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.

 

What if most of the worlds remaining oil was not in the ME but in the US?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I want to know what you guys think on how everything would be different if the US had the all oil instead of the middle east and will be left with the all the rest of the oil in the world.

Key factors we need to think about are:

- wars
- money and wealth the USA would have
- how powerful the USA would be
- if the rest of the world may be poor
- what would the Middle East be like
- would there be terrorists
- hate on the USA
- technology of the USA
- average annual income of USA
- average annual income of the rest of the world
- will US be a true hyperpower
- would US be involved with wars in other countries like the way they do right now
- would there be wars with the US and who would go to war with them
- size of military
- how much land the US will have either by take over by force or they bought the land
- Oil costs in USA
- Oil costs of world
- ability of US to win wars
- Trade
- Relationships
- Will there be the same allies?

And remember if anyone went to war with the USA they would cut off oil trade leaving their military unable to fuel their war machines.

You do not have to use those exact factors you can still come up with your own but I feel that those will be the most significant.




posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I live in Western Pennsylvania where the whole oil well business started. Several people that I have met have stated that there is still plenty of oil under Pennsylvania and other States. The original reasons for obtaining oil from the Middle East is that it requires shallower, cheaper wells and it enabled the oil companies to get away from a growing environmentalist movement.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildcat
- wars

Yes, we would. Anytime you have two or competing wills that can not reach an agreement diplomatically, you get a war.


Originally posted by wildcat
- money and wealth the USA would have

It would still be pouring into China. If we have the raw materials, but they add the value, more money will go that way than our way.


Originally posted by wildcat
- what would the Middle East be like

"Miles and miles of fart-all" just like before. God, I hope I never have to go there.


Originally posted by wildcat
- would there be terrorists

yes, as sure as there are Frenchmen.


Originally posted by wildcat
- would US be involved with wars in other countries like the way they do right now

No. What we do now is just silliness.


Originally posted by wildcat
- how much land the US will have either by take over by force or they bought the land

What land are you talking about? Land already within the US boarder or outside?


Originally posted by wildcat
- Relationships

No, my wife would still hate me.


Originally posted by wildcat
- Will there be the same allies?

Yes, and then some.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildcat

- wars


Most likely would be USA involved

- money and wealth the USA would have


Lots of it, remember there is much much more oil in the USA than the whole world combined in this scenario. China would have to buy oil off the US and the US will buy goods from China.

- how powerful the USA would be


More money triple the military spending which enables the US to have more vehicles, aircraft, guns, etc.

- if the rest of the world may be poor


Only if the US decides not to trade with the other nations leaving them oil less and economic failure.

- what would the Middle East be like


Nothing but poor desert wasteland, Iran and other enemy Middle East nations would be weak and Isreal will be the one to claim itself most powerfull of that region.

- would there be terrorists


Oil terrorists. They would go on and on about the selfishness of the US and probably try anything to get the USA's attention on their weak lands.

- hate on the USA


The US would have little reason to ever go into the Middle East in thwe first place unless the terrorists are able to attack the US which is highly unlikely because
there would be no wealth with Osama because his homeland would have no oil to gain wealth.

- technology of the USA


Better than everyone elses.

- average annual income of USA


Alot more than right now. Very little homeless and lowerclass.

- average annual income of the rest of the world


All on the mercy of the US for oil unless be able to make a profit like China from goods.

- will US be a true hyperpower


Probably based on wealth and military.

- would US be involved with wars in other countries like the way they do right now



Not in the Middle East.

- would there be wars with the US and who would go to war with them



Who ever is able to fuel their machines with oil and launch an attack. But the allies which would be more numerous would strike back along with the USA before they are ever in the position to do damage. All wars with the US would be futile because of lack of oil.

- size of military



Not as large as it is now because of benefits from technology.

- how much land the US will have either by take over by force or they bought the land



Saying as if the US wishes more land like they did in the early days then yes, they would have more land in thier possesion than now.

- Oil costs in USA



Because of how much there is in it and how the money greed ways, oil would not be free and it would cost less than a dollar.

- Oil costs of world



However the US chooses to supply them with oil.

- ability of US to win wars



Everywar

- Trade


China would probably be the largest trade partner.

- Relationships



Same and more.


- Will there be the same allies?



Most likely.

This is what I think and it may not be exact but I feel it represents the most probable everything will be like in that scenario.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
uh oh, I cant fix it right now I'm tires so only a mod can fix it.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildcat
- wars
Most likely would be USA involved

- money and wealth the USA would have
Lots of it, remember there is much much more oil in the USA than the whole world combined in this scenario. China would have to buy oil off the US and the US will buy goods from China.

