War for oil based on logical reasoning?

www.zmag.org...

Is the US intervention in the Middle East designed to preserve the American way of life as long as possible before an "oil crunch" forever ends capitalism as we know it? Read the link I posted, and while doing so, consider the following:

1) US oil reserves peaked on the Hubbert curve, the point at which half our known reserves had already been pumped out in 1973. Production has been declining ever since.

2) The Arab oil embargo of 1974 badly damaged our economy, ultimately resulting in double digit inflation, and a panic that created gas lines never before seen.

3) US oil reserves at this time are falling fast, and will
soon reach what is called a sink - That is, it will take more energy to remove the oil from the ground than the energy that can be obtained by the oil.

4) If there were to be another embargo, the effects on the economy this time would be catastrophic.

5) The oil supply for the entire world is projected to peak according to the Hubbard curve in 2005. World supplies from that time on will begin decreasing.

6) Ever stop and think why Bush brought oil company people into his cabinet?

7) Ever stop and think why Cheney's energy commission consisted only of oil company executives and power company executives?

8) Ever stop and think why the document that was leaked from the Cheney commission contained maps not only of Iraqi oilfields, but of all the oilfields of the Middle East and Central Asia?

9) France, Germany, Russia, and others who had contracts with Saddam's regime, are very angry at the US. Could it be because their economies will be in a pickle without affordable oil?

10) These European nations also appeared to have influence Saddam's decision to abandon the dollar for the Euro.

11) Production of goods and services requires affordable energy.

12) The concept of Capitalism was built on the concept of production and trade.

13) Without affordable energy, not only will Capitalism and the American way of life cease to be, but mass starvation on an unimaginable scale will spread throughout the world..

14) Alternative energy sources are too far in their infancy to stave off what will happen once the oil crunch happens.

15) You may think Bush dumb, but his advisors are bright people. I believe they see the handwriting on the wall.

Yes, I have seen Bush distort the truth on the Iraqi war, but having read the article, and others like it in the last several days, I am convinced that some in the administration have convinced Bush and other leaders to take a desperate action in an attempt to prolong the future of this country for a time, while exploring options they hope will move us over to alternative energy sources in time. 20 or 30 years is not as long as you think.

Thus, the Iraq war (and other wars in the Middle East) are not so much about Imperialism as survival. It all makes sense to me now. What worries me the most is that this will lead to endless war on a much wider scale in the next 10 years or so, and the rest of the world also fights over the oil.

www.zmag.org...

A few things in bold.

Originally posted by DanaRhea
www.zmag.org...

Is the US intervention in the Middle East designed to preserve the American way of life as long as possible before an "oil crunch" forever ends capitalism as we know it? Read the link I posted, and while doing so, consider the following:

1) US oil reserves peaked on the Hubbert curve, the point at which half our known reserves had already been pumped out in 1973. Production has been declining ever since.

Worth verifying with a second opinion first

2) The Arab oil embargo of 1974 badly damaged our economy, ultimately resulting in double digit inflation, and a panic that created gas lines never before seen.

The man obviously doesn't know what causes inflation and how the money-system in America works.

3) US oil reserves at this time are falling fast, and will
soon reach what is called a sink - That is, it will take more energy to remove the oil from the ground than the energy that can be obtained by the oil.

This term seems pretty stupid, as you don't use oil to pump oil, or at least, you don't have to, solar power wind power and many other alternitives are plenty possible.

On a final note and Dragonrider can answer this, but isn't oil pumped out on its own pressure...the only energy required is to drill. Da?

4) If there were to be another embargo, the effects on the economy this time would be catastrophic.

Then why isn't Opec the main target, not just Iraq?

5) The oil supply for the entire world is projected to peak according to the Hubbard curve in 2005. World supplies from that time on will begin decreasing.

Well lucky us the Hydrogen Fuel Cell by the Japanese is ready for production in cars.

6) Ever stop and think why Bush brought oil company people into his cabinet?

No, because he was once an Oil man himself, he knows more people from those genres.

7) Ever stop and think why Cheney's energy commission consisted only of oil company executives and power company executives?

Uh...it's an Energy Commission, who do you want? Garbage men?

