# Blood for Oil??



## MA-Caver (Mar 16, 2008)

> FIELD OF SCHEMES
> *A Crude Case For War?*
> By Steven Mufson
> Sunday, March 16, 2008; Page B01
> ...


Anyone who doesn't believe this should take note of the increased profit margins that the respective oil companies here in the U.S. have increased dramatically. 


> In the absence of Iraqi supplies, prices have soared three-and-a-half-fold since the U.S. invasion on March 20, 2003. (Last week, they shattered all previous records, even after adjusting for inflation.) The profits of the five biggest Western oil companies have jumped from $40 billion to $121 billion over the same period. While the United States has rid itself of Saddam Hussein and whatever threat he might have posed, oil revenues have filled the treasuries of petro-autocrats in Iran, Venezuela and Russia, emboldening those regimes and complicating U.S. diplomacy in new ways.
> American consumers are paying for this turmoil at the pump. If the overthrow of Hussein was supposed to be a silver bullet for the American consumer, it turned out to be one that ricocheted and tore a hole through his wallet.


Aye, it has. According to the article gas prices have tripled and still nothing much seems to be done about it. Bush in a (radio) statement talked about the economy and how it's affecting housing and so forth... nothing mentioned about oil/gas prices. What was that? A red herring? 



> But that doesn't mean that oil had nothing to do with the invasion. In his recent memoir, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil."
> Says Cordesman: "To say that we would have taken the same steps against a dictator in Africa or Burma as we took in Iraq is to ignore the strategic realities that drove American behavior."


Gee and I thought that we were in a war against Terrorism? When do we go to another terrorist hotspot? The Philippines? Supposedly there's a bunch of arabs hiding out there. Have we even gone to look for them? I recall Bush saying "no matter where they may hide, we will find them" well Dubya, you can't find anything/one when you're not looking for them. I mean actively looking for them. 
We got rid of the despot Saddam Hussein. Okay, the people of Iraq are going to have to find their way just like everyone else did to bring their country back to order. There are insurgents there yes but I'm more inclined to think that if we were "invaded" I'd probably be an insurgent too, or at least a patriot freedom fighter! Yes, some are supported by terrorist organizations, mainly because they just want to kill Americans and will help out anyone else who wants to kill Americans but they (the terrorists) are doing it for their own reasons. Perhaps they've got their eye on the thone of Iraq (in a manner of speaking) but people who are oppressed long enough will rise to fight back. Give them time. 
Has anyone else kinda worked their minds around this concept? Is it worth the blood of our young soldiers in trade for the blood of the earth? Have the coffers of the oil companies been filled enough? Probably not.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 16, 2008)

A most excellent distillation (shockingly not a deliberate pun) of the core rationale that should've been made public in the first place.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2008)

Everyone here knows that, even if they keep denying it.  My thoughts on people that continue to insist on the original rationale are that they are having problems envisioning our country negatively.  Because, surely, going to war to stabilize the market for our oil glutton is vile.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 16, 2008)

You do realize the government makes more money per gallon than the oil companies do, don't you? The oil companies have to find, drill for, pump, ship and distill the oil, all the government does is tax it.





> In the absence of Iraqi supplies, prices have soared three-and-a-half-fold since the U.S. invasion on March 20, 2003.


 This is a completely stupid statement since, as we know, Iraq has not been allowed to freely sell it's oil since 91. So, any rise in oil prices from 1-20-93 to 1-20-2001 was Bill Clinton lining his pockets and those of his friends?
Basic supply side economics, when demand is high and supply is low, prices rise. What would make oil prices fall? Allowing American oil companies to explore for oil in the US, allowing American companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, the way Chinese companies are. You know what else would help? Allowing American oil companies to build a few NEW refineries, that might ease the bottleneck between oil field and gas station, just a little...
What part of the Federal Reserve Chairman's job is war planning? Yeah, the imaginary part.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 16, 2008)

Don, (and those of like mind) if you truly believe that oil was not the background reason for the invasion of Iraq, what do you believe it was?

If I hear that it was to remove a obscene dictatorship (and it was one) and to protect the 'freedoms' of the Western world we have nothing to say to each other because, from my point of view, that is self-imposed disingenuous blindness to the realities of world politics.

