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.

 

Energy wars: Iraq and oil

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 07:54 AM
link   
....the middle East, particularly Iraq and Iran, since they seem to be the focal point for possible military attack by the United States in the not too distant future.
- February 28, 2002

"Dwindling global supplies of conventional oil, slow development and acceptance of alternative forms of energy, high costs needed to tap into unconventional sources and instability on the geopolitical front that will ensure that energy wars remain at the forefront well into the 21st century"
Energy wars! editorial


Without argument, we can all accept the following facts:

- The threat that Saddam posed was largley overestimated/exaggerated
during the build up to the war in the Iraq.

- Iraq sits atop the world’s second-largest reserves of oil — a resource that translates into hundreds of billions of dollars and enormous economic power.

-There is a clear connection between the Bush administration and the energy industry. Many of Bush's cabinet, just like himself, were picked out of the oil industry.
Open secrets.org - Bush administration corporate connections

- The U.S now has more power and military potential in the middle east region.

So why such a struggle for many to believe the connection between the war in Iraq and oil supplies. It is a fact that America's oil supplies are starting to get smaller, as most countries will soon find. Is the new drive into the middle east just the beginning of the 'energy wars' that some geologists and theorists are predicting? Is it not a question of America actully using the oil but a question of controlling the oil.

About Iraq and oil, from Bush:
It is not a factor,” President Bush’s press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said last month. “This is about preserving the peace and saving the lives of Americans.”

"U.S. oil deposits are increasingly depleted and by 2025, U.S. oil imports will account for perhaps 70 percent of total domestic demand. It needs to control the world's reserves -- and don't tell me that the United States would have invaded Iraq if its chief export was beetroot -- and it now has control of perhaps 25 percent of the world's reserves. "

Independant article: Us can't hide concern for Iraq's Oil


Overview of Iraq:

Known reserves
112 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia or Canada in the world.
There are also many unexplored areas in Iraq due to years of war and sanctions, there could be much much more oil; potentialy 100 billion more barrels.
110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas is also estimated to be there.
production

An estimate of Iraqs oil prodcution abilities is around 2.8 - 2.9 million barrels per day. The production cost in Iraq is also one of the lowest in the world.

In the time of Saddam only 15 of 73 known fields were being developed.


Risk/fear premium

"It was not until the air war began in January of 1991, and images of its destruction flashed around the world, that oil markets immediately calmed and prices fell by $7 to $8 a barrel"

"I think we definitely learned something last time," says Emerson. "We learned that the market gets spooked by uncertainty, and when you have a certain resolution, whether it's diplomatic or military, there is a little bit of relaxation of the uncertainty and that allows the market to come down."


Prices before the war were getting high, March 2003 had the highest recorded price in America. Possibly Bush hoped that the war would calm the people's fears after 9/11 and help the oil prices become steady once again in time for elections.
ABC news.com: In Iraq to the victor goes the oil

The highest nationwide average price ever recorded by AAA was $1.73 and .7 of a cent a gallon, reached Aug. 30, 2003.

southflorida.bizjournals.com...

Economic benefits

Obviously, opening the large amounts of oil trapped inside Iraq will certainly help the economy of any indistrialised, western nation. Bush, with all his advisors from the industry in his cabinet will surely know this. I wonder if the corporate sponsors of the Republican party that are in the oil business (there are many including Exxon mobil www.stopesso.com) will be donating kindly this election year?

"the American undersecretary of commerce, Grant Aldonas, told a business forum hungry for good economic news that a war in Iraq “would open up this spigot on Iraqi oil, which certainly would have a profound effect in terms of the performance of the world economy for those countries that are manufacturers and oil consumers.


The Dollar

It's possible that Saddam's decision to change from the dollar to the euro in 2000 that made regime change so important to the United States. When Iran threatened to do the same, it was added to the "axis of evil." The defense of the dollar may be almost as important as oil.

The Euro Factor In Iraq War?

The future

"Given this situation, It makes perfect sense for an Administration buoyed up by its lightening military success in Afghanistan, to see if it's military power can be used to restore American control over two key countries where it's economic rivals might gain an oil foothold -- namely, two members of the "axis of evil," Iraq and Iran. "

Other countries like France and Russia are interested in Iraq's oil, especially seeing as Iraq owed them so much money. Now America holds the key to the door of all that wealth.