8) Ever stop and think why the document that was leaked from the Cheney commission contained maps not only of Iraqi oilfields, but of all the oilfields of the Middle East and Central Asia?


It would be nice if they provided the doccuments so we know what they are talking about, with contexts, so we'll have a better interpretation.

9) France, Germany, Russia, and others who had contracts with Saddam's regime, are very angry at the US. Could it be because their economies will be in a pickle without affordable oil?

Well it COULD be because of Frances 60billion dollar deal with Saddam, in return for protection in the UN...yah.

10) These European nations also appeared to have influence Saddam's decision to abandon the dollar for the Euro.

Pretty pointless as the Dollar is backed by bonds and therefore monetary systems is not that much of a threat, being on the Euro isn't going to magically hurt the dollar.

11) Production of goods and services requires affordable energy.

Natural Gas, not Oil.

12) The concept of Capitalism was built on the concept of production and trade.

What does that have to do with oil production? Which is a small economic output compared to everything else as a whole. Think big picture.

13) Without affordable energy, not only will Capitalism and the American way of life cease to be, but mass starvation on an unimaginable scale will spread throughout the world..

Uh...nuclear power, wind power, solar power, solar pools, geothermal power, natural gas, hydrostatic electricity, did I miss any?

14) Alternative energy sources are too far in their infancy to stave off what will happen once the oil crunch happens.

Oh yeah forgot about that 1km high tower in Australia that will provide thermal energy from the sun. And no, they aren't in infancy stages, they just are yet to be mass produced and thus still costly. That will go down as dependancy rises.

15) You may think Bush dumb, but his advisors are bright people. I believe they see the handwriting on the wall.

Well good for your beliefs.

Yes, I have seen Bush distort the truth on the Iraqi war, but having read the article, and others like it in the last several days, I am convinced that some in the administration have convinced Bush and other leaders to take a desperate action in an attempt to prolong the future of this country for a time, while exploring options they hope will move us over to alternative energy sources in time. 20 or 30 years is not as long as you think.

Thus, the Iraq war (and other wars in the Middle East) are not so much about Imperialism as survival. It all makes sense to me now. What worries me the most is that this will lead to endless war on a much wider scale in the next 10 years or so, and the rest of the world also fights over the oil.

www.zmag.org...

Answers especially by one person, usually are too incomplete, the man puts too much on economic reasons which really there are none, as we will buy Oil from Iraq like any other nation will, we don't "Own the oil" and if we just wanted the oil we could have said to Saddam "Ok we'll NOT blow you out of the water if you give us complete oil rights."

France must have beat us to that or something...

I'm sorry, but the link you posted qualifies as one of the following:

1. either one of the most ignorance-driven error packed writings I've read on the energy industry

2. intentionally packed with misguiding and disingenuous statments concernng the energy industry.

I don't know which is it...and don't particularly care.

Let's look at a few blatant false and/or misguiding statements:

1. "Halliburton and other US oil concerns are now the beneficiaries of un-tendered Iraq contracts, and their profits are already soaring - and indemnified from lawsuits."

First of all, too state "Halliburton and other US oil concerns" is an attempt to misguide the uneducated public. Note the use of the word "concerns". This is done intentionally, knowing that the general populace will take this as US oil companies, US oil majors. As far as I know there is NO US oil company involved in Iraq as a consequence of the military action. Halliburton is NOT a US oil company.

Second, "un-tendered Iraq contracts". This one is an outright falsehood. The contract under which Halliburton is working in Iraq (as well as other major US contractors who may be working in Iraq and other areas of the world right now) is a TENDERED contract. Major contractors for certain services, in this instance large scale reconstruction and engineering services, are tendered at certain intervals and the winner of that contract serves in that capacity for a given number of years (stipulated in the contract). When the contract expires, the filling of that major contract position, for those required services is re-tendered. Halliburton is currently serving on a contract that it won in I believe 1997 (I'll recheck the year, but it was either 97 or 95) for some set period of time. That contract was won through a standard tendering process.

2. The statement you made "more energy to remove the oil from the ground than can be obtained from the oil", based on the statement quoted by Yongquist in the report. BOTH statements are nonsensical. They make absolutely no sense either scientifically or process wise. The chart included in the report:

www.zmag.org...

doesn't even back what Yongquist states. It merely shows the "barrels/foot drilled" versus the year. What the heck is that? Okay, so if we have an upsurge in exploratory (wild-cat) drilling that nets a big bunch of dry-holes what's the "energy in vs energy out" equation for that one? And what of shallow wells versus deep wells?