Your reaction to a statement such as the following:

The invasion of Iraq was to obtain access to the oil reserves there and in neighbouring regions via establishing an American foothold in the Arab States.

Should be, "And?".  

The term for it is _realpolitik_.  

I don't mean to sound as sharp as I do here (this is Net overspill from real life events and I'm sorry for that) but I am heartily dispirited with hearing all the refusals and circumlocutions that avoid facing what is going on over there.

We're bombarded time and again with "Support the troops" (with "you traitors" soto voce) "They're fighting for our freedoms!".

No, they are not.  They are fighting to enforce the foreign policy objectives of the United States.  

There's no shame in that, we (as in the British) did it quite well for a while but it's exasperating to keep hearing the 'cover story' espoused as the truth by people who should know better.

My apologies for the rant but I've reached the end of my real world teather and this particular bugbear chose to be the one to snap it.  Tumult over, I have nothing more to say here and shall slink off in shame at the temporary breach of the Stiff-Upper Lip edict.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 16, 2008)

So, we went to war to have more expensive oil? Right...


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 16, 2008)

A good question to ask is why oil is more expensive now.  Digging out the economic answers to that might go some way to lifting the veil a little.  Bear in mind that policy objectives are comprised of short, medium and long-term components.  Also bear in mind that very few of those have your best interests at heart.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2008)

Big Don said:


> So, we went to war to have more expensive oil? Right...


 
Yup.  The price at the pump is directly related to our actions in the middle east.  What you need to understand is that the price of a barrel is a very short term effect whose cause is us blowing stuff up over there.  The REAL deal as far as the oil companies are concerned are the RESERVES.  40% of the worlds remaining oil is located in the middle east.  The long term stability of the entire industry rests its lot there.  

The end result of this is that the war is a win-win-win situation for the oil companies.  Taxpayer money rebuilds Iraqi oil infrastructure (which we destroyed in 91).  Deposing Saddam and installing a puppet gives the corporations a foothold in the region.  The instability the conflict generates gives the "market" an excuse to raise the prices through the roof.  

I dunno.  I'm so sick of posting about this topic.  Just check  some old threads here in the study.  This debate has been beaten to death...back in a time when I felt that my research would make a difference.


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 16, 2008)

Don is actually totally correct about the reasons for the rise in price for oil, the relative amount of profit the oil companies make (Exxon's profit worked out to less than 1 cent per gallon for last year), and the obscene amount the US federal and state governments make on gasoline taxes.  The bottleneck is in our refinement capability.

The biggest single reason for the rise in price at the pump in the US, though, is the mushrooming demand from CHINA.  Why no one complains about CHINA going to war or spilling blood to enforce its insatiable lust for oil is beyond me (except perhaps that our free and open society allows reporters here to question our government's motives, while the same liberty is not extended to reporters in China).  China has had ground troops enforcing a 'peace' in southern Sudan for years, allowing a ruthless terrorist regime to bludgeon civilians in the south, and basically funding the current crisis in Darfur.

As far as oil being a part of the reason for our going to war in Iraq: American interests did not need a foreign toehold in the middle east to acquire oil - we've had one for years, due to the power of the pocketbook (Capitalism at its finest - the availability of cash has made a tremendous incentive for relative peace in the developed portion of the Middle East).  The US has yet to make any financial gain from trading oil from Iraq.  Oil from Iraq (along with weapons, chemicals, missile technology, and uranium-enrichment technology) were all being happily bought and sold by and through the French.  The Iraqi regime under Sadaam attacked and overran the sovereign nation of Kuwait, claiming the oil fields there, and threatening economic blackmail by deliberately choking off all oil supplies to non-compliant Western nations (i.e., those like us who refused to sell chemical, nuclear, and missile technology), and sending shockwaves through the smaller Gulf nations who feared they could easily be next.  This made it a matter of national security for us to ensure that he could not dominate and control the world oil market, as he had threatened (by word and militant action) to do.  This is why the only nation to support Iraq in Gulf War I was the oil-less state of Jordan.  After Gulf I, Sadaam continued to violate more than 23 resolutions that were conditions of the original cease-fire, so that Gulf II was and is the continuation of the unresolved Gulf I conflict.  

