ENOUGH With The "War For Oil" Argument! Here's An End To It, ONCE AND FOR ALL

ENOUGH with the "War for Oil" argument! He...
1 of 8 27-Dec-2010 05:02 PM
Free Republic News/Activism

Browse · Search Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
ENOUGH with the "War for Oil" argument! Here's an end to it, ONCE AND FOR ALL
Me | Feb 22, 2003 | Ajarosh
Posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 12:39:02 PM by Drewman626
I'm going to end this "It's about oil" argument once and for all.
Iraq produces between 3% and 5% of the world's daily oil supply on any given day.
To put that in perspective, of the ten largest oil producing countries on the planet, Iraq ranks 7th. Saudi Arabia
ranks 1st producing 500% more oil than Iraq. Number two is Mexico... three is Venezuela.
"Yeah, but... but... Iraq has the second largest oil reserve under it!"
If you have a quarter, I have a dime, and everyone else on earth has a nickel... I have the second largest coin on
earth. But it's still a drop in the bucket compared to what's out there.
"Well...um.... but what is there is still worth a lot of money!"
Is it? There's an estimate that says that the oil in the sands of Iraq is worth $3trillion dollars.
Problem 1: getting to the oil. Iraq is producing 4% of the oil because that's all it can get at. If that oil were easily
obtained, Iraq would've already tapped it. In order to even think about draining the untapped oil, infrastructure,
technology, and machinery would have to be built, invented and installed. That costs money. That takes time.
Problem 2: refineries all ready at full capacity. The oil refineries around the world are already at full capacity. They
are already maxed out as to how much oil they can take in and turn into gasoline and fuels. There's just no more
room for more oil to go into them.
So if you tapped Iraq and drained all that oil, it'd sit in storage until the refineries can get to it... which costs
money... But the refineries wouldn't ever get to it, because oil from other reserves needs to be refined too. Some all
that excess oil would sit in storage indefinitely. That costs money. It sure as heck doesn't make money sitting in
storage.
One option would be to build more refineries. Building refineries costs money. Plus, the environmental movement
in the US is preventing any more refineries from being built. If the refineries are built in foreign countries, it would
cost more money to run them and ship the fuels to their destinations. Plus, you'd be splitting taxes and would
probably have to negotiate tariff deals.
Problem 3: Too much oil supply reduces prices. If you drained the oil, built more refineries, and released a couple
billion barrels of oil out into the marketplace, you dramatically increase supply. Anyone who's taken a basic
economics course knows that if supply goes up and demand stays the same, prices drop. That $3trillion quickly
become $1trillion.... cutting into profits. So the cost of infrastructure, the cost of technology, the cost of machinery,
the cost of refineries, the cost of shipping, the cost of tariffs, and the reducing of oil prices nets about 4% per year
over 28 years. You can do better with T-Bills.
ADD to that the cost of cleaning up after a war.
And now the time factor. Time to clean up, time to build roads and infrastructure, time to develop technology, time
to build machinery, time to ship and install machinery, time to build refineries, time for negotiating international
tariff deals, time for refining, time for transport... all without a significant increase in demand.... By the time all that
is done we could be driving H-cell cars by then.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/849730/posts
ENOUGH with the "War for Oil" argument! He... 2 of 8 27-Dec-2010 05:02 PM
My point is that if you want to get rich on oil, Iraq is not the place to do it. There are a dozen better options. If
you're going to use war as a method for obtaining oil, let's go after Venezuela... they're ripe for a takeover right now
and produce over 300% more oil than Iraq. Better yet, let's annex Mexico. Even better yet, let's take over Saudi
Arabia...we already have military bases there.
If we really wanted more oil, we'd just lift the sanction on Iraq and buy it... at a cheaper cost and in less time than
going through the hassle of everything listed above. But then you run into the full capacity and supply and demand
issues. If this were really about oil, we would've kept troops in Iraq in 1991. It doesn't make economic sense. It
would lose money.... especially in the short-term... meaning stock prices would fall. That's something no investor
wants, especially in the short-term. The only oil factor in this equation is that the money Iraq DOES make from
legal and illegal oil sales is going into producing weapons, golden palaces, and probably to terrorist groups.... hence
the reason Saddam says he doesn't have enough money to feed his people and why they're starving to death in the
streets while cheering his name. He spends the money on military and not on children. If a new Iraqi regime were in
control of their oil, maybe the money would go towards schools, and food, and medicine, instead of towards
anthrax, vx gas, aluminum tubes, and al-shamud missiles. The "War for Oil" line is without basis and just plain
wrong. It's a "sound good" line perpetuated by the left and those people that are wishing for an ulterior motive
because they just can't believe that Bush isn't lying. But as soon as you start to think about it rationally, like in this
article, you see that the "War for Oil" line has no merit whatsoever.
That is all.
Feel free to repost.
Article reference: http://www.gravmag.com/oil2.html
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Miscellaneous ; News/Current Events

