Roadshow: Many reasons to drive the speed limit: better mileage, support troops

[priussoris]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 27 2007, 06:40 AM) [snapback]468719[/snapback]</div>

You have to stop being so correct. If we did fight this war for oil then why are we not just shipping it here to the US of A direct from Iraq? Why are oil prices soooo high? And if we fight wars for oil, why not just invade countries that are closer to us and easier to take on and defeat who do not like killing others and themselves like:

Canada? Venezuela (i think we would have signficant popular support here from the locals)? Think how much oil and gas we would save by invading countries so close to us - how much less greenhouse gasses would we produce

and even better..... if there are people here who think we fight wars just for oil why dont you guys get smart and prevent the neocon rage:
1. lets us drill offshore here in the USA
2. open up the gulf of mexico to drilling
3. open up anwr to drilling
4. give to your local coal-to-oil tech company
5. build nuclear power plants

all of the above are easily available to you - each and everyone either alone or in any combination will surely help quench that neocon thirst for invading peaceloving, free, oil rich countries - especially those ones with religious tolerance, freedom and equality for women, and a central love of life.
[/b]

Hey Why not go GREEN such as WIND, SOLAR why use dirty oil or
why nuclear, what about the waste by products
oh , only thinking of yourself and not the future young people of the world

I know lets turn our land into a big waste disposal yard let your kids play there

drill drill drill
suck mother earth dry\\FTW

[Swanny1172]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jun 27 2007, 09:07 AM) [snapback]468731[/snapback]</div>

Why didn't we just take the oil when we invaded Iraq? That's easy, because the invasion didn't go as planned. They didn't welcome us as liberators for more than a couple of months and then turned on us as the invaders we are. We didn't have enough troops to secure the country and the entire oil infrastructure was looted. Do you not remember the reports of all the control valves and computers that control the pipelines being stolen? We haven't been able to take the oil because the war has been a fiasco! Every time we get a pipeline going it is bombed and shutdown again.

If we don't care about oil and it was all about liberating the Iraqi people from a terrible dictator why was the Oil Ministry the only Iraqi government building we guarded in Baghdad during the first round of looting?
[/b]

We are guarding the oil wells and the Oil Ministry because we don't want them to do the same thing they did in Kuwait and set all of their oil wells on fire. We know that Iraq's ability to produce oil is the only hope they have for their economy to be rebuilt following the war. If we can't get them back to being economically self-sufficient, then we have just created the biggest welfare mother of them all and she has several million mouths to feed.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Essayons @ Jun 27 2007, 08:32 AM) [snapback]468714[/snapback]</div>

The article is from 2004....I know that according to the UN, Iraq was limited to around 2 million bpd so if Iraqi oil production is down 2 mil bpd then they are not producing any oil. This is of course false. The main problem is that the pipelines that go through Diyala' and Salah ad Din are wide open to attacks and go down almost every day. The local tribal chiefs are starting to work with the US ground forces and protecting the lines but in the mean time the oil must be shipped in trucks and the roads are a mess. The ieds are bad enough but the roads are falling apart or are already dirt. Last I read was production is somewhere around 2.2 mil bpd

http://zfacts.com/p/58.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/iraq.html
From the DOE:
Exports million bpd:
2007
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
1.159 1.128 1.039 1.024 1.014

April 2007 May 2007
2/01/2007 Production Production
2.1 mil bpd 2.1 mil bpd
Hope this helps
[/b]

Regarless of the numbers used or the source the numbers come from, the conclusion remains the same -- Iraq is producing less oil now than it did before the invasion. EIA's oil industry experts generally assess Iraq's sustainable production capacity at no higher than about 2.8-2.9 million barrels per day, with net export potential of around 2.3-2.5 million barrels per day. By comparison, Iraq was producing 3.5 million barrels per day in July 1990, prior to the first Gulf War.