Quite frankly, the fact that a dictator supposedly under the terms of an unconditional surrender mustered his security forces for an assassination attempt on a former President of the US gave more than enough grounds for us to conquer and subjugate his nation five years before Gulf II.  However, today, a free nation of Iraq with a home-grown constitution, representative powers, and free elections exists now, with US and other foreign troops present at the behest of the government.  Children attend school, medical care is available, there is ample food, private enterprise and civil liberties exist.  Civilian casualties that occur are overwhelmingly the result of indigenous and foreign fighters who believe that democracy is inherently inconsistent with their religious views.  Those who believe that economic gain through oil is the only (or even primary) reason for the war ignore or underrate these facts.


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 16, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> ....Taxpayer money rebuilds Iraqi oil infrastructure (which we destroyed in 91).


Uh, excuse me, but Sadaam destroyed the oil infrastructure as a last-ditch scorched-earth attempt to ruin the Kuwaiti economy, setting fire to dozens of wells and refineries as his troops were being forced out.  

The US took great pains to avoid damage to Iraqi infrastructure and cultural and heritage sites.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2008)

No, Don is not.  And although you make a good point about China's demand, I would say that the bulk of your thesis is flawed.  Something that you might want to consider are the long term gains that the oil industry will make because of the expenditure of tax payer money right now.  

China isn't setting up a giant police station in Iraq.  We are.  The US is asserting its role as primary hegemon for the entire region.  Will it all work out?  I don't know.  The biggest wild card in all of this is Iran.  Right now, we've got them surrounded.  Huge air bases in Uhzbekistan in the north.  Large navel formations in Qatar in the south.  International forces to the east in Afghanistan.  A large, mobile and dangerous army camped in Iraq to the west.

And all of this working according to plan.  Like I said, look up some other threads in the study on this subject.  I researched the documents and put the information out there four years ago.  The bottom line is that these plans were being laid shortly after the first gulf war.  

All for the benefit of the oil industry and, most importantly, our "national" interest.

Taxpayer revolt anyone?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> Uh, excuse me, but Sadaam destroyed the oil infrastructure as a last-ditch scorched-earth attempt to ruin the Kuwaiti economy, setting fire to dozens of wells and refineries as his troops were being forced out.
> 
> The US took great pains to avoid damage to Iraqi infrastructure and cultural and heritage sites.


 
Kuwait.  Saddam set fires to the Kuwaiti oil fields knowing full well that the US would be distracted by such an effort.  As a strategy, it worked, Saddam's army wasn't completely destroyed because of this.  I'm not saying they didn't get FUBAR, but it wasn't as bad as it could have  been.

As far as your second point, I think you need to read some alternative sources.  Infrastructure and "cultural heritage sites" were not protected equally.  In other threads, I've quoted generals who've said they were order to bomb Iraq into the stone age.  And they did.

More then that.  

Spraying DU all over the place in the form of bunker buster and armor peircing armament.  Neat little deal for the DoE.  They get to get rid of most of their low grade nuclear waste and we get to transform it into its most deadly form (uranium oxide) to be inhaled by not only Iraqi children but anyone else who inhabits that are for the next half billion years.

So yeah.  Get out there and read some other sources.  Don't trust me, for heaven's sake!


----------



## Marginal (Mar 16, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> Uh, excuse me, but Sadaam destroyed the oil infrastructure as a last-ditch scorched-earth attempt to ruin the Kuwaiti economy, setting fire to dozens of wells and refineries as his troops were being forced out.
> 
> The US took great pains to avoid damage to Iraqi infrastructure and cultural and heritage sites.


If Iraqi infrastructure wasn't destroyed, why did the US spend all that money trying to rebuild it? (With a handful of GOP faithful goobers no less.)


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 16, 2008)

I hope it works. Secure more oil for us. 

No problem for me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> I hope it works. Secure more oil for us.
> 
> No problem for me.


 
This is actually a very pragmatic way of looking at the situation, because if most American's realized just exactly how dependent our country was on oil, they'd be completely terrified.  Hell, I have this recurring dream where a president get up in front of the country and just tells the truth (for once) and the US commits even more of our national treasure to preserve our national interests.  