KEYWORDS: bush; hussein; iraq; oil; saddam; terror; war; warlist
1 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 12:39:02 PM by Drewman626

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
To: Drewman626
If this truly was about oil, we would have been running the oil fields in Kuwait since Desert Storm.
Actually, in a way it is about oil, but it's about French and German contracts for Saddam's oil. We're trying to take
out a world-class menace, and the French and Germans are trying to protect their investments.
2 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 12:42:49 PM by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Drewman626
We can always give the "Axis of Evil" and The Axis of Weasels" something to blame us for!
3 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 12:44:29 PM by sheik yerbouty
To: Drewman626
Also, why would we tear up the oil wells by war just to rebuild them. I figured we could do that but the break even
point would be in 2013.
4 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 12:46:05 PM by wattsup
To: wattsup
Moreover, the Iraqis destroyed the fields in 1992 -- then we put out the fires ON THEIR BEHALF, then permitted
the oil to continue to be harvested BY IRAQ. Yeah -- of course we're doing this for oil.
5 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 12:52:30 PM by alancarp (online anti-Hollywood idiots petition: http://www.ipetitions.com
/campaigns/hollywoodceleb/)
To: Drewman626
Great post. It’s about time we settled this BS argument once and for all. Even though oil ain’t peanut butter, the
only argument that can be made is the following: Sadaam is like Hitler, and Stalin because he has the resources (oil)
to spread terror. Ergo, he has to go.
6 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 12:53:13 PM by dix (.)
To: Drewman626
TABLE 1. Ranking of world provinces that contain oil and gas by known petroleum volumes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Cum.
of Percent
Rank World of World
excl. Known Petroleum Volumes Volume Volume
of Province Province Assessment Oil Gas NGL Total excl.of excl.of
Rank U.S. Code Name Type (BB) (TCF) (BB) (BBOE) U.S. U.S.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1 1174 West Siberian Basin Priority 140.4 1271.8 3.1 355.6 14.3 14.3
2 2 2024 Mesopotamian
Foredeep Basin Priority 292.4 298.3 1.8 344.0 13.8 28.1
3 3 2021 Greater Ghawar Uplift Priority 141.7 248.6 8.6 191.7 7.7 35.8
4 4 2030 Zagros Fold Belt Priority 121.6 399.4 1.4 189.5 7.6 43.4
5 5 2019 Rub Al Khali Basin Priority 89.9 182.3 2.6 122.8 4.9 48.3
6 6 2022 Qatar Arch Priority 1.2 465.6 13.8 92.5 3.7 52
7 7 1015 Volga-Ural Region Priority 64.0 99.2 1.1 81.6 3.3 55.3
8 8 4025 North Sea Graben Priority 44.1 160.6 6.0 76.9 3.1 58.4
9 5047 Western Gulf 26.9 251.6 7.5 76.2
10 5044 Permian Basin 32.7 94.0 6.7 55.0
11 9 6099 Maracaibo Basin Priority 49.1 26.7 <0.1 53.6 2.2 60.6
12 10 7192 Niger Delta Priority 34.8 93.9 2.8 53.3 2.1 62.7
13 11 6098 East Venezuela Basin Priority 30.2 129.7 0.7 52.6 2.1 64.8
14 12 1016 North Caspian Basin Priority 10.8 156.9 8.9 45.8 1.8 66.6
15 13 2043 Sirte Basin Priority 36.7 37.7 0.1 43.1 1.7 68.4
16 14 5305 Villahermosa Uplift Priority 35.0 41.3 0.1 42.0 1.7 70.1
17 15 1154 Amu-Darya Basin Priority 0.8 230.4 1.2 40.3 1.6 71.7
18 5097 Gulf Cenozoic OCS 11.9 140.3 0.0 36.8