Iraq, in this view, is a strategic prize of unparalleled importance. Unlike the oil beneath Alaska's frozen tundra, locked away in the steppes of central Asia, or buried under stormy seas, Iraq's crude is readily accessible and, at less than $1.50 a barrel, some of the cheapest in the world to produce. Already, over the past several months, Western companies have been meeting with Iraqi exiles to try to stake a claim to that bonanza.

But while the companies hope to cash in on an American-controlled Iraq, the push to remove Saddam Hussein hasn't been driven by oil executives, many of whom are worried about the consequences of war. Nor are Vice President Cheney and President Bush, both former oilmen, looking at the Gulf simply for the profits that can be earned there. The administration is thinking bigger, much bigger, than that.

"Controlling Iraq is about oil as power, rather than oil as fuel," says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and author of Resource Wars. "Control over the Persian Gulf translates into control over Europe, Japan, and China. It's having our hand on the spigot."

Ever since the oil shocks of the 1970s, the United States has steadily been accumulating military muscle in the Gulf by building bases, selling weaponry, and forging military partnerships. Now, it is poised to consolidate its might in a place that will be a fulcrum of the world's balance of power for decades to come.


'The thrity year itch: looking at America oil interests

Does anyone feel we are starting to see the next struggle that will face humankind? As the oil starts to run out we all know what will happen: there will be no research into an alternative solution and the world will plung into chaos as world powers fight over the oil that is left. In the grand scheme of things do you think we are seeing the first move?

Our problems

"The latest measurements, taken a week ago, showed that carbon dioxide had reached about 379 parts per million (ppm), up from about 376ppm the year before, from 373ppm in 2002 and about 371ppm in 2001. These represent three of the four biggest increases on record (the other was in 1998), creating an unprecedented sequence."

Why not force our leaders to stop wasting lives and actually start to use military power to help instead of playing 'who can control the oil'
with the other major western nations. For me it is pretty clear what is happening. Why not try and find better ways to do things. Israel has some 200 atomic bombs and its own active biological and chemical weapons program for example, just one of the countries that pose a much larger threat than Iraq ever did. Yet the U.S will not do anything about countries like the Congo where millions are dying, ask yourself why we went into Iraq, keep all this in mind. Bush has he eyes set on the prize.

"The US wants to see increased global supply in order to push prices down so that gasoline prices will also fall for American drivers as they head into the North American summer and an election beyond that."

www.abc.net.au...

source for other information:
www.globalpolicy.org...




posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Maybe US instead of spending money and manpower to fight this countries for control of oil should concentrate on alternative energy, after all it will be lest expensive and it will cost lest life than a war with Iran and an envolment in Saudi Arabia.

This brings me to the point that no body in this government has ever ask us the people of this country what we really want.




posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Marg, the money that has been spent during this 'war on terror' isn't even worht thinking about. The amount spent on war and weapons could be spent in so many better ways, but it wont happen. We should be finding out how we are going to replace oil when it runs out, not fighting over what is left which is what appears to be starting to happen.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone
Marg, the money that has been spent during this 'war on terror' isn't even worht thinking about. The amount spent on war and weapons could be spent in so many better ways, but it wont happen. We should be finding out how we are going to replace oil when it runs out, not fighting over what is left which is what appears to be starting to happen.


I agree with earthtone. Yes this has always been an "oil war" and I believe instead of fighting to get a hold of the oil we should be finding other means of energy before the worlds oil runs out. Why aren't we doing that? Well there are two possible reasons:

1. The U.S. government doesn't care about its citizens. I have never seen any indication that they do.

2. For those on this board who believes the U.S. government is holding alien technology in their possesion then I suggest you read this article. www.seaspower.com... I believe this to be true.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
I agree with earthtone. Yes this has always been an "oil war" and I believe instead of fighting to get a hold of the oil we should be finding other means of energy before the worlds oil runs out. Why aren't we doing that?