And that is the key that everybody needs to understand.  The US NEEDS this war in order to survive.  For example, for every calorie of food we produce, it takes 10 calories of oil to make.  This ratio is so utterly astounding that the sheer pragmatic sense of making war for oil is obvious.  

Without oil, people in this country starve.  No ****.

Of course, we could change our culture and living habits, but that is just too much bother.  The vested interests make money now off of the status quo.


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 16, 2008)

Big Don & Ninja mom, Your both absolutely right. I couldn't have said it better. Don't bother trying to argue this point with the others, it's useless, your dealing with a " Hate America First" crowd that believes the worlds problem are the fault of the U.S.A and "Big" oil companies, they get this brain washing in high school, college.


----------



## tellner (Mar 16, 2008)

During the early days of the hose-out the Administration was full of inane optimism about how the war would cost twenty billion, tops. Senior officials said that it would "pay for itself" through "the spoils of war". Looting at nuclear installations, military bases and power plants? The Decider didn't care. But there were orders to defend the Oil Ministry at all costs.

The Commander Guy, Rummie, Turd Blossom (Bush's name for Karl Rove) And "Swingin' " Dick Cheney changed their tune about the reasons for war with depressing frequency. First it was to force Iraq to comply with a UN declaration. Then it was to find the nuclear and biological weapons which they just _knew_ he had. Then it was about bringing democracy to the Middle East. Then it was about killing Hussein. Then it was about fighting "terror". Then the same Administration which said that we do not "do nation building" decided the point was to set up Iraq as a model for the area. Then it was about fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq so its people wouldn't come to America. Then it was... Well, you get the idea.

It's changed more times than Alec Guinness in _Kind Hearts and Coronets_. But from the beginning it's been considered imperative to "defend" the oil resources. Every treaty has put US oil company hooks further into what Bush called Iraq's "patrimony" to the point where our puppet government in Baghdad refused to seat for an entire summer. They would not put their names to a shameful document that irrevocably and in perpetuity turned over all of the country's mineral wealth the US firms. 

Now that same oil seems to be funding the resistance against the US occupation. 

If we're going to war for treasure I damned well expect land for my sons, horses, gold and exotic slave women with large breasts. We're mortgaging the next four generations for Halliburton's bottom line. And they aren't even a US company anymore. We've bankrupted ourselves, lost all the moral authority and goodwill we had in the world. We've gutted the US military in a quagmire which Bush's Annointed thinks we can sustain for "1000 or 10,000 years". We've lost our spot as the top economy on the planet as of last week. The Chinese and Korean bankers who finance the madness are close to turning off the money tap. The head of the World Bank's professional opinion is that the debacle is entirely responsible for the economic mess we're in.

And all for something we didn't get.

It's the most devastating failure of any Presidency in US history. 

Oh yes, and we've gleefully surrendered every single freedom we had because the fear-mongers and Orwellian parodies who wield the Ring say that we have to in order to "feel safe". That high-pitched sound you hear is Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Hancock and Nathan Hale spinning in their graves at about a million RPM.

And now the last senior military voice who spoke out against continuing the madness with a third war - against an enemy with a real army, infrastructure, money and international support - has been fired.

We're screwed and without even the common courtesy of a reach-around.


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 16, 2008)

Marginal said:


> If Iraqi infrastructure wasn't destroyed, why did the US spend all that money trying to rebuild it? (With a handful of GOP faithful goobers no less.)


Because Sadaam's only interest in his country for building or maintaining infrastructure during the last ten years was immediately around the capital and squarely within the confines of his own Tikriti home-bro's.  The rest of the country (populated largley by Shi'ites, Kurds, and Marsh Arabs), was left to rot.  Sadaam used the proceeds of his oil kickbacks to buy more political favor.  In order to promote a stable, functioning society, the first thing the US did upon arival after Gulf II was to rebuild the collapsed infrastructure in the neglected non-Sunni areas.

As far as Bush-cronies getting contracts: POP QUIZ!  Quick: list five companies that specialize in putting out oil refinery or oil well fires.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> Big Don & Ninja mom, Your both absolutely right. I couldn't have said it better. Don't bother trying to argue this point with the others, it's useless, your dealing with a " Hate America First" crowd that believes the worlds problem are the fault of the U.S.A and "Big" oil companies, they get this brain washing in high school, college.