19 16 5243 Alberta Basin Priority 15.0 93.7 2.3 32.9 1.3 73
20 17 3127 Bohaiwan Basin Priority 24.6 15.7 0.1 27.3 1.1 74.1
21 18 4035 Northwest German
Basin Priority 2.3 141.7 <0.1 25.9 1.0 75.1
22 19 2058 Grand Erg/Ahnet Basin Priority 0.5 114.2 5.0 24.6 1.0 76.1
23 20 1112 South Caspian Basin Priority 17.4 36.0 0.5 23.9 1.0 77.1
24 5001 Northern Alaska 14.4 33.0 1.1 21.0
25 5058 Anadarko Basin 2.2 93.1 2.8 20.6
26 21 2054 Trias/Ghadames Basin Priority 15.3 25.1 1.0 20.5 0.8 77.9
27 22 1008 Timan-Pechora Basin Priority 13.2 36.6 0.7 20.0 0.8 78.7
28 23 2023 Widyan Basin-Interior
Platform Priority 17.4 7.4 <0.1 18.7 0.8 79.5
29 24 7203 West-Central Coastal Priority 14.5 12.2 0.1 16.6 0.7 80.1
30 5010 San Joaquin Basin 13.8 12.5 0.7 16.6
31 5048 East Texas Basin 9.2 34.8 1.6 16.6
32 25 3144 Songliao Basin Priority 15.5 1.7 0.0 15.8 0.6 80.8
33 5049 Louisiana-Mississippi
Salt Basins 7.1 42.8 1.3 15.6
34 26 3702 Greater Sarawak Basin Priority 0.8 82.3 0.4 14.9 0.6 81.4
35 27 1109 Middle Caspian Basin Priority 9.6 28.7 0.1 14.4 0.6 81.9
36 28 3808 Central Sumatra Basin Priority 13.2 3.9 <0.1 13.9 0.6 82.5
37 29 3701 Baram Delta/Brunei-
Sabah Basin Priority 6.9 36.2 0.2 13.1 0.5 83
38 30 8043 Bombay Priority 8.4 24.2 0.3 12.7 0.5 83.5
39 31 4036 Anglo-Dutch Basin Priority 0.6 71.7 0.1 12.7 0.5 84
40 32 2056 Illizi Basin Priority 3.7 45.1 0.9 12.1 0.5 84.5
41 33 3703 Malay Basin Priority 3.7 48.3 0.3 12.0 0.5 85
42 5043 Palo Duro Basin 1.8 48.4 2.1 11.9
43 34 3817 Kutei Basin Priority 2.9 45.8 1.3 11.8 0.5 85.5
44 35 1050 South Barents Basin Priority 0.0 70.0 0.1 11.8 0.5 86
45 36 1009 Dnieper-Donets Basin Priority 1.6 59.1 0.2 11.7 0.5 86.4
46 37 3948 Northwest Shelf Priority 1.1 56.7 1.0 11.6 0.5 86.9
47 38 6035 Campos Basin Priority 10.1 6.2 <0.1 11.2 0.4 87.3
48 39 2071 Red Sea Basin Priority 9.2 8.5 0.3 10.9 0.4 87.8
49 5014 Los Angeles Basin 8.6 7.0 0.4 10.1
50 5022 San Juan Basin 0.3 38.2 1.4 8.0
http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/WorldEnergy/OF97-463/97463tbl1.html
7 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 01:15:16 PM by Lessismore
To: Drewman626
Although your thesis is probably correct, your data is flawed. The source you posted lists the largest petroleum
producing Companies not countries. You certainly cannot use that as a basis for international oil production. That
being said, I generally support your theories as well as the idea that this is not a war about U.S. access to oil. For
better country information, try here: Energy Information Adminstration
8 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 01:39:31 PM by GallopingGhost
To: Drewman626
Exactly. If this were about oil, we would be allied with Saddam. Or instead of protecting the ethnics with "no-fly
zones" we could have occupied the zones "for their protection".
Notice also that the northern no-fly zone stops just short of the oil fields, leaving them in Saddam's control. Why
would we do that, if we wanted the oil?
Also, the fact is that after the Iran Iraq war, Saddam invited us into his oil industry. By opposing him in Kuwait, we
lost access that we could have had.
And, obviously, we could have traded an end to sanctions any time for access to his oil fields. If thats what it was
about.
9 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 02:29:40 PM by marron
To: Drewman626
I think we should invade Alaska and take our own oil...

