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

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

 

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

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

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?

 

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

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?

 

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.

 

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

so this war was not a war for oil?

 

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>

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

Did Saddam ever threaten to cut off our supply of oil from Iraq? I don't think so, because he knew how important exports to the US were to his economy. He wasn't dumb enough to cut off his nose to spite his face.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Jun 27 2007, 08:26 AM) [snapback]468740[/snapback]</div>

We guarded the oil wells and Oil Ministry because Iraq was suppose to pay us back for their liberation with oil revenue. Don't you remember members of the administration testifying before congress during the build-up to war. Remember the statements that "Iraq is not a poor country, they have resources, they will pay us back from their oil revenue". Remember this war wasn't suppose to cost us anything out of pocket just like the 1st one didn't cost us anything. (The Saudi's paid for the first one) How quickly people forget some things and not others.

For example: My brother is still convinced that Saddam and Iraq were involved in 9/11. Regardless of the fact that the administration has retracted that accusation and admitted that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda my brother still believes that they were connected and that is why we are in Iraq.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Jun 27 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]468808[/snapback]</div>

I don't think he " threatened" to cut off oil supply, but hey he is out of the picture now . lets go home, but no it's not in our best interest to leave now even though the " Shock and Awe" campain did not work as expected either. war is not always predictable and a Holy war at that.
We need OIL

 

Saddam threatened to sell oil in Euros. the same threat that Iran is making. It is not economically insignificant either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Jun 27 2007, 09:31 AM) [snapback]468781[/snapback]</div>

I agree that if you were to reduce our demand the supply of oil wouldn't matter.

But again, remember this was sold to Congress as another free Gulf War. The 1st was funded by the Saudi's the second was supposed to be funded up front by us but then repaid by Iraqi oil revenue. It was never suppose to cost the US 1 Trillion dollars. Do people forget this stuff that quickly?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jun 27 2007, 11:25 AM) [snapback]468815[/snapback]</div>

Big deal. It is an empty threat, which is why Saddam never followed through. Persian Gulf nations provide only about 20% of the total oil imported to the US.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Jun 27 2007, 10:35 AM) [snapback]468826[/snapback]</div>

This is not an empty threat. Oil is the lifeblood of the world and right now is bought and sold in US dollars. If OPEC started trading oil in another currency it would be a major blow to the US dollar.

I don't know why people like to quote % of oil that the US imports from the Middle East. The % is meaningless because oil is a global commodity. We could get 100% of our oil from the US and if global supply dropped our price would go up. Why, because oil goes to the highest bidder regardless of were it is pumped.

Say France buys from Chad and suddenly Chad stops producing. France is in a bind and will put out offers to anyone for supply and be willing to pay. Even if the US got all of our oil from the US if say France was willing to pay $5 more a barrel because their supplier has problem, that's the new global price.

It is not good enough to reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil, it will not protect us from price spikes.

 

Canada imports ME oil too. We import a lot of oil from Canada. It's a shell game to downplay the importance of ME oil to the public.

It's also not just the effect on the US dollar that Euro traded oil would cause (That's a biggie though). But it's also how the oil is sold. Iran is proposing their own trading market instead of using the existing markets that are controlled by western interests.

 

So, when are we invading Iran and Brazil?

 

Huh? I assume that's a joke.
Brazil is friendly to the US. They don't have any excess oil to export. They burn sugar cane in their cars to supplement the small amounts of petro they can muster. Iran? I don't know, why don't you ask (Dr. B)the resident master of all things Iran. (Then ask the American people if they'll volunteer their children for another invasion).