 
We've all been dumbed down and brainwashed by the Prussian school system the robber barons imported to the use at the turn of last century.  I sense a great deal of unease in your posts.  Things that you label as "liberalism" (which is ironic because you've been so dumbed down you have no idea what that means anymore) yet I sense some commonality with our positions.  We both have a sense that our freedoms are being taken from us and it is only our "schooling" that prevents us from seeing that.

Turn off the damn TV.  Read a book.  Find out what the world looks like when you make your own god damned decisions.  

This is the most revolutionary idea in existance.  This is what the government fears most.

You are your own authority.  Never forget that.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 16, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> This is actually a very pragmatic way of looking at the situation, because if most American's realized just exactly how dependent our country was on oil, they'd be completely terrified.  Hell, I have this recurring dream where a president get up in front of the country and just tells the truth (for once) and the US commits even more of our national treasure to preserve our national interests.
> 
> And that is the key that everybody needs to understand.  The US NEEDS this war in order to survive.  For example, for every calorie of food we produce, it takes 10 calories of oil to make.  This ratio is so utterly astounding that the sheer pragmatic sense of making war for oil is obvious.
> 
> ...



This is what really gets me totally pissed off at the whole thing over oil. Recently watched a program that (according to them) if we were to switch over to alternate non-oil burning means of energy we wouldn't even NEED the oil at all. Our cars, our homes, our factories ... EVERYTHING in this country can be powered without oil. But we don't use it. 
Something about if a solar station was built roughly 2/3rd the size of Nevada it would produce enough energy to light the entire country. Same with windmills and other alternate sources. We have the ability, we have the capability and we sure as hell have the money. Why are we wasting time, money, resources and BLOOD on oil? 
Basically... GREED! 
Since the oil boom of the 30's, 40's and 50's (and probably earlier than that!) it became a mind-blowing concept at just how much money there is to be made with this black crude stuff that comes up outta the ground. Doesn't matter that it pollutes and kills, doesn't matter that hundreds and thousands (and eventually millions) of people have and will die over it. The money hunny! Ohhh the money! 



> *1 Timothy 6:10*
> "For the *love* of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows".



Even the government has become blinded with greed with it's over taxation. 

Now about China... whell folks... something has been said about them as well. Sure they're in competition now with our resources and why not? They just begun to realize that they could've years ago under Mao became a true world super-power. Yeah they are now because they have nuclear weapons... so what so do we and a lot of other countries. But the U.S. does have it's super-highway infrastructure that was built during Eisenhower's administration... roughly the same time Mao was in charge. Now China is playing catch up. With it's unlimited workforce they will in a few years. What's gonna happen then? 
Anyone remember the Soviets? 

Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2008)

There is one thing that I want EVERYONE to understand before one even takes a position on this.  Oil is liquid sunshine.  Oil is literally fossilized photosynthesis.  The food chain base of our entire entire existance is photosynthesis.  When we use oil, we expand our base, artificially, for a short time, because we are tapping into the scant and fleeting supplies of sunlight trapped by geologic processes.  

The scientific, darwinian, management of this country understands this.  The Straussian philosophy that underpins the current administrations policies beleives that normal people are incapable of dealing with such truths.

Are you really too stupid to understand the importance of oil?  This is a rhetorical question, btw.  Just think about it and make up your own mind.

I understand perfectly the need to invade Iraq and reposition our military for the national interest.  I disagree with the concept of taking things that do not belong to us.


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 16, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> There is one thing that I want EVERYONE to understand before one even takes a position on this.  Oil is liquid sunshine.  Oil is literally fossilized photosynthesis.  The food chain base of our entire entire existance is photosynthesis.  When we use oil, we expand our base, artificially, for a short time, because we are tapping into the scant and fleeting supplies of sunlight trapped by geologic processes.
> 
> The scientific, darwinian, management of this country understands this.  The Straussian philosophy that underpins the current administrations policies beleives that normal people are incapable of dealing with such truths.
> 
> ...