1. The U.S. government doesn't care about its citizens. I have never seen any indication that they do.



Indeed the government doesn't care for it's citizens apparently.

Is this an dead topic or do people not care about the next crisis to face our society and what things may already be starting to happen in preperation for it . . . . .



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   
earthtone....


Indeed the government doesn't care for it's citizens apparently.


Please specify or clarify your position on just exactly how the US government doesn't care for its citizen's.
I would urge that you seriously think about this before quoting some blather of rights being stricted, etc. For every person that says their rights are being infringed upon, there is one to counter just the opposite.

The so-called government is elected by the people. Your enraged at the government when you need to be enraged at those who voted those government officials into place starting with your own state representitives, congressmen, senators, etc. As such, can you vote earthtone? Where you live? Have you written to your state representitives, congressmen, and senators?

Btw, is any of that Iraqi oil benefitting the US in any way that I have not read about? I would be interested to know just how much of that Iraqi oil has made its way to the US....do you know, have a link?



seekerof



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   
seekerof, I awaited your post

Originally posted by Seekerof
earthtone....


Indeed the government doesn't care for it's citizens apparently.


Please specify or clarify your position on just exactly how the US government doesn't care for its citizen's.

Because it is spending billions on a war that nobody can seem to justify (apart from of course liberating the people of Iraq from the tryranny of Saddam which the US was just happy to spend billions on because it's so kind...) instead of actually looking to the future when there will be chaos becuase there will be no oil. I am not fearmongering here becuase it will happen at some point soon. The real issues that are on the horizon are not dealt with be our world leaders.



Have you written to your state representitives, congressmen, and senators?

I would if I lived in the united states, I'm in London.

Btw, is any of that Iraqi oil benefitting the US in any way that I have not read about? I would be interested to know just how much of that Iraqi oil has made its way to the US....do you know, have a link?

There is no link Seekerof. I provided a mountain of stuff in my original post if you had maybe looked at them? For the last time, I have tried to make it clear that it is not really a question of America benefiting from the oil now, the west economies may improve. This is about the fact that America now have an occupying force sitting upon 25% of the worlds oil..



seekerof



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Ahhh, I see. I will certainly make every effort to re-read your links presented.
Interesting that you live in the UK, and mainly focus on 'America' and not mention the UK, as well?


This is about the fact that America now have an occupying force sitting upon 25% of the worlds oil.. .


Is not the UK also apart of this "occupying force"?



seekerof



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I suppose you could say it is U.K too, believe me I have just as much problem with my government in all this as I do with the American one. However it is largely American forces within Iraq, and there will be permentant military base(s) I assume also. I would doubt the U.K will remain in as a large a way. However in respect to my thread, I personaly think that the Iraq war will be a large issue in time to come. Could possibly be like the first few pushed which got a very large boulder rolling. . . . .



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Such a potentialy large outbreak of war in the future. The steps are being taken now if it is true. So it is our generation who has to stop it.

[edit on 19/8/2004 by earthtone]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Well done on a very well thought out post earthtone. I agree with you that Iraq was invaded primarily for it's large oil reserves. Not WMDs, not for harbouring terrorists, not for human rights issues.

It is the US that has killed the most people with WMDs, it is Saudi Arabia that harbours large numbers of terrorist and militants, and as for human rights issues there are numerous countries that have records as bad as Iraq did - North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan etc.

This war was for oil and it will not be the last. There will be much more conflict and war in the Middle East over the coming years.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eddie999
Well done on a very well thought out post earthtone.


It is as for human rights issues there are numerous countries that have records as bad as Iraq did - North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan etc.

This war was for oil and it will not be the last. There will be much more conflict and war in the Middle East over the coming years.


Thank you Eddie!
I tend to sway with your beliefs that this is certainly not the last American military action we will se i nthe middle east in the near future. They will have permeneant bases in Iraq for sure, placing them in striking distance (potentialy) of Iran and even Suadi Arabia if it came to it.

I agree completely with what you are saying. Now there is nothing but the "freedom of the Iraqis" as the reasoning for the war. However there are far larger issues around the world like in Sudan, as you said. How much more transparant can the reason be? America don't just go and 'free' countries because they fee llike being nice, it costs to much money.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 07:31 AM
link   
www.csis.org...