10 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 02:36:53 PM by willshaker
To: Drewman626; *war_list; 11th_VA; Libertarianize the GOP; Free the USA; MadIvan; PhiKapMom; ...
OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST
11 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 02:37:10 PM by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Nuke Saddam and his Baby Milk Factories!!)
To: Drewman626
bump
12 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 02:49:10 PM by rolling_stone
To: Drewman626
BTTT
13 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 02:54:28 PM by SW6906
To: Drewman626
Saying this is all about oil is like saying 911 is all about trees. Lumber is an abundant natural resource in the USA,
but it is not the sole identifying atribute of this country, nor is oil for Iraq.
To profess such a pedestrian understanding of a country and their people is to overlook the deeper issues at play
like the fact that saddom is a defeted agressor under terms to disarm. We are living up to our end of the deal (by
stoping the 37 member country coalition in the Iraqi desert, and returning 60,000 surrendered troops), but
saddom is not.
Iraq is under an agreement that brought the suspension of hostilities in 1991. How long that suspension lasts is up to
saddom.
But here's the zinger that shuts them up:
Q: Name for me the oil field that the USA seized in 1991?
14 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 03:04:36 PM by ChadGore (Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an
accordian)
To: Drewman626
The American Left and its international comrades are claiming that the impending war with Iraq is not about
defanging terrorism. Rather, they say, it's all about oil. They argue that President Bush is really motivated by a
desire to seize Iraqi oil for American oil companies (and gas-guzzling American SUV drivers). "No blood for oil!" is
their rallying cry.
No basis has ever been cited for this accusation — perhaps because the accusation makes no sense, as a matter of
basic economics.
Unless the Iraqis drill and sell their oil, it is worthless to them. They must sell it somewhere on the world oil market
to get any gain out of it.
But oil is a fungible commodity, so once they sell it — anywhere — it becomes part of the world oil supply. That
increased supply in turn reduces the world oil price, until some equilibrium is reached between supply and demand.
From that point on, it doesn't matter to anyone where the Iraqi oil actually goes. If it goes to Japan, the Japanese
will buy less oil from Venezuela and Nigeria. More oil from those countries would then go to the U.S. Indeed, as the
oil supply sloshes around on world markets, no one really cares — or keeps track of — where it originated, so long
as it meets quality standards. For all anybody knows or cares, every drop of Iraqi oil could end up at southern
California gas stations.
Moreover, just who do the "war protesters" think Iraq would sell its oil to, in any event? The Western oil
companies, primarily American companies, would be the primary purchasers of Iraqi oil, whether they buy it
directly or circuitously through various middlemen. Who else is going to refine, distribute, and sell the stuff to the
huge Western (and particularly American) consumer market? Have you ever seen or heard of any Iraqi gas
stations?
In short, the oil companies already ultimately get the oil now. They don't need Bush to go to war to get it for them.