However, even when Iraq is producing at close to its capacity, it is still not one of the US's largest suppliers. During December 2002, the United States imported 11.3 million barrels of oil from Iraq. In comparison, imports from other major OPEC oil-producing countries during December 2002 included:

Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels
Venezuela 20.2 million barrels
Nigeria 19.3 million barrels
Kuwait - 5.9 million barrels
Algeria - 1.2 million barrels

Leading imports from non-OPEC countries during December 2002 included:

Canada 46.2 million barrels
Mexico 53.8 million barrels
United Kingdom 11.7 million barrels
Norway 4.5 million barrels

[Source: Imports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products into the United States by Country of Origin, December 2002]

So, we imported more oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Canada, Mexico and even the UK than we did from Iraq in December 2002. If oil is truly the reason for our invasion, they couldn't we have at least picked a larger provider to invade?

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priussoris @ Jun 27 2007, 09:16 AM) [snapback]468738[/snapback]</div>

Hey Why not go GREEN such as WIND, SOLAR why use dirty oil or
why nuclear, what about the waste by products
oh , only thinking of yourself and not the future young people of the world

I know lets turn our land into a big waste disposal yard let your kids play there

drill drill drill
suck mother earth dry\\FTW
[/b]

you miss my point either intentionally or not.

and i would love to go green - i heat my house with wood.

tell me how to go green and maintain current and future needed electricity production?

[Darwood]

You sir (Swanny), have a lot to learn.
"Origin, December 2002"
Five years ago! Since then, all of those suppliers are BOTH able to produce less, and having increased consumption from their populations, leading to declining exports. Canada is a net importer, despite the amount they sell to the US (this serves a purpose of HIDING how much we actually import from outside of NA). Mexico is in serious decline, UK (North shore oil) is in decline, Nigeria ia a violent mess, and now Saudi Arabia is in decline. Where are the replacements for all that oil going to come from and why are we still increasing demand?

template response..."Mexico just needs to invest in fixing their fields", "Canadian oil sands!", "Drill Anwar!".

Sorry, ask oil insiders. Anwar will cover a very small portion of our needs. Mexico is in decline due to aging fields per Hubbert's curve that ALL oil fields go through. Sure you can stick a bigger straw in it, and then they'll decline even faster just to maintain the output. And oil sands will run out of the massive Nat gas and water they need to pull out the oil.
There is a reason BP is investing in biofuel and solar. There is a reason oil insiders met behind closed doors a long time ago and still won't reveal the discussions. There is a reason we needed to create a strong foothold in Iraq, smack dab in the middle of 75% of the world's remaining oil reserves (that can be recovered economically).

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. The sea change is coming in about a year. Enjoy your delusion Swanny. As soon as it is polically conveniant, the truth will come out. Obviously our political leaders are not going to say we went to Iraq for oil. But they will let out the truth at the last moment to keep us over their (so we can keep the wheels turning over here).

Berman, you're SOOOO funny with your "green" fireplace!
Electricity production is easy! Solar and wind will replace half our needs and nuclear will provide the baseline generation. Transportation is the only serious problem we are facing.

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Jun 27 2007, 09:26 AM) [snapback]468740[/snapback]</div>

We are guarding the oil wells and the Oil Ministry because we don't want them to do the same thing they did in Kuwait and set all of their oil wells on fire. We know that Iraq's ability to produce oil is the only hope they have for their economy to be rebuilt following the war. If we can't get them back to being economically self-sufficient, then we have just created the biggest welfare mother of them all and she has several million mouths to feed.
Regarless of the numbers used or the source the numbers come from, the conclusion remains the same -- Iraq is producing less oil now than it did before the invasion. EIA's oil industry experts generally assess Iraq's sustainable production capacity at no higher than about 2.8-2.9 million barrels per day, with net export potential of around 2.3-2.5 million barrels per day. By comparison, Iraq was producing 3.5 million barrels per day in July 1990, prior to the first Gulf War.

However, even when Iraq is producing at close to its capacity, it is still not one of the US's largest suppliers. During December 2002, the United States imported 11.3 million barrels of oil from Iraq. In comparison, imports from other major OPEC oil-producing countries during December 2002 included:

Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels
Venezuela 20.2 million barrels
Nigeria 19.3 million barrels
Kuwait - 5.9 million barrels
Algeria - 1.2 million barrels

Leading imports from non-OPEC countries during December 2002 included:

Canada 46.2 million barrels
Mexico 53.8 million barrels
United Kingdom 11.7 million barrels
Norway 4.5 million barrels

[Source: Imports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products into the United States by Country of Origin, December 2002]

So, we imported more oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Canada, Mexico and even the UK than we did from Iraq in December 2002. If oil is truly the reason for our invasion, they couldn't we have at least picked a larger provider to invade?
[/b]

so this war was not a war for oil?

