It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The real cost of gas - $12 per gallon!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Mike Whitney has done some calculations about how much gas is really costing the American consumer. He's factored in the cost of the Iraq war and how much the barrel price has risen (over $72/barrel as of Tuesday).

In 2002, before the war, Saddam was producing 2.6 million barrels of oil per day even with the debilitating sanctions still in place. Currently, (given the success of Iraqi resistance attacks on pipelines) Iraqi oil production has dropped to a meager 1.1 million barrels per day. In other words, Bush’s war has taken 1.5 million barrels a day “off line”; the precise amount the global market requires to reduce prices to the $45 per barrel range.

Consider this: the United States has spent roughly $300 billion on the war so far. At 1.1 million barrels per day (396 million barrels per year) we are currently spending $274 per barrel which translates into $12 per gallon at the pump.

$12 per gallon!!!

This represents the greatest surcharge on petroleum the world has ever seen. Think of it as the Bush Gas Tax, a boondoggle that quadruples the price of gas while killing 2,400 American servicemen and 100,000 Iraqis in the process.


Now, of course, people are going to say that it's all to 'liberate' the Iraqi people. But they don't think they're liberated. Quite the reverse. They know for a fact that they're occupied. There's absolutely no justification for this war, let's face it...

[edit on 27-4-2006 by rich23]Wtf? this is the third time I've tried to put the source in. It should be here.

[edit on 27-4-2006 by rich23]




posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Okay, its a bad day for me physically, so maybe I am looking at this wrong.

I can't get the figures to add up like you are posting. It may be just me not running the figures correctly.

Do you have a link to how this was figured? The sample that you posted doesn't seem to work.

Thanks,

JDub



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I appreciate if you give us the link so we can reach our own conclusions and agree with you or not.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
While the “point” is made either way, his math and logic are flawed (actually out right silly).

His math only supports what 1.1 million barrels out of Iraq are costing us, not how his argument affects what’s actually being charged at the pumps.

And I would love to see his explanation for the oil company’s profits that curiously match how much gas is inflated by.

Again, his math does NOT support his point like he thinks it does.

But, I do get the point none the less.


[edit on 27-4-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Whew!

*wipes sweat off of forehead*

I thought it was just me with my brain haze kicking in!

JDub



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
So at first everyone was saying Bush was going into Iraq for Oil!!! I remember when I was in D.C. and there was a protest to the war and people were picketing with sign's saying "No blood for Oil" Now you are saying it is Bush's fault for not giving us oil from Iraq? Wow....Get a life!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
According to the Institute for Analysis if Global Security (IAGS) the actual cost of gas is between $5 and $6 a gallon when you factor in war cost. Of course some of this is speculation when you factor in defense budgets that could have dual use. Your estimate of $12 a gallon is a slightly exaggerated rate.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I think the original poster was talking about how much we are paying for iraqi oil.

of course bush went into iraq for oil. He knew a war in that region would inflate oil prices putting a few extra dollars into his and his buddies pockets. He didn't necessarily go in their to get the US some oil now. just messing with the oil markets so some of his rich supporters could make some extra cash.

if we "win" the war, this meaning the iraqi government is actually our friend once we "win", then maybe the war will affect our oil prices in a benificial manner.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Sorry about the problems posting the source. And I'm really just trying to get a debate started here. You can argue the figures all you want, I really don't mind, and indeed I'm glad of it... but the cost of the war is also open to debate. Some people would put it at
$2 trillion..

Those of you with a thirst for detail will find the Stiglitz paper here.

Assuming that to be right, anyone want to calculate the real cost of a gallon?

I realise I have no idea how many gallons of gas come out of 1 barrel of crude. I suspect it's nowhere near a simple division of the volume - gallons per barrel. Any figures?

[edit on 27-4-2006 by rich23]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Theres something fishy.

Okay, they want you to believe gas prices are raised because of the fact that oil barrel prices have skyrocketed. Makes sense, they have to keep a profit, if they have to pay more for the barrels, they have to sell the refined gas at a higher price.

So, why are they making record profits?

If it was TRUE, and it was because they're paying more for oil, it would only make sense that theyre profits would stay the same, after all, any money theyre making extra is going in to pay for the increased prices of oil they need to buy.