The REAL statement to be made is "the money required to extract the oil can (at any given moment) exceed the money that can be made from the extracted oil", especially if a cartel is controlling the price at the time you drill. That is why low-producing wells are (and have been since oil-production started) shut-in and abandoned when the price of oil drops. Those same abandoned wells can be brought back on line very quickly if the price of oil increases enough to make them profitable.

What is more I see no reference (is this deck stacking???) that the middle east oilfields have been over produced by the greedy little Saudis et. al. to the point that their returns are SIGNIFCANTLY deteriorated AND they are increasingly resorting to enhancement, reworks, stimulations and remedial actions to try to keep their reservoirs producing because they didn't follow sound reservoir management techniques but instead produced balls-to-the-walls until they have gotten themselves in a 9 line bind!

One big bag of poppycock.

I�d agree with FreeMason in most points but several need clarification.

On renewable energies, you forgot Ocean Theremal Energy Conversion.

www.nrel.gov...

For the price of this war, we could�ve built several large-scale OTEC facilities that would�ve greatly reduced our dependency on oil and created thousands of jobs.

On Euro conversion, any large switchover would have devastating impact on the exchange rate and our economy.

On Iraq�s oil, why buy when you can steal?

www.floridatoday.com...!NEWSROOM/peoplestoryA1172A.htm

Ethanol can easily replace gasoline in fact prior to W.W.II it was the standard. With respect to the oil crisis in the 70s note that just prior to it stopping, that is exactly what the US started doing (coincidence???).

If oil were to switch to the euro as a standard it could hurt the economy of the US. But if the US responded by mass producing Ethanol for gasoline and building cars designed for Ethanol. The price of oil would drop so low the next time OPEC met it would be outdoors.

Converting a vehicle which runs on oil based gasoline to one which runs on ethanol based gasoline requires adding a part to the fuel system. If the US government afforded Americans with a tax incentive, in the end it would be free. Otherwise, it would run about $25 for the part and 1/2 labor to install (its easy to install).

Ethanol is based upon corn and very inexpensive to process into gasoline. Literally, for the price of 75 cents a gallon we can set up vast makeshift warehouses in the desert for a climate controlled environment (security as well). In no way would it interfere with the ability of the US to maintain her current to supply food to the world.

The price of gasoline based on oil should drop of course but very likely the response by OPEC would be to lower production and maintain the prices. That would result in a public outcry which would could be heard all the way to Neptune.

The reality is anyone can grow corn, enough corn to supply their country needs with gasoline. Motor oil for engines and heating oil for homes can be based upon synthetics. The only thing we really need oil for today is plastics and the only reason that is a problem is the planet is running out of mineral recourses (ore's and precious metals).

There is a way to get that of course but there is only one real problem, its called terrorism.

By the way he funny thing is, Ethanol is actually safer for the environment.

Any thoughts?

Toltec, are there any down sides to converting to ethanol?

The Iraq war was fought for a number of reasons, oil is part of the picture, the energy situation will get better now that the US can buy Iraqi oil, and they certainly would not have wanted Saddam to sell it all in euros.

But the real reason for this war and for the Afghan war is that after september the eleventh, Bush and Blair have decided they need to re-organise the world to make it safer for the west. The Mullahs in Iran are almost certainly next to fall, whether there will be a war is another story, they aren't actually very popular in Iran.

The main reason we, in the UK were dragged into this war was that Tony Blair thought it important not to isolate the US, notice his desperation to get the UN resolution.

I don't think we will see any wars until after the US election, if the Bush administration gets another term war in Iran and North Korea will be almost certain.

Dana, thanks for your post and by the way welcome to ATS. This is your first post, you will get used to the bush buffoons that infest us here, if you decide to stay here after their first display of imbecility. I apologize to you in the name of all thinking ATS members.

Your article is excellent invitation for discussion. Check out Emmanuel Todd : dominionpaper.ca...




