Iraq War and Oil

[Tenochtitlan]

There is an impending energy crisis. Compare gas prices in 1999 and now.

Dick Cheney said in 1999:
By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day.


Halliburton was one of the first companies to get a contract (2003) for operating Iraqi oil fields.

Iraq is thought to have around 150-200 billion barrels of crude. That is a good amount.

Iran is next. It has the combined equivalent of 280 billion barrels of oil in natural gas and oil. (source coming)

In conclusion, I find it hard to believe that invading Iraq had nothing to do with oil. Why else?

Thoughts?

 

[garric]

Where's my cheap oil, lad?

BTW, the U.S Government isn't a communist entity, and has no influence over private oil companies.

 

[Xanikk999]

There is an impending energy crisis. Compare gas prices in 1999 and now.

Dick Cheney said in 1999:
By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day.


Halliburton was one of the first companies to get a contract (2003) for operating Iraqi oil fields.

Iraq is thought to have around 150-200 billion barrels of crude. That is a good amount.

Iran is next. It has the combined equivalent of 280 billion barrels of oil in natural gas and oil. (source coming)

In conclusion, I find it hard to believe that invading Iraq had nothing to do with oil. Why else?

Thoughts?

I find that the reason for invading iraq has nothing to do with oil. Thats just propaganda on the left.

Why? Because the whole war would be so much more expensive then just drilling into untapped reserves in places like alaska.

Not to mention we arent running low on oil yet.

I ask you this: Why would we spend billions apon billions of dollars on the war in iraq AND the reconstruction just to make less money/ break even on oil, when we have more sources at home.

 

[Neomega]

Everybody knows Iraq had something to do with oil. Those who deny it are fools. The question is, what priority was the oil? And by the reactions of the planners, with oil fields secured before priceless artifacts, I'd say oil was a higher prioirty than the pride and history of the Iraqi nation.

 

[Neomega]

I ask you this: Why would we spend billions apon billions of dollars on the war in iraq AND the reconstruction just to make less money/ break even on oil, when we have more sources at home.

Because initial estimates did not expect the war to cost this much, and original plans had oil being pumped at pre-war levels in six months, so th eIraqis could pay for their own reconstruction.

Things did not work out that way. Frankly, none of the optimistic planners expected an insurgency that continuously attacked the oil infrastructure.

 

[Xanikk999]

Because initial estimates did not expect the war to cost this much, and original plans had oil being pumped at pre-war levels in six months, so th eIraqis could pay for their own reconstruction.

Things did not work out that way. Frankly, none of the optimistic planners expected an insurgency that continuously attacked the oil infrastructure.

I still dont buy it. There is no evidence of this yet for one thing. Its really just speculation.

And for another thing can you answer why we would waste our time drilling there when we have plenty in alaska and still quite alot in texas?

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Moderator can you delete this post please

 

[Tenochtitlan]

I still dont buy it. There is no evidence of this yet for one thing. Its really just speculation.

And for another thing can you answer why we would waste our time drilling there when we have plenty in alaska and still quite alot in texas?

Because the oil in Alaska and Texas isn't enough. And it's also not bottomless. It is limited. Oil Production in the US peaked in the early 1970s.

 

[Xanikk999]

Because the oil in Alaska and Texas isn't enough. And it's also not bottomless. It is limited.

It would be enough for a while. And in the mean time we could develop alternate energy sources. But i dont see that happening with this administration.

 

[Neomega]

I still dont buy it. There is no evidence of this yet for one thing. Its really just speculation.

There is plenty of evidence. Wolfowitz for one has already said as much. Pre-war planners were giving estimates of how much it would cost. Those estimates were in the 1.7 billion to $20 billion dollar range. we are now at about what, 800 billion?

And for another thing can you answer why we would waste our time drilling there when we have plenty in alaska and still quite alot in texas?

Sure

1. ANWR is not allowed to be drilled in. Our governemnt will not alow it. the Iraqi government is willing ot sell it's reserves, and does not have such an unforgiving environmentalist movement. That realpolitik, so forget trying to argue it's the environmentalists fault, and they are wrong. Sure, you could, but what good would it be, the fact still remains, we can't drill there, because it is tough to win elections, and be "against the environment"

2. Texas - you need to read more on the oil industry. Texas has oil fields to be sure, but their have been no major oilfield discoveries in the world since the mid 1990's and the drier wells get, the more expensive they become to pump.

All your answer cna be answered if you study oil, it's impact on the American economy,a dn the way it is drilled. oil is the most imprtant pillar of the modern American economoy

3. Texas - another common misconception is our oil reserves are some giant underground warehouses full of 3 years worth of oil.... they ain't. Our strategic reserves are wells we are not pumping. They are capped for emergency use only.

 

[Xanikk999]

Wheres the evidence? I want to see it!

(For invading iraq for oil).

 

[Neomega]

Wheres the evidence? I want to see it!

