problems seems to be that the Middle East still has the VAST majority of the major oil fields, as well as a vast majority of their oil left. Venezuela and Russia have been flooding the market with crude in the last few years but within the next few years, they will have pumped their wells dry, leaving us in a similar place that we are in now.
The Bush administration is well aware of this, and while they are doing their best to avoid Middle Eastern oil, it's in the US's best interest to have a stable Middle East. Believe it or not, it is in the worlds best interest to have a stable middle east. The oil crisis in the 70's is likely to happen again, as soon as suppliers like Russia and Venezuela pump up all their oil. The problem is, if OPEC tries to do something like that now, they'll absolutely destroy their economy (what little of it is left), and most countries will end up in revolution, and the radical muslims will take over. It's not a pretty picture.
So yes Jamey, you are right, but that viewpoint is particularly shortsighted. With the current demand for oil as energy, the world will soon use up the cheap crude coming from alternate sources, and be forced to rely, yet again, on Middle Eastern oil. Not sure how many of you own homes, but the prospect of spending every single last penny to heat my house in the winter time is not attractive. I pray that Bush and his successors are serious about finding an alternative energy source. If you think oil is messy now, wait until the Arabs control the world market again...
It appears that the US has been decreasing it's dependance on Middle Eastern oil for years, and I've seen the 26% figure in a number of places. It seems that the Bush administration is pushing less and less dependance on Middle Eastern oil.
However, the major suppliers aren't expected to be able to keep up with demand, though. The problems seems to be that the Middle East still has the VAST majority of the major oil fields, as well as a vast majority of their oil left. Venezuela and Russia have been flooding the market with crude in the last few years but within the next few years, they will have pumped their wells dry, leaving us in a similar place that we are in now.
The Bush administration is well aware of this, and while they are doing their best to avoid Middle Eastern oil, it's in the US's best interest to have a stable Middle East. Believe it or not, it is in the worlds best interest to have a stable middle east. The oil crisis in the 70's is likely to happen again, as soon as suppliers like Russia and Venezuela pump up all their oil. The problem is, if OPEC tries to do something like that now, they'll absolutely destroy their economy (what little of it is left), and most countries will end up in revolution, and the radical muslims will take over. It's not a pretty picture.
So yes Jamey, you are right, but that viewpoint is particularly shortsighted. With the current demand for oil as energy, the world will soon use up the cheap crude coming from alternate sources, and be forced to rely, yet again, on Middle Eastern oil. Not sure how many of you own homes, but the prospect of spending every single last penny to heat my house in the winter time is not attractive. I pray that Bush and his successors are serious about finding an alternative energy source. If you think oil is messy now, wait until the Arabs control the world market again...
Message 5/40 10-Feb-03 @ 07:18 PM - RE: iraqi oil
American oil companies sell their product all over the world. Look at the countries you listed that are more dependent than us on Iraqi oil... it's the same list of countries that is opposed to our invasion of Iraq!
It's not about "our" need to consume oil! It's not about traditional "social" govenrment issues. It's about huge multinational oil companies securing sound investment for the future... the US government is run by corporate interests, not social interests...
Remember, the current administration is populated by oil executives and lobbyists!
e
It's not about "our" need to consume oil! It's not about traditional "social" govenrment issues. It's about huge multinational oil companies securing sound investment for the future... the US government is run by corporate interests, not social interests...
Remember, the current administration is populated by oil executives and lobbyists!
e
Message 6/40 10-Feb-03 @ 08:44 PM - RE: iraqi oil
my home is primarily heated by coal but i get your point :-)
we will all have hydrogen cars in the future tho, didn't you hear? ;-)
jamey
we will all have hydrogen cars in the future tho, didn't you hear? ;-)
jamey
Message 7/40 10-Feb-03 @ 09:44 PM - RE: iraqi oil
Don't be surprised if a hydrogen car IS in your not so distant future.
Sure the Bush administration is run by a bunch of oil executives, but to be fair, they know how much oil is left in the world - there's a finite amount, and they can certainly read the writing on the wall. The reason the US imports so much oil is because our domestic resources are running out. And that whole ANWAR thing just prooved how little there is left.
Remember, too, that many of the mideast governments are supported by oil money. EVERYONE is ABSOLUTELY dependant on oil. And EVERYONES interests are in the Middle East because that's where most of the remaining oil is left.
Sure the Bush administration is run by a bunch of oil executives, but to be fair, they know how much oil is left in the world - there's a finite amount, and they can certainly read the writing on the wall. The reason the US imports so much oil is because our domestic resources are running out. And that whole ANWAR thing just prooved how little there is left.
Remember, too, that many of the mideast governments are supported by oil money. EVERYONE is ABSOLUTELY dependant on oil. And EVERYONES interests are in the Middle East because that's where most of the remaining oil is left.
Message 8/40 10-Feb-03 @ 11:09 PM - RE: iraqi oil
I just love how so many of you talk like you've got it all figured out.
Message 9/40 11-Feb-03 @ 12:08 AM - RE: iraqi oil
i read this whole bit about how hydrogen is more energy intensive to create than the energy we get out of it etc and how it will never be a good source of fuel etc.
i am sure there are articles to the contrary.
it would have to do 90 mph and cost about the same as what i pay now, as well as have a decent infrastructure for fueling up before i would convert.
yes influx, everyone who bothers to post in this forum normally thinks they have it all figured out... thats what the forum is for, so we can all tell each other how we think it is :-)
jamey
i am sure there are articles to the contrary.
it would have to do 90 mph and cost about the same as what i pay now, as well as have a decent infrastructure for fueling up before i would convert.
yes influx, everyone who bothers to post in this forum normally thinks they have it all figured out... thats what the forum is for, so we can all tell each other how we think it is :-)
jamey
Message 10/40 11-Feb-03 @ 04:15 AM - RE: iraqi oil
ha. well isnt that special
and here I am thinkin that maybe i dont understand anything at all really.
out of the loop I guess.
I just meant...all these bedroom jockeys with their "here..the world works like this, and the parts that dont, should, so there"
give me a BREAK!
it aint that simple. NOTHING is
and here I am thinkin that maybe i dont understand anything at all really.
out of the loop I guess.
I just meant...all these bedroom jockeys with their "here..the world works like this, and the parts that dont, should, so there"
give me a BREAK!
it aint that simple. NOTHING is
Pages: 1 2 3 4
There are 40 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