- how powerful the USA would be
More money triple the military spending which enables the US to have more vehicles, aircraft, guns, etc.

- if the rest of the world may be poor
Only if the US decides not to trade with the other nations leaving them oil less and economic failure.

- what would the Middle East be like
Nothing but poor desert wasteland, Iran and other enemy Middle East nations would be weak and Isreal will be the one to claim itself most powerfull of that region.

- would there be terrorists
Oil terrorists. They would go on and on about the selfishness of the US and probably try anything to get the USA's attention on their weak lands.

- hate on the USA
The US would have little reason to ever go into the Middle East in thwe first place unless the terrorists are able to attack the US which is highly unlikely because
there would be no wealth with Osama because his homeland would have no oil to gain wealth.

- technology of the USA
Better than everyone elses.

- average annual income of USA
Alot more than right now. Very little homeless and lowerclass.

- average annual income of the rest of the world
All on the mercy of the US for oil unless be able to make a profit like China from goods.

- will US be a true hyperpower
Probably based on wealth and military.

- would US be involved with wars in other countries like the way they do right now

Not in the Middle East.

- would there be wars with the US and who would go to war with them
Who ever is able to fuel their machines with oil and launch an attack. But the allies which would be more numerous would strike back along with the USA before they are ever in the position to do damage. All wars with the US would be futile because of lack of oil.

- size of military
Not as large as it is now because of benefits from technology.

- how much land the US will have either by take over by force or they bought the land
Saying as if the US wishes more land like they did in the early days then yes, they would have more land in thier possesion than now.

- Oil costs in USA
Because of how much there is in it and how the money greed ways, oil would not be free and it would cost less than a dollar.

- Oil costs of world
However the US chooses to supply them with oil.

- ability of US to win wars
Everywar

- Trade
China would probably be the largest trade partner.

- Relationships
Same and more.


- Will there be the same allies?
Most likely.

This is what I think and it may not be exact but I feel it represents the most probable everything will be like in that scenario.


It would be nice if the world were that simple, but the US, China, and other countries are not just individuals and oil is not the single important factor, or even commodity in the world. A couple of points:

-Known reserves of American oil are largely in some very difficult places like shale and sand.

-Even if the oil were easily tapped, there would be no magic spigot to influence thinking in other countries. No one in the US could simply say to get in line or you get cut off. Alternatives exist, and new ones will come on line. Not everyone would take such threats lying down.

-The federal government does not own a lot of the land and the executive can not just decree that the shale be stripped and steamed (or whatever they do with it). The US is still a federal republic, and individual entities still have powers and rights. There would be a constitutional crisis of some sort. Even in most dictatorships decisions are seldom made exclusively by one individual.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Also, if there were a magic spigot, it is likely that those in the US would behave similarly to the way the Spanish did when they had the magic gold supply or the way people in many suddenly oil-rich countries behave now: As if the privilege is their right, so they do not need to work, learn, or improve in any way. Hmmm. Funny, but that is the way many Americans already think. This is particularly evident in the behavior and opinions of those under 25, from whom I encounter the “I’m breathing; therefore, I deserve” mentality all the time.

And, although commodities such as oil are important to the execution of wars, they do not guarantee success. The US went to war with oceans of cheap oil in the 1960s and still lost. Control of oil was not the determining factor.

And, do you really want oil to cost less than $1 a barrel? I doubt it. Domestic production was held to the artificially low level of $6 a barrel until the 1970s. I can not see how it would ever be $1 a barrel. Plus, if it were, would the general population be very respectful of it? Look what happened during the 1990s flood of supply. Cars got way bigger, and people bought then up. I think that Americans, Chinese, and others would simply waste it. Harsh realities, such as higher fuel prices, lead to innovation, and innovation sometimes changes life significantly for the better.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   


posted by JIMC5499

I live in West Pa where the oil business started . . there is still plenty of oil under Pennsylvania and other States . . The original reason for obtaining oil from the Middle East is that it requires shallower, cheaper wells and enabled oil companies to get away from a growing environmentalist movement. [Edited by Don W]


Before the advent of chemically modified oils, PA crude was the creme d’ la creme in lubricating oils. Quaker State. Pennzoil. Valvoline. And a dozen other less well known brands. Macmillian. Wynn’s Friction Proofing Oil. Marvel Mystery Oil. As automotive engineering raised the ante in both compression ratios and bearing clearances, the need for chemical additives made the base oil less important.