Thats fishy, very fishy.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
That is true for the oil companies - they're padding their profits, I believe.

However, what the original article I posted does at least - whether or not the figures are strictly accurate, which is certainly open to debate - is to acknowledge that there are hidden costs which inflate the real price still further. Not only paying through the pump, but also through taxation.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dialsoap
So at first everyone was saying Bush was going into Iraq for Oil!!! I remember when I was in D.C. and there was a protest to the war and people were picketing with sign's saying "No blood for Oil" Now you are saying it is Bush's fault for not giving us oil from Iraq? Wow....Get a life!!!!!!!


Thanks for adding nothing to the debate.

Dubya's pals in the oil companies are doing very nicely, as at least one other thread on this website will demonstrate.

The point is to keep control of the oil reserves. Greater and greater demand is now chasing less and less of the stuff still in the ground. Whoever gets control of most of the reserves, wins. It's so not about cheaper gas at the pumps.

And, yes, I certainly think that the warmongering idiots-in-charge thought it would be much much easier to get the oil out of the ground in Iraq. They actually seemed to believe that the Iraqis would be so pleased to be 'liberated' they wouldn't notice the country being asset-stripped and sold out from underneath them. This was a shockingly naive miscalculation.

[edit on 27-4-2006 by rich23]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
rich23

You got it right, yes oil was the bonus into going to Iraq, rather than say that it was a war for oil it sounds better if we say that it was to safeguard oil reserves in order to keep control of future energy markets.

Yes is been profiteering in Iraq as now and it has been going on for a while, but the public has been kept in the dark.

Still is nothing compare to the full potential of having Iraq working at full capacity.



At least the big guys in the oil industry are very glad that Iraq will eventually fall into their rightful hands one day.


[edit on 27-4-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Hey Marg -

but do you think they'll ever actually get Iraq working at full capacity? I suspect that as long as there are permanent bases in Iraq, there will be an insurgency trying to ensure that the oil supplies are disrupted, at the very least. It's just such a mess... and it looks like there's going to be more of the same in Iran soon. Isn't that just [sarcasm] ginger peachy?[/sarcasm]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Hey Marg -

there will be an insurgency trying to ensure that the oil supplies are disrupted, at the very least.


Yes it's a mess and that is the reason that the pushing for a establish government has been make into a big deal.

I have the feeling that US is blaming Iran for the insurgency in Iraq and keeping Iran in the war path will help with getting Iraq in the right track, Eventually.

But let me ask you, with all the oil reserves under the Iraqi sands do you thing that is not worth the fight?

Perhaps for us the American people it seems like a waste of money, lives and time.

But for the profiteers of oil is worth the effort because the rewards will be great.

At least is not danger of the oil in Iraq falling In the wrong hands as long as US have his present in that country.


It could be in Chinas hands by now you know.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Here we start to diverge. I think that Americans' assumption that the ME oil should be in US hands is kind of arrogant, on a par with Germans' assumption that because they needed lebensraum, it was ok for them to invade Poland. China's a developing economy and they have way, way more people than the US. Why shouldn't they be able to access that oil? So far, remember, they've acted peacefully - they've struck trade agreements, not waged war or overthrown governments, which the US has done in that region again, and again, and again.

Let's not forget that the US overthrew the thriving democracies of both Iran and Iraq in the fifties, installing the Shah in one and the Baath party in the other - even paying Saddam himself to take a pot-shot at (democratically elected) President Qasim. It's because the US installed the Shah and trained his hated Savak death squads that the US embassy was known, at the time of the 1979 revolution, as "the nest of spies".

Ultimately, why should 5% of the world's populaton control over 50% of the world's resources? Because they have the world's most powerful military? It might be a pragmatic reason, but there's no moral justification for it.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Well that is the way of nations, politics and oil as been the most important commodity available in the world.

China has already pledge its financial influences in Iran, Venezuela and many other countries in South America.

China has vast investments in the American dollar, they have not deficit and they are emerging as a great economical power.

They can very well become the demise of the US influences in the world.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Oh Marg... (wails) why can't we all just get along!?

At least China are just trading. Trade is ok, war less so, for me at least. Others, as you so rightly point out, are making big $$$.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join