Fleeting Supply?? Prove it! Recent Geological surveys say "the Plant is awash in oil"
Will the planet eventually run out of oil?? Maybe, maybe not, but definitely not in our life time, and by that time we'll have other sources for energy.
Don't lose sleep over the amount of oil on planet earth, it's really not an issue.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> Fleeting Supply?? Prove it! Recent Geological surveys say "the Plant is awash in oil"
> Will the planet eventually run out of oil?? Maybe, maybe not, but definitely not in our life time, and by that time we'll have other sources for energy.
> Don't lose sleep over the amount of oil on planet earth, it's really not an issue.


 
Alright man, I have a BS in Geology and I could post a bazillion links to people who are insiders in the petroleum industry that have studied the matter in depth.

I can tell you from my own personal studies in this matter.  You are dead wrong.  I have watched the oil come out of the ground.  I have calculated the data.  I KNOW how an oil field depletes and what its ACTUAL production limit might be.  

Will our planet run out of oil?  Yes.  It doesn't matter if you subscribe to the biotic or abiotic theory of oil production or not.  Our planets mass is 6X10^24 kg.  That ain't going to change unless a celestial body impacts our home.  What this means is that the oil we have now WILL EVENTUALLY RUN OUT!!!!

The real point that everyone seems to miss is that its not a question of if, its a question of when.  How fast?  You seem to believe that it won't happen in your lifetime.  

Well.  You are right.  It won't.  200 years from now, someone will be pumping oil from the ground.  Will we be burning it to subsidize our suburban lifestyle?  Absolutely not!  Why?  Because its so god damned expensive that it'd be like burning solid gold in your gas tank.

Catch my drift?

It's all a matter of economics.  If you knew how much of your life was subsidized by cheap and easily accessible fossil fuel energy, you'd at least be concerned by the "up coming" production peak.  Because you've been so dumbed down and lied to and force fed propaganda in our schools you are going to have the tendancy to blame everyone else for the economic misfortunes that are coming our way.  

Fight it.  Read about Peak Oil.  Understand what PNAC is.  Turn off your TV.  Buy some books...and then, when you know enough, buy some guns because you'll know that this country is going to hit a rough patch.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 16, 2008)

Which is of course why we're building a load of new nuclear power stations despite intense public opposition to them (which is no bad thing for me because I'll be working on the control systems for their electricity distribution networks).  

I also have a few friends who are geologists and process engineers who work for the oil companies and they don't agree with the confident position espoused above.

Now, noone wins an internet argument, so I'll cut everyone here a deal.  Let's review this at 5, 10 and 20 year intervals (assuming we live) and we'll see who was right.  

I'm confident in my views as the situation currently stands but information changes so I'm quite willing to sit at a keyboard in two decades time and admit to being wrong if that's how things pan out.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 16, 2008)

There _could be_a HUGE pool of oil under ANWR, but, we'll never know, the environmentalists won't let us look. There IS quite a lot under the Gulf of Mexico, but, our environmentalists won't let us get that either, nor are we allowed to drill off the CA coast. Gee, the Cubans don't have a problem with the Chinese drilling in the Gulf, and I bet their practices aren't nearly as environmentally sound as American oil companies are...


----------



## Big Don (Mar 16, 2008)

By the way, the ocean liners of days gone by didn't go away because the government forced them out of business, they went away because flying is faster, ergo, better. The government did not fund airlines in order to run shiplines out of business, the course of business and the free markets forced them out. Not allowing American oil companies to use the markets and yes, live and die by them screws us all.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Which is of course why we're building a load of new nuclear power stations despite intense public opposition to them (which is no bad thing for me because I'll be working on the control systems for their electricity distribution networks).
> 
> I also have a few friends who are geologists and process engineers who work for the oil companies and they don't agree with the confident position espoused above.
> 
> ...


 
Heh, that's assuming that you even have a keyboard.  In 20 years you'll either have an inplant or we'll be in the post carbon chaos stage.  

Screw global warming.  We'll hit a limit regardless.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 16, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Which is of course why we're building a load of new nuclear power stations despite intense public opposition to them


Sadly, our environmentalists have entirely too much power on this side of the pond and will not allow that. They'd rather we had no power than nuclear power.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2008)

Big Don said:


> There _could be_a HUGE pool of oil under ANWR, but, we'll never know, the environmentalists won't let us look. There IS quite a lot under the Gulf of Mexico, but, our environmentalists won't let us get that either, nor are we allowed to drill off the CA coast. Gee, the Cubans don't have a problem with the Chinese drilling in the Gulf, and I bet their practices aren't nearly as environmentally sound as American oil companies are...