The proportion of the world oil supply currently consumed by America will continue to get here one way or
another through world oil markets. If oil producers tried to cut off the huge American consumer market, there
would effectively be a huge drop in the total world demand for their oil — and, consequently, a huge reduction in
the world price.
Who else is going to consume world oil output except American consumers (and those gas-guzzling SUVs)? The
truth is that Middle Eastern oil producers — including Iraq — need America and its consumers a lot more than we
need them. We can always figure out other ways of powering our transportation and warming our homes,
technologically. But has the Middle East ever figured out any way of getting dollars other than pumping and selling
oil?
That is why an oil boycott is ultimately no real threat either. Again, Iraq and other oil producers must sell the oil
somewhere on the world market to get anything out of it. And once they do, they add to the world oil supply and
reduce the price to approach a new supply/demand equilibrium. The world oil market then distributes the available
oil supply to wherever the demand is — which means America and the rest of the West.
Indeed, it is the West that has been restraining Iraqi oil supply since the Gulf War, with various restrictions on Iraqi
oil sales. And it has been the Iraqis who have been pleading to open up their production and sales. An Iraqi oil
boycott is not even remotely an issue today.
So the contention that the impending war is really about oil is senseless as well as being baseless. Which leaves us
with this question: Why is the American Left joining with its foreign comrades to defame America with this silly
and transparently false accusation? Is it really all just about anti-Americanism? Is it really just rooted in a hatred of
American power and an attempt to stop its exercise? Isn't it time they came clean and told the truth?
— Peter Ferrara is director of the International Center for Law and Economics in Fairfax, Va.
15 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 03:13:09 PM by ChadGore (Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an
accordian)
To: Luis Gonzalez
Great article.
If we wanted to gain Oil by conquest we could probably take over Venezuela in a couple of days.
Like most left-wing slogans they collapse into absurdity when subjected to any kind of serious analysis. This is why
liberals fail at talk radio. They trot out slogans that are then promptly shot down by the listeners.
16 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 03:29:31 PM by ggekko
To: Drewman626
BUMP
17 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 03:30:32 PM by GrandMoM (Spare the rod, spoil the child!)
To: Drewman626
I'm going to end this "It's about oil"argument once and for all.
No you're not.
You're simplisticly naive to translate "it's about oil" to a more restrictive "it's about Iraqi oil."
It is Saddam Hussein's ambitions of territorial expansion that threaten political stability, and petroleum resources, in
the entire Persian Gulf region. If this were not true, this regional conflict would be ignored the same as the Hutu
and Tutsis in Africa.
18 posted on Monday, 24 February 2003 06:32:18 AM by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
To: Drewman626
Iraq produces between 3% and 5% of the world's daily oil supply on any given day.
My new favorite line?