[Edited on 10-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

I tend to draw my own conclusions based on what I can find from multiple sources, not just one. Just follow the news trail. Here's a few telling links that I base my opinion on as to the main objectives of what I like to call Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL for short).

www.corpwatch.org...

"Halliburton Makes a Killing on Iraq War : Cheney's Former Company Profits from Supporting Troops"

"Cheney served as chief executive of Halliburton until he stepped down to become George W. Bush's running mate in the 2000 presidential race. Today he still draws compensation of up to a million dollars a year from the company, although his spokesperson denies that the White House helped the company win the contract. "

www.smh.com.au...

"Oil ministry an untouched building in ravaged Baghdad"

"Since US forces rolled into central Baghdad a week ago, one of the sole public buildings untouched by looters has been Iraq's massive oil ministry, which is under round-the-clock surveillance by troops.

"...while museums, banks, hotels and libraries have been ransacked, the oil ministry remains secure."

www.cbsnews.com...

"Coalition Forces Secure Oil Fields"

"In one of the first moves of the ground assault Thursday, U.S. and British troops captured the tip of the strategic al-Faw peninsula, a gathering point for the pipelines that carry crude from southern Iraq to the export terminals of Mina al-Bakr and Khor al-Amaya in the Persian Gulf.

www.globalpolicy.org...

"US, Allies Clash Over Plan to Use Iraqi Oil Profits for Rebuilding"

"The White House maintains that Iraq's oil revenue is essential to financing the country's postwar reconstruction. The administration intends to install a senior American oil executive to oversee Iraq's exploration and production." (This was April 3, so 5 months ago.)

And the kicker, which strangely went unreported in the States:

www.guardian.co.uk...

"Future oil sales may be pawned to banks "

"American officials are considering a plan to use Iraq's future oil and gas revenues as collateral to raise cash to rebuild the country. "

www.guardian.co.uk...

"Anne Pettifor, head of the Jubilee Plus debt relief campaign, said 'It is outrageous that the poor people of Iraq will be lumbered with billions of dollars of debt that will be used to boost the share prices of Wall Street financiers and US construction giants"

If you're any good at all at playing connect the dots, you should see that oil was and is a HUGE concern, if not necessarily the main one.

Jakomo

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Dana, thanks for your post and by the way welcome to ATS. This is your first post, you will get used to the bush buffoons that infest us here, if you decide to stay here after their first display of imbecility. I apologize to you in the name of all thinking ATS members.

Your article is interesting. Check out Emmanuel Todd : dominionpaper.ca...



[Edited on 10-8-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

What my friend from Spain means is there are people who do not blindly buy every piece of writing that comes down the pike. Moku is of the mindset that if it says America in general, Bush in specific, is bad, one should eat it, believe it and not question it.

Valhall was very on point when she said it was chock full of errors, and the author did not even try to hide the fact that he has a political agenda.

By the way, Dana, welcome to our community.

The funny thing is...George w bush's texas ranch home is the model of conservational energy. It is completely solar powered. It recycles all it waste water and draws it original water from a well 200 feet under the property. Its also is stocked for 6 months of comfortable underground living.
There are absolutely other energy sources available. the problem is that as oil becomes more scarce oil companies will see their profits soar. Why would these companies turn down potential record profits to help find a new energy source??? This is why they throw their lobbying weight around to make sure that solar power is always "50 years in the future". There are some 80,000 homes in america that are 70 to 100% completely solar powered. The technology exists now!
The major companies will not look at making this technology available and affordable on a large scale until they can figure out how to put a meter between us and the sun. Isn't capitalism great??!!!

[you are absolutely free]

Moku, the author of your article has made a couple errors that are most glaring. The first one is that the Soviet Empire was going to fall because the world was too large and dynamic to accept an Empire. This he wrote in 1976. While he was right in the fact that the Soviet Empire would fall, his reasoning was wrong. Being right for the wrong reasons is the same as being plain wrong.
Secondly, American hegemony is not the same thing as an American empire. Neither is the amount of manufactured goods sold. If that were the case, we would be nothing more than a part of a Chinese empire.
Another thing to keep in mind is we are not set up, governmentally, to create an empire. Those who do not understand U.S. government miss that point when they accuse us of the silly notion of empire-building.