 
When you understand how an oil deposit (magnetically neutral) affects the overal magnetic signature  of the surrounding rock and then realize that this can be detected by satallite, you'd realize that every major deposit has actually been mapped on earth.  There are no secrets, only information that is being obfuscated.  

If you care to actually look at the data, like I have, in the case of ANWR, we're looking at less then a year of production capacity.

So why are you fighting this fight for?  You have nothing gain and everything to lose!


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2008)

Big Don said:


> By the way, the ocean liners of days gone by didn't go away because the government forced them out of business, they went away because flying is faster, ergo, better. The government did not fund airlines in order to run shiplines out of business, the course of business and the free markets forced them out. Not allowing American oil companies to use the markets and yes, live and die by them screws us all.


 
Allow me to enlighten you to something...

1 dollar equals n value in joules.

This in no way indicates its "actual" value.

Ponder that for a while...and think about what it implies.


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 16, 2008)

Here is a pet peeve of mine - I would LOVE to see someone with the charisma of JFK stand up and challenge our country to eliminate foreign oil dependence within a decade, much the way JFK issued the challenge in 1960 to land a man on the moon within a decade.  Forget any whimpy 'challenge' to reduce foreign oil imports by 20%, or goals to 'reduce dependence'.  

The solution would be multi-pronged, including the development of domestic oil resources, controlled use of other sources (including shale sands, natural gas, low sulphur coal, etc.), nuclear power, and MASSIVE investments in R&D for technology developments in solar conversion, solar cell manufacturing, battery technology, and power distribution.  By allowing such an approach, the long-term benefits in economic growth, improved standard of living, global poverty-fighting, the impact on the funding/sources of Mid-East terrorism, and the positive impacts to the environment would be incalculable.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 17, 2008)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Brian R. VanCise
MartialTalk Super Moderator

*


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 17, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Alright man, I have a BS in Geology and I could post a bazillion links to people who are insiders in the petroleum industry that have studied the matter in depth.
> 
> I can tell you from my own personal studies in this matter. You are dead wrong. I have watched the oil come out of the ground. I have calculated the data. I KNOW how an oil field depletes and what its ACTUAL production limit might be.
> 
> ...


 
Hell, this guy has a degree, so what he's saying must be true, my bad for being contrairy.
Sorry, i can't be that easy, Look at my profile, i work in industrial valve automation i work everyday ( Monday-Friday ) with oil companies and oil well drillers EVERYDAY, i've also seen the oil, i've had it all over me working on the platforms at sea and well's on the ground, and the people i work with has a totally different opinion then you do. 
Also, you don't have to keep telling me to read books, I read all the time, when i'm not at my computor or practicing my Kung-Fu
Regarding the Guns, on my profile you'll see that i'm a Life Member of the National Rifle association, i have more firearms then most, and the ammunition to support those firearms, trust me!
Regarding the propaganda coming out of our schools,this is one of my fav. issues, I'm a product of the Government run schools, that is why my son went to a small private school. I would'nt send my dog to a Public ( Government ) run school.
I'm out.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 17, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> Because Sadaam's only interest in his country for building or maintaining infrastructure during the last ten years was immediately around the capital and squarely within the confines of his own Tikriti home-bro's.  The rest of the country (populated largley by Shi'ites, Kurds, and Marsh Arabs), was left to rot.  Sadaam used the proceeds of his oil kickbacks to buy more political favor.  In order to promote a stable, functioning society, the first thing the US did upon arival after Gulf II was to rebuild the collapsed infrastructure in the neglected non-Sunni areas.


http://www.cfr.org/publication/10971/


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 17, 2008)

Big Don said:


> There _could be_a HUGE pool of oil under ANWR, but, we'll never know, the environmentalists won't let us look.



Geologists say there are about 10.4 billion barrels.  I suppose they know that from meditating or using dowsing rods.



Big Don said:


> There IS quite a lot under the Gulf of Mexico, but, our environmentalists won't let us get that either,



I suppose this drilling must be imaginary.