American wells are indeed deeper than Persian Gulf wells. We have extracted all the easy to get oil. Estimates vary on how much is left in the ground, but I assure you all of it is going to cost much more than we are willing to pay. Both in direct costs and indirect environmental damage.

Considering the BP mess at Prudhoe Bay, I don’t think the oil companies have gotten very far away from the environmental movement. To which I must add, And Thank You God for Little Things.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   


posted by Moon Pie

“ . . if there were a magic [oil] spigot, the US would behave the way the Spanish did when they had the magic gold supply or the way people in many suddenly oil-rich countries behave now: As if the privilege is their right, so they do not need to work, learn, or improve in any way. [Edited by Don W]


Nationalizing the oil (and all underground resources) would solve that problem in the biggest way. That process was interrupted in Iran in 1953 by the US and GB and is the root cause of today’s Hezbollah and etc. if we had left the Iranians alone, we’d have a different world. Socialists don’t engage in aggressive or pre-emptive wars. Why is that?



This is particularly evident in the behavior and opinions of those under 25, from whom I encounter the “I’m breathing; therefore, I deserve” mentality all the time.


As a person of grand-parent age, I notice that. Yet it is not a simple problem to diagnose. Even more difficult is to pronounce a cure. It may be somewhat reassuring to know that Socrates was killed because he excited and inspired the youth of Athens to rebel.



“ . . do you really want oil to cost less than $1 a barrel? I doubt it. Domestic production was held to the artificially low level of $6 a barrel until the 1970s.


I’m not sure I can agree with your statement about “held” to a low price of $6 a bbl. The Texas Railroad Commission set the price of oil. Since oil men own Texas, I don’t think the price was “held low” but rather the supply was held low to raise the price to $6.

The trip-wire for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was our embargo of oil. We left the Japanese no option but to expand into Borneo and Indonesia - both Dutch and English - and they knew we would not allow that. The Japanese believed the war would be short. They were wrong.

I will say this. I am surprised to see gasoline as cheap as it is. When you figure a bbl of crude costs $70 or more, and there are 42 gallons in a bbl, and you cannot refine it 100%, then to get gas for $3 equals $126 per bbl.

The oil must be pumped, shipped by tanker, refined, re-shipped by pipeline and finally delivered by truck, then sold at retail. Royalties are paid and profits are made. Darn little taxes. All out of the difference between $70 and $126, about 56 bucks.


[edit on 8/8/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I did not say barrel I meant gas prices at the gas station. I'm talking about oil in every state and less time to ship it away as well as less distance. Lets just say this is shallow oil.

[edit on 8-8-2006 by wildcat]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Nationalizing the oil (and all underground resources) would solve that problem in the biggest way. That interrupted process in Iran in 1953 by the US and GB is the root cause of today’s Hezbollah and etc. if we had left the Iranians alone, we’d have a different world. Socialists don’t engage in aggressive or pre-emptive wars. Why is that?

One of the worst things that a government can do is nationalize resources. Just in oil world, one can look at Libya, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia to see what happens. Nothing new coming out of those places. If it were not for the oil, there would be no serious economy in them either.

Why "real" socialists do not engage in those types of wars: Because they know they will have a hard time winning. For one thing, the zeitgeist is one of entitlement, not service. Public support wanes quickly in that kind of environment.


Originally posted by donwhiteI’m not sure I can agree with your statement about “held” to a low price of $6 a bbl. The Texas Railroad Commission set the price of oil. Since oil men own Texas, I don’t think the price was “held low” but rather the supply was held low to raise the price to $6.

It is entirely possible that I got the government element wrong. It has been a few years... However, the price was low (Oil Price Graph in 2004 Dollars) from 1947 to 1973, as the long trailing black line shows. (Itis under the red line on those times.) And it was US production and influence that kept it that way. Also, Texas oilmen of that period had a vested interest in keeping production in the US when the rest of the world was nationalizing the resources. They could not make as much money off the foreign stuff.


Originally posted by donwhite
The trip-wire for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was our embargo of oil. We left the Japanese no option but to expand into Borneo and Indonesia - both Dutch and English - and they knew we would not allow that. The Japanese believed the war would be short. They were wrong. [edit on 8/8/2006 by donwhite]

And yet they learned from their mistakes. Now they use commerce, diplomacy, and innovation to get what they need. They still do not "own" any more oil than they did then.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join