In this document conventional energy wars are described with consideration to the arising complexities of this problems in the twenty-first century. Terrorism, the instability of oil producing countries, energy development and global demand for energy are all addressed in this analysis of the potential for future energy wars


Really interesting information there. Seriously, the conflict in the middle east, to me anyway, just seems like the precursor to much larger conflict relating to energy. The 'war on terror' could be translated to a war against Islam, with this Christianity Vs. Islam situation building up.

This is an almost perfect situation for a country (America, UK) to use as a reason to engage in such an energy war, grabbing power in countries like Iraq, spreading the control over the areas that are still rich in oil. Conflict is on the way....nobody feel this ?



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 07:43 AM
link   
All along this "liberation in Iraq" has been nothing more and nothing else that a "liberation" of oil resources in Iraq for benefit of the US.

I still can see supporters of bush going over and over again with the phrase "it wasn't about the oil"

Wake up people!!!!!! Is being about the oil all alone.

Why a president will surrounded himself with oilmen and women in his cabinet when his biggest interest in not oil?

Must of bush cabinet are link to the oil and energy industry one way or another.

We are talking big money in here.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 08:01 AM
link   
You know its funny all about oil of corse it is and then some go on to say ask what the people want.I assume by that statment you mean your self .
Ok ill see what the answer is . Go to a car lot and see the hybrid and the gas the same price wich car sells more?
go up on your roof see any soler cells there? go look into the fields around town see any wind mills ?
I think we and yes for now I inclued my self in this group have given our answers very loudly and the answer we gave was OIL.
electrice cars have been out for twent years soler cells have been out longer and both are have been for sale . most of use cant even be bothered to seperate the soda cans let along buy enviermental friendly products . So untill you and me Park our gas gussling cars and buy soler cells I think we should stop calling the kettil black.
O ps just so you know I aggree with this post about oil and do plan to alest seperate my self from oil dependency with in ten years ill use no out side power at all. It is quite possible to creat and use only power that you make your self. My problem is the monney facter .



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Simcity4Rushour

you are right I am guilty of sin, we in this country has been made into a dependency for oil, yes we can help but alternative source of energy is very expensive right now everything around us is made for the use of oil. The government have us very dependant indeed.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I honestly think that if the governments of the world in hand with energy companies could easily come up with solutions. For example you can convert a car to run on vegetable oil and there is no loss of performance apparently. If more solar power was used, more wind power and people were actually told about ways to convert their motors then not only would the energy crisis by helped, global warming would also be slowed.

But of course the oil companies do not want to hear of any alternative energy, thats the way it goes. Marg you are right, the current administrations links to the oil indutry alone are enough to cause suspision. Especially when you look at Bush's policy (pulling out of Keyoto for example) He will do whatever is best for the oil business.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 08:31 AM
link   
You know, not matter how much you bring the subject of the links with the oil industry people around is still blind to this administration corruption when it comes to oil and environmental issues.

Most people had not clue what the Kyoto protocol is and don't even care to find out, but one of the first thing this administration did as soon it came into power was to retrieved from it and increased the allowance of pollution of the refineries, who got benefit for it? (Texas)



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
You know, not matter how much you bring the subject of the links with the oil industry people around is still blind to this administration corruption when it comes to oil and environmental issues.



It's crazy. You know who benefits from Bush.

This administrations policy is about securing oil, and securing saudi, and they don't care about the enviroment. I bet they have the technology to run everything with enviromentaly friendly stuff. . but they want to wait for oil to get scarce so they can really reap the benefits when the prices go sky high (they are already going up)

With terrorism hotting up in Russia, maybe they could do the same and use this as an excuse to move into countires to secure energy interest too. people are saying that there will be more alot more oil but it's not true. It's not renuable.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Earthtone? You and Marg are right. It's all about "Peak Oil." Here are some good links to prove it IMO.

www.janes.com...
www.fromthewilderness.com...
www.fromthewilderness.com...
edition.cnn.com...
www.fromthewilderness.com...
www.fromthewilderness.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join