Big Don said:


> nor are we allowed to drill off the CA coast.



So when I saw all those oil derricks less than a mile off the coast when I was running in Huntington Beach, that must have been imaginary too.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2008)

navyvetcv60 said:


> Hell, this guy has a degree, so what he's saying must be true, my bad for being contrairy.
> Sorry, i can't be that easy, Look at my profile, i work in industrial valve automation i work everyday ( Monday-Friday ) with oil companies and oil well drillers EVERYDAY, i've also seen the oil, i've had it all over me working on the platforms at sea and well's on the ground, and the people i work with has a totally different opinion then you do.
> Also, you don't have to keep telling me to read books, I read all the time, when i'm not at my computor or practicing my Kung-Fu
> Regarding the Guns, on my profile you'll see that i'm a Life Member of the National Rifle association, i have more firearms then most, and the ammunition to support those firearms, trust me!
> ...


 
At the very least, I'm glad you've chosen to make up your own mind on this issue.  I think your collegues are wrong though.  We will have your day of reckoning regarding oil and it won't be pretty.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Mar 17, 2008)

Read 1984 by George Orwell and The Crito by Plato. 'nuff said.


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 17, 2008)

Marginal said:


> http://www.cfr.org/publication/10971/


 


			
				From the above link: said:
			
		

> *What explains Iraqs lack of electricity? *
> 
> Iraq has generated roughly 4,000 megawatts per month since the fall of Saddam in March 2003, well short of the American governments stated goal of 6,000 megawatts per month. .............The reasons for these lingering electicity shortages are multifold. We misjudged the environment, says Frederick Barton, co-director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project, and decided to do the simplest solution, which was to build or refurbish large, centralized facilities, and misjudged there was going to be *chronic sabotage, looting, and other things*. A better plan, he says, would have been to set up neighborhood generators, run by locals, capable of reaching between forty and fifty houses. If there were a problem, everyone would know where to go to solve it, Barton says. Iraqs power outages are also due to interruptions at the micro level, experts say, which include *damaged transmission lines from insurgent attacks and insecure relay stations. *


 
Again, note that the shortages and damage to infrastructure is not a consequence of any direct US military action. Infrastructure was not bombed by coalition forces. It is being actively targeted by the insurgents.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 17, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> Again, note that the shortages and damage to infrastructure is not a consequence of any direct US military action. Infrastructure was not bombed by coalition forces. It is being actively targeted by the insurgents.


It was degraded by years of sanctions and further disrupted by the invasion. They have not managed to restore the power to *pre invasion* levels yet. The insurgents have disrupted the restoration of power, but that's not the same thing.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2008)

Marginal said:


> It was degraded by years of sanctions and further disrupted by the invasion. They have not managed to restore the power to *pre invasion* levels yet. The insurgents have disrupted the restoration of power, but that's not the same thing.


 
Also, it should be noted that in 91, infrastructure was targeted.  It has never recovered.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 17, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Also, it should be noted that in 91, infrastructure was targeted.  It has never recovered.


But, Saddam and his darling boys had plenty of ready cash, our troops captured BILLIONS, and plenty to build them new palaces and statues, yet, you're right, it is all our fault.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2008)

Considering that we are spending 12 billion dollars a month in Iraq, I would say that finding a few billion here or there really isn't a big deal.  The bottom line is that we destroyed trillions in infrastructure in 91.  Imagine if every bridge, highway, power plant, power station, industrial plant, etc was bombed to destruction in this country.

That is what happened to Iraq in 91.  How long do you think it would take to recover from that?

Imagine if it was our country, with its reams of intentionally dumbed down people who have no idea how much real things cost, much less the difference between millions, billions and trillions?  Or the real reasons countries go to war...

The bottom line is this.  A billion dollars is a pittance as long as one lets the war mongers control the means of producing wealth.  You could take the world away from them and they could make enough money to buy it right back again.

What is the real cost though?  I'll quote myself...



> Allow me to enlighten you to something...
> 
> 1 dollar equals n value in joules.
> 
> ...


 
A joule is a unit of energy by the way.  And I would like to add that every dollar really does have an exchange rate in joules.  This is an average number, however, dependant upon the "value" of goods we decide.


----------

