Iraq ain't about Oil

Canada is 2nd to Russia in Oil reserves and under NAFTA the USA may take our oil (IF) the key
supplies to the USA are cut off re: Iraq. Canada can easily replace Iraq in oil production and guess
what...no huge Oil Tankers from the Arabian Sea to the U.S. mainland....just a pipeline from Alberta
to the central USA and pipe it E/W from there. Washington has always viewed Canada as the (backup)
if Mideast Diplomacy...even (from the barrel of a gun) fails. It has been the Mideastern OPEC
members who do NOT want to lose North America as their buyers. IF the USA switched 100% to Canadian
crude....everyone in the Mideast would revert to an economy akin to Sri Lanka...and they know & fear
that. Most of the Muslim Mideast view Iraq as a pain in the backside and no love will be lost if
Iraq collapses. Personally I'm surprised Iran hasn't used the opportunity to go in and hammer Iraq
and then America would be dealing with Iran for oil.

 

> Personally I'm surprised Iran hasn't used the opportunity to go in and hammer Iraq and then
> America would be dealing with Iran for oil.
>
>
>
I guess you missed that little scrap they had a few years ago. Iran ran human waves of unarmed
citizens at Iraq positions TO USE UP THEIR AMMO. I don't think Iran's kicking ANYONES butt these
days. Except the US throught their support of terrorism.

 

"Joshua Goldberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> IF the USA switched 100% to Canadian crude....everyone in the Mideast
would
> revert to an economy akin to Sri Lanka...and they know & fear that. Most of the Muslim Mideast
> view Iraq as a pain in the backside and no love will be lost if Iraq collapses. Personally I'm
> surprised Iran hasn't used the opportunity to go in and hammer Iraq and then America would be
> dealing with Iran for oil.
>
>

ahhhh, but Canadian oil is mostly locked up in shale. Its available, yes, but at a much higher
retrieval cost than mideast oil which flows from the ground. And that, of course, would mean much
more expensive petrol, which would require (1) Detroit to finally retool to make sensible vehicles,
(2) many people with friends in the white house to wonder why their oily patron (dubya) had
abandoned them, and (3) us 'murkins to re-think what it means to show your status.

rich

 

If extraterrestrials were to visit our planet tomorrow, siphon off half our oil and leave, the West
would slide into recession. In 5 years we'd have essentially solved that problem through a variety
of strategies and in 10 years it would be a memory.

If the price of gas in the U.S. went to $4 /gallon tomorrow, after the screaming died down we'd
adapt, the sun would still rise and life would go on pretty much unchanged.

My first car was a beetle with 50 hp. It did 65 mph on the same highways I drive today. Why,
exactly, do I need more?

SUV owners, please save your flames. I have friends with SUVs. Yes, I know you need them because you
have 3 kids, 2 dogs and a boat, and you're afraid you'll get stuck in the snow. (I live in
Minnesota.) You can still have SUVs. It isn't necessary that we have 100% consensus, we don't all
have to drive the same thing. But as a nation, we could cut our oil consumption in half without any
real hardship.

I'm not sure if the Iraq crisis is about oil, or not. We don't yet have the facts. I'd be more
likely to believe Bush if he hadn't acquired his personal wealth - rather easily - from oil.

 

And Hibernia in Nfld, offshore oil "Rich Westerman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Joshua Goldberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > IF the USA switched 100% to Canadian crude....everyone in the Mideast
> would
> > revert to an economy akin to Sri Lanka...and they know & fear that. Most of the Muslim Mideast
> > view Iraq as a pain in the backside and no
love
> > will be lost if Iraq collapses. Personally I'm surprised Iran hasn't used the opportunity to go
> > in and hammer Iraq and then America would be dealing with Iran for oil.
> >
> >
>
> ahhhh, but Canadian oil is mostly locked up in shale. Its available, yes, but at a much higher
> retrieval cost than mideast oil which flows from the ground. And that, of course, would mean much
> more expensive petrol, which would require (1) Detroit to finally retool to make sensible
> vehicles, (2) many people with friends in the white house to wonder why their oily
patron
> (dubya) had abandoned them, and (3) us 'murkins to re-think what it means
to
> show your status.
>
> rich

 

"Joshua Goldberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Canada is 2nd to Russia in Oil reserves and under NAFTA the USA may take our oil (IF) the key
> supplies to the USA are cut off re: Iraq.

Some sources say Canada is #1 in reserves, but there are problems. It's bound in sand, so instead of
pumping, it'd just be dug from the ground and processed, recovering maybe 20-30% of the oil... with
huge slag piles left over. Say goodbye to your forest.

"But the biggest drawback for oil sands development is the high production cost associated with
extracting the heavy, gooey bitumen -- a petroleum product that can be refined into gasoline or
other products -- stuck to every grain of sand. Production costs, although significantly cheaper
than a decade ago, still range from $ 11 to $ 18 per barrel of oil sands bitumen. This is
considerably more expensive than producing conventional Persian Gulf light crude which costs less
than $ 2 a barrel to recover."