"NO OIL FOR PACIFISTS!"
If implentened, that would shrink the Anti-War/Anti-Dubya/Pro-Saddam protests to

about 1 to 5 percent of their size.
Another factoid not often mentioned:

EIGHT PERCENT of the oil imported into California is from...IRAQ.
Californians HAVE to be against war on Iraq not because they are liberals
and care about "collateral damage" death of Iraqi civilans...
the issue for California's "limousine liberals" is just a bottom-line one: "How can I
keep my Benz, Beemer, Land Rover and Hummer H2 gassed up as cheaply as possible!?".
(On average, states import FOUR percent of their oil from Iraq; California is at
twice the national average. These facts drawn from the front page of the Business
section of The Los Angeles Times, Feb 10, 2003, IIRC.)
19 posted on Monday, 24 February 2003 06:41:05 AM by VOA
To: willshaker
Now an Alaskan invasion may be a good idea on paper, but I fear the Inuits and the Athabascan tribes would get
their armies together and resist with nukes and biological weapons, not to mention chemical. Those darn tribes are
worrisome! And what about the Canadian troops in the way? Surely they would not join the tribal cabal and fight
us too...ya think?
Maybe we should look at the new, zillion-acre National Monuments that the Felon roped off in UTah for the
envirowackos. There's more oil, gas and coal there than people realize, but lamentably, we can't get by those dang
ropes, more's the pity. Riady celebrated with the enviros when the Felon closed that territory to development. Why
hasn't Bush opened it up with a Klintoon-like Exec Order along with ANWR? It's a no-brainer, methinks.
20 posted on Monday, 24 February 2003 06:58:06 AM by Paulus Invictus (Coke make)

Disclaime r: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted
herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Free Republic News/Activism

Browse · Search Topics · Post Article
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson

ENOUGH With The "War For Oil" Argument! Here's An End To It, ONCE AND FOR ALL

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ENOUGH With The "War For Oil" Argument! Here's An End To It, ONCE AND FOR ALL

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ENOUGH with the "War for Oil" argument! He...

Free Republic News/Activism

Posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 12:39:02 PM by Drewman626

"Well...um.... but what is there is still worth a lot of money!"

ADD to that the cost of cleaning up after a war.

Feel free to repost.

Article reference: http://www.gravmag.com/oil2.html

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Miscellaneous ; News/Current Events

1 posted on Sunday, 23 February 2003 12:39:02 PM by Drewman626

Rank World of World

excl. Known Petroleum Volumes Volume Volume

of Province Province Assessment Oil Gas NGL Total excl.of excl.of

Foredeep Basin Priority 292.4 298.3 1.8 344.0 13.8 28.1

6 6 2022 Qatar Arch Priority 1.2 465.6 13.8 92.5 3.7 52

9 5047 Western Gulf 26.9 251.6 7.5 76.2

10 5044 Permian Basin 32.7 94.0 6.7 55.0

18 5097 Gulf Cenozoic OCS 11.9 140.3 0.0 36.8

19 16 5243 Alberta Basin Priority 15.0 93.7 2.3 32.9 1.3 73

21 18 4035 Northwest German

Basin Priority 2.3 141.7 <0.1 25.9 1.0 75.1

24 5001 Northern Alaska 14.4 33.0 1.1 21.0

25 5058 Anadarko Basin 2.2 93.1 2.8 20.6

28 23 2023 Widyan Basin-Interior

Platform Priority 17.4 7.4 <0.1 18.7 0.8 79.5

30 5010 San Joaquin Basin 13.8 12.5 0.7 16.6

31 5048 East Texas Basin 9.2 34.8 1.6 16.6

Salt Basins 7.1 42.8 1.3 15.6

37 29 3701 Baram Delta/Brunei-

Sabah Basin Priority 6.9 36.2 0.2 13.1 0.5 83

38 30 8043 Bombay Priority 8.4 24.2 0.3 12.7 0.5 83.5

39 31 4036 Anglo-Dutch Basin Priority 0.6 71.7 0.1 12.7 0.5 84

41 33 3703 Malay Basin Priority 3.7 48.3 0.3 12.0 0.5 85

42 5043 Palo Duro Basin 1.8 48.4 2.1 11.9

49 5014 Los Angeles Basin 8.6 7.0 0.4 10.1

50 5022 San Juan Basin 0.3 38.2 1.4 8.0

I think we should invade Alaska and take our own oil...

But here's the zinger that shuts them up:

To: Luis Gonzalez

My new favorite line?

If implentened, that would shrink the Anti-War/Anti-Dubya/Pro-Saddam protests to

Another factoid not often mentioned:

20 posted on Monday, 24 February 2003 06:58:06 AM by Paulus Invictus (Coke make)

Free Republic News/Activism

Вам также может понравиться