(For invading iraq for oil).

You mean that we planned to use Iraqi oil to pay for the reconstruction, or that we invaded it to get a cheap supply of oil?

 

[Xanikk999]

You mean that we planned to use Iraqi oil to pay for the reconstruction, or that we invaded it to get a cheap supply of oil?

Both. If you can scrounge some up.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Wheres the evidence? I want to see it!

(For invading iraq for oil).

I didn't see it was for oil. I said it had something to do with it.

 

[Xanikk999]

Im not using this as proof for anything in this argument. So dont call logical fallacy on me.

But have you stopped to think how silly it would be to go to war for the oil?
And has the United States ever done that in the past?

I just cant see oil is one of the major reasons. From what i know it was because they thought saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That much we know is true.

It may have even a little bit to do with that the administration thought they were funding terrorists.

Those reasons fit bushes ideology. Going to war for oil would be an extremely big scandal and im not that paranoid to beileve it yet.

 

[Masquerouge]

In conclusion, I find it hard to believe that invading Iraq had nothing to do with oil.

I'm shocked.

 

[Neomega]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/15/bush.oil/

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, speaking to the House Appropriations Committee on March 27, 2003, estimated the figure in the tens of billions of dollars if Iraq's oil fields were not destroyed.

"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon," he said.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/temp/natsios042303.html
USAID director, Andrew Natsios said on nightline it would cost only $1.7 billion

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) Well, it's a, I think you'll agree, this is a much bigger project than any that's been talked about. Indeed, I understand that more money is expected to be spent on this than was spent on the entire Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of Europe after World War II.

ANDREW NATSIOS
No, no. This doesn't even compare remotely with the size of the Marshall Plan.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) The Marshall Plan was $97 billion.

ANDREW NATSIOS
This is 1.7 billion.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

ANDREW NATSIOS
Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it's up and running and there's a new government that's been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They're going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/2_whitehouse.html
White House Budget Director, Mitch Daniels, said Iraq "will not require sustained aid" and that the war cost would "be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion"

If you want anymore, you can read this at http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=68429

see the section
A HISTORY OF MISLEADING THE PUBLIC:

And before you say it's a left wing blog, which you can, remember, the links are to mainstream media, and that I was awake and aware at that time, and I rememebr all these little boasts. I rememebr when Bush asked for $87 billion and everyone was like 87 BILLION DOLLARS!!???!!... now that we are reaching $300 billion, it is getting obvious, things are not going according to plan.

 

[Xanikk999]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/15/bush.oil/




http://www.fas.org/sgp/temp/natsios042303.html
USAID director, Andrew Natsios said on nightline it would cost only $1.7 billion




http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/2_whitehouse.html
White House Budget Director, Mitch Daniels, said Iraq "will not require sustained aid" and that the war cost would "be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion"

If you want anymore, you can read this at http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=68429

see the section
A HISTORY OF MISLEADING THE PUBLIC:

And before you say it's a left wing blog, which you can, remember, the links are to mainstream media, and that I was awake and aware at that time, and I rememebr all these little boasts. I rememebr when Bush asked for $87 billion and everyone was like 87 BILLION DOLLARS!!???!!... now that we are reaching $300 billion, it is getting obvious, things are not going according to plan.

I know its not going according to plan but aside from the quote i still dont beileve it is bushes intentions to use thier oil for rebuilding there own country. Talk about exploitation!

If we really wanted the oil. Then wouldnt we use it for our own profit? What the point of taking thier oil from them and rebuilding thier country for them? If we were just going to use the oil to rebuild thier country then couldnt they have just done that themselves if they were independent?

I dunno it still seems fishy to me.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Why do you think oil prices are going up, and never coming down? Yes, demand is increasing at a dangerously greater rate than supply. Keep in mind also supply is limited.

Wind power cannot replace oil. All of California's 13000 wind generators generate only what one 555 megawatt natural gas plant each year. [thisrepublic.net]

For solar power to replace oil, we will need 220'000 sq km of panels. Keep in mind that the whole world has only 10 sq km of solar panels active.

There are already shortages in supply for Uranium, and it also takes a while to decay and will never replace oil.

 

[Xanikk999]

Why do you think oil prices are going up, and never coming down? Yes, demand is increasing at a dangerously greater rate than supply. Keep in mind also supply is limited.

Wind power cannot replace oil. All of California's 13000 wind generators generate only what one 555 megawatt natural gas plant each year. [thisrepublic.net

For solar power to replace oil, we will need 220'000 sq km of panels. Keep in mind that the whole world has only 10 sq km of solar panels active.

There are already shortages in supply for Uranium, and it also takes a while to decay and will never replace oil.

Eh? The prices come down a little bit once in while. They arent increasing constantly in the United States anyway. They have thier ups and thier downs but its true gas is more expensive overall.

But the gas hike didnt really even get mentioned until after hurricane katrina. So it hardly has anything to do with the war in iraq.