[Swanny1172]

Darwood,

The statistics I cited are from 2002, because I was making a point about pre-war production. We did not invade Iraq until March of 2003. Even four years after the invasion, Iraq's oil production is still below what it was in 2002.

Also, do you care to put some facts behind your assertions, or are you just one of those folks that think your anecdotal responses are good enough?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 27 2007, 09:59 AM) [snapback]468762[/snapback]</div>

so this war was not a war for oil?
[/b]

If it is, it is the most stupid war waged in the history of mankind, becuase oil production has decreased since the war started...

[Darwood]

There's plenty of facts out there if you care to look, but you don't.
Just google Mexico/Ghawar/North sea oil production decline and read the ACTUAL data of oil exports for each of those fields. Heck, read also of on Venezuela shutting out US companies from their oil and making deals with China instead.

Current Iraqi production has little to do with our reasons to be there. And I'm not even saying we should pull out. We have to maintain a presence their to prevent disruption to the oil supply infrastructures of ALL of the ME, not just Iraq. If we have no presence Iran could walk right over and overnight, double their reserves.

We face a serious problem here. Either we just stop using the stuff (economical infeasable and politically unacceptable) or we keep a major military presence in the midst of the remaining reserves. My problem with the whole situation is we need to do BOTH. Yet people both left and right seem to think it is an either or proposition. Sorry, its not. We need that oil, and we need to use it to produce our next generation of energy infrastructure, not continue blindly down the road of excess we're on.

[Swanny1172]

If you really think this war is about oil, then consider that estimates peg total spending on the war at $1 trillion from invasion to pull-out. If we had taken this money and spent it on R&D for alternative fuel vehicles, then the demand for oil wouldn't even be a concern. You fight economic wars on supply and demand -- not in a ground war. If we reduce our reliance upon oil (regardless of the supplier) then who controls the supply becomes a moot point.

[Darwood]

First off "about oil" has not been defined. Yes it is about oil, but not in the simple "lets go take their oil" manner you think that people are accusing. It is more of a geopolitical standoff amongst ALL of the oil consuming world over who and how those resources will be distributed over the next 10-20 years, a period of time that will accompany rapidly dropping worlwide oil production.

Secondly, it's not a moot point. We DO need alternatives and we need them very soon. But you can't build them with good thoughts, prayer, and magical pixie dust. You need to use the existing infrastructure to produce them, and that includes a LOT of oil. I get pissed off at the thought of using the military to keep supplies secure, only to burn the stuff up frivolously in Hummers, jet skis, giant yachts, and any number of ridiculous consumption we Americans are guilty of.

[JSH]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jun 27 2007, 09:47 AM) [snapback]468790[/snapback]</div>

First off "about oil" has not been defined. Yes it is about oil, but not in the simple "lets go take their oil" manner you think that people are accusing. It is more of a geopolitical standoff amongst ALL of the oil consuming world over who and how those resources will be distributed over the next 10-20 years, a period of time that will accompany rapidly dropping worlwide oil production.
[/b]

Exactly! This Iraq war was never intended to an invasion so that we could send over Exxon and fill up tankers to ship oil back to the US. It was meant to be a statement to every oil producing country in the area that you better maintain good relations with us and put our priorities first over other oil consuming nations. If you don't, this is what we do to those that don't play by our rules. We took out the strongest army in the middle east and one of the largest armies in the world in a couple of weeks.

The problem is that we had no follow through, we didn't have enough troops to secure the country and it turned to chaos. I believe the message backfired because now Iran for example know that there is no way in the near future that the US population will be talked into supporting another Middle East war. Venezuela feels free to screw the multi-national oil companies because again, Chavez knows there will be no repercussion.