You are misquoting the link i posted, is this another ridiculous attempt at disrupting truthful discussion ?

A very good opening post, Dana because - while obviously written with the economic breadth of vision of a squirrel - it opens the way for sane discussion of no end of economic and geoploitical points.
And sound ripostes from F-m and valhall (scratching the surface -patricularly the bit about "backed by bonds":do we remember Volker? but that's to the good on a board: it makes space for comments.
And no mean link from Moku (the outrageous Todd: a chap with an eye for a camera if ever there was one -is a big name on the Continent, if little known in English-speaking circles, and a controversialist. Ex-Bolshie, anthropologist ( not an economist) and not un-American; but no idiot either - they don't give away Cambridge doctorates - (albeit a trifle journalistic: the remarks on Philippine Spain wouldn't last 2 minutes among Iberian historians without massive qualification).
I'm all for these topics that encourage a little research and the presentations of facts and arguments.

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
You are misquoting the link i posted, is this another ridiculous attempt at disrupting truthful discussion ?

No more so than your ridiculous post on The US is "using" banned chemical agents in Iraq..... talk about "disrupting truthful duscussion".....
Word games....nothing more nothing less.
Taste great, less filling.

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 10-8-2003 by Seekerof]

As for energy and oil: what I fancy we shall see, long before windmills are everywhere is the effect of the supply and demand cycle on the exploitation of presently "uneconomic" oil reserves (oil sands and sulphur-oil and the like) These are vast and are largely ignored only because the stuff flows like water in Arab-land.
Oil will be here for a long, long time.
I must say, though, that a point above is one I think should be treated very seriously: oil is a massively valuable chemical resource: it's not just there to be burnt into dirt and gas and water to turn wheels round.

Originally posted by Estragon
As for energy and oil: what I fancy we shall see, long before windmills are everywhere is the effect of the supply and demand cycle on the exploitation of presently "uneconomic" oil reserves (oil sands and sulphur-oil and the like) These are vast and are largely ignored only because the stuff flows like water in Arab-land.
Oil will be here for a long, long time.
I must say, though, that a point above is one I think should be treated very seriously: oil is a massively valuable chemical resource: it's not just there to be burnt into dirt and gas and water to turn wheels round.

I agree with this post spot-on. To make one point though, it is ironic that you refer to the Arab oil flowing like "water". This is the very issue that now has many of the OPEC countries turning to remediation instead of steady-state production or drilling. They depleted their reservoirs so quickly that they now have an ever increasing encroachment of water in their production. (High numbers of water-driven reservoir over there.)

One of the most crippling things to happen to alternative energy efforts was when the alternative energy credit was eliminated under Reagan. This needs to be re-enstated. I have no problem admitting when my political side of the equation does something wrong. I don't know why this error in judgment has not been corrected to date. (And that includes wondering why Clinton's administration didn't do something about it.) Many alternative energy developers ended up in bankruptcy court after this tax credit, which was enacted by Carter to foster consumer use of solar and wind power generation, as well as alternative auto fuels, was eliminated.

If I were Canadian, I'd be crapping in my pants by now if I followed the logic of the original post in this thread.

After all, that's the country which is the biggest exporter of oil to the US.

I await Canuck Storm with bated breath.

Perish the thought, Leveller; but I was in Alberta in late Winter and their expectations with regard to their oil-sands are vast, they'll probably secede and become the 51st state or declare the Sultanate of Deadmonton or Caliphate of Calgary!

And on tax-breaks,Valhall is absolutely correct:it is madness not to encourage vigorous and substantial investment in alternative vehicle-fuels in the world's most car-reliant nation and economy. Tinkering with emission-controls is all very noble but it's a bit late: the petrol has already been consumed.
In Japan, Toshiba is doing revolutionary work on ethanol fuel-cells for lap-tops (lap-tops, forsooth!!): why isn't the US using its fiscal base to do the same for vehicles? It's probably doing it for drones and satellites and submarines: why not common or garden cars?

Peace there are no real down sides to such a conversion, unless you count destroying the Arab economy.

Of course that would affect a lot of people, but at the same time what is going on now is having a detrimental affect. Not only upon many more people but with respect to many more industries.

Any thoughts?

[Edited on 12-8-2003 by Toltec]