The conversations ive had about this go something like this
-Why dont we use our own resources?
- Well first we use everyone elses resources, then when it runs out we use our own and sell it back to other countries at an even higher price, if we decide to help them out...
it boils down to how much money can we make....

Oil shale is a pipe dream. Oil extracted from shale costs several times the amount of oil extracted by traditional means. Also, it takes 5 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of oil from oil shale. Out west, we're running out of water as it is. If we have a dry year, we can't drink oil now can we?

Originally posted by sprocket2cog
The conversations ive had about this go something like this
-Why dont we use our own resources?
- Well first we use everyone elses resources, then when it runs out we use our own and sell it back to other countries at an even higher price, if we decide to help them out...
it boils down to how much money can we make....

The wars over foreign oil not only benefit all corporations but the military industrial complex. If we tap our reserves then only the oil corps prosper

It seems that now a days every war is labeled as a war over oil. The ironic part is that we are never given any discount nor access to oil in those countries that we have invaded for whatever reason. I think that if countries want the US to liberate their country they can cough up oil agreements at a hugely discounted rate. Only suggested this because the other political ideas don't seem to generate revenue and cost us $$$ for war actions.

"war for oil" is a MSM myth. This is complete nonsense, and here is why: Currently there is no country or company that is "hoarding" oil and not selling it on the open market - save the US. Saudi Arabia sells their oil, as does Mexico and the US. Iraq wanted to sell their oil as well, but the were prevented from doing so. If a country is hoarding oil, not pumping it, then a "war for oil" makes sense. As John Perkins writes about, the oil is more about currency the energy and wars are fought to sustain currency or do pay off debt - period.

The cost of oil is not the pumping, or the shipping, but the theft that goes on through the bourse and the speculating. The cost has been and pretty much remains less than 10 bucks a barrel to remove it from the ground, the extra 90 bucks is....?

Those in charge have fed the MSM and its stooges the "war for oil" thing and every sap in the world has simply accepted it as a fact without even looking at that one simple fact: every one sells it on the open market and if the market were truly fee and open the price would be lower.

As for those of you who say "we need to find other energy sources....." you have simply drunk the koolaid. Presidents have been officially saying this since Kennedy. 50 years and ZERO progress. There is zero progress and there will be zero progress. This is a pipe dream. The only way oil becomes a non issue is if something that does not require the wholesale removal of all drinking water on the planet fuels all the cars currently in operation. There is no way to scrap the billion cars in a period of time that will make it possible - the majority of people can't afford the car they have, let alone 50k to replace it with something that does not work on an internal combustion process. To "solve the words addiction to oil" (god to I hate that meme) one must create a physical replacement for gas that allows the cars in operation to still operate - won't happen as this is the realm of oil.

cough** ethanol *cough

But when oil runs out... well then we can all cry into our koolaid cant we

Diesel engines were originally made to run on vegetable oil, but when major oil companys found they had unused waste from making petrol they converted it to run in diesel engines, and it wasnt cleaner or better then the original oil running versions..

Originally posted by sprocket2cog
The conversations ive had about this go something like this
-Why dont we use our own resources?

It's not 'your' resources! The oil resources of the US mostly belong to private persons or corporations and unless you own shares in the corporations or are one of said private persons you stand to gain nothing to the exploitation for foreign oil. In fact given the cost of keeping the global military machine strong enough to force people to hand over their oil at the price corporations want it at ( make a note of the fact that i did not say make prices as low as possible) it would be FAR cheaper if you get that tax break pentagon spending saving and buy local 'expensive' oil.

- Well first we use everyone elses resources, then when it runs out we use our own and sell it back to other countries at an even higher price, if we decide to help them out...
it boils down to how much money can we make....

That is true for American and foreign corporations ( and perhaps even the US government) but that does not have anything to do with you and you do not stand to benefit by it. The presumption that 'they' and 'you' constitutes a 'we' is where your argument fails completely! That being said you should not feel bad as few people are able to understand that the government not only acts in it's own interest( making the rich richer) but in fact directly oppose your interest by it's foreign and domestic policy decisions.

Stellar

Originally posted by NotTooHappy
Oil shale is a pipe dream. Oil extracted from shale costs several times the amount of oil extracted by traditional means. Also, it takes 5 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of oil from oil shale. Out west, we're running out of water as it is. If we have a dry year, we can't drink oil now can we?

Few points :

1: Extracting oil from shale make cost several times as much as extracting it from where? Getting a barrel above ground in Saudi Arabia cost like 15-20 cents last i heard but we can make that a nice round dollar. Large i heard anything specific i think oil shale becomes profitable ( and it's got a massive overhead) at oil prices exceeding 40 USD per barrel....

2. What does Canada have BUT water? They practically have a lake per person? If the US runs out of water dynamite a canal from Canada; still much cheaper than building aircraft carriers with which to intimidate third world oil rich countries. Hell they want to build highways running down the center of the US through Mexico into South America so why not build a canal and float the barges down? Do you know what you can do with even half the pentagon budget? 400 billion dollars a year? For a billion dollars a mile i can make you a river than makes the Danube look like a stream!

3. If you have a dry year you can have the pentagon tank in water for it's remaining 400 billion dollar budget.... Problem solved. Infrastructure development is not a question of money but a question of weather the government wishes to develop the country in the interest of the people instead of industry.

Stellar

Originally posted by fatherj
It seems that now a days every war is labeled as a war over oil. The ironic part is that we are never given any discount nor access to oil in those countries that we have invaded for whatever reason.

It's ironic as much as it's never the intent to give anyone but industry a discount or controlling rights in foreign oil thus allowing it's exploitation and more price fixing ( more control over more of the worlds oil) allowing more gauging of American and world markets. I do not think that there is a bigger racket on earth that has fewer benefits to society.

I think that if countries want the US to liberate their country they can cough up oil agreements at a hugely discounted rate. Only suggested this because the other political ideas don't seem to generate revenue and cost us $$$ for war actions.

Well few countries are interested in selling of it's national wholesale to foreign corporations that will abscond with all the profit without really creating very many jobs or infrastructure that benefits the host country. The way the Pentagon is currently used is to use taxpayer resources to steal the resources of other countries to then give to American or 'friendly' corporations or allied countries/corporations. Essentially American industry controls the US government to a sufficient degree to get the tax breaks they want and to direct the pentagon so as to force open and keep open foreign markets and to gain or control access to foreign resources.

Stellar