 

The price of oil is set by WORLDWIDE SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

Shifting around where you buy will only raise prices because the distribution network has evolved in
the most efficient pattern. You would have to buy expensive long term contracts at set prices to
secure oil away from the Persian Gulf.

But it is still much cheaper than 100 million a year in "oil defense" which unless you need it, only
serves to piss off terrorists.

First stop paying people to drive cars ($3000 per car subsidy a year: free parking, oil defense,
property and sales taxes going to roads, etc.) and transition to oil and driving fees. Also, start
stockpiling oil. All we need is a few year's supply (2,000 gallons per capita) then we can forget
about the middle east. If they cut off supply, the value of our stockpile rises. We can live off our
stockpile longer than they can live without food.

"Joshua Goldberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Canada is 2nd to Russia in Oil reserves and under NAFTA the USA may take
our
> oil (IF) the key supplies to the USA are cut off re: Iraq. Canada can easily replace Iraq in oil
> production and guess what...no huge Oil Tankers from the Arabian Sea to the U.S. mainland....just
> a pipeline from Alberta to the central USA and pipe it E/W from there. Washington has always
> viewed Canada as the (backup) if Mideast Diplomacy...even (from the barrel of a gun) fails. It has
> been the Mideastern OPEC members who do NOT want to lose North America as their buyers. IF the USA
> switched 100% to Canadian crude....everyone in the Mideast
would
> revert to an economy akin to Sri Lanka...and they know & fear that. Most of the Muslim Mideast
> view Iraq as a pain in the backside and no love will be lost if Iraq collapses. Personally I'm
> surprised Iran hasn't used the opportunity to go in and hammer Iraq and then America would be
> dealing with Iran for oil.

 

Yes The positive side of Oil from Canada would be the higher production costs. When gasoline got
costly and rationed in the 1970s USA, mass production of 8 cylinder cars/pic-ups/vans ended and
everyone went to 4/6 cylinders and although the big 3 took a bad hit when everyone went to small
Japanese cars...for a time there small was better. IF oil prices mushroom again you'll see SUVs on
cinder blocks in backyards across America. America will have to be more prudent with fuel use, the
environment wins, cyclists win (to a point), cycling will become way more popular in urban climes,
huge oil tankers won't beach and spill their oil on marine life. What is holding back alternative
fuel research and use of the technologies we now have (is) cheap petrol. When gasoline gets
expensive, people will seek alternative fuels and more efficient smaller cars. This is one of those
topics you cannot win, everyone has an opinion and will anything change for the better and is my
better, better for everyone else? Some things in life ya gotta sidestep, lest you get yer foot stuck
in something all smelly and sticky. ********One of the nice things about this Newsgroup is that it
is a diversion from the Eleven o'clock news of death, destruction, pending & current wars. We are
getting drilled daily about crap happening in the world and I kinda like a Newsgroup that the
biggest concern is Recumbent Butt or Air Free tires. The Newsgroup is like an Opiate (most of the
time), a nice place to visit...a much needed diversion. ---Peace----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
"Michael Perry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Joshua Goldberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Canada is 2nd to Russia in Oil reserves and under NAFTA the USA may take
our
> > oil (IF) the key supplies to the USA are cut off re: Iraq.
>
> Some sources say Canada is #1 in reserves, but there are problems. It's bound in sand, so instead
> of pumping, it'd just be dug from the ground and processed, recovering maybe 20-30% of the oil...
> with huge slag piles left over. Say goodbye to your forest.
>
> "But the biggest drawback for oil sands development is the high production cost associated with
> extracting the heavy, gooey bitumen -- a petroleum product that can be refined into gasoline or
> other products -- stuck to every grain of sand. Production costs, although significantly cheaper
> than a decade ago, still range from $ 11 to $ 18 per barrel of oil sands bitumen. This is
> considerably more expensive than producing conventional Persian Gulf light crude which costs less
> than $ 2 a barrel to recover."

 

Joshua:

I've spent close to a year studying the Muddle East, because I was tired of the third hand second
rate opinions I was getting, and wanted a feel for what was going on. I'm glad I did it, and if
anyone wants some great book recommendations I have a few, but cycling is more fun. I also tripped
over my mouse cord the other day and damn near broke my neck, so I sure wish the Raelians would get
cracking on that new body they're supposed to be making for me. I'll probably need it before I need
a new bike. Second thought, why can't I get the Michael Jordan model next time, instead of this
egg-shaped thing?

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Joshua Goldberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yes The positive side of Oil from Canada would be the higher production costs. When gasoline got
> costly and rationed in the 1970s USA, mass production of
8
> cylinder cars/pic-ups/vans ended and everyone went to 4/6 cylinders and although the big 3 took a
> bad hit when everyone went to small Japanese cars...for a time there small was better. IF oil
> prices mushroom again you'll see SUVs on cinder blocks in backyards across America. America will
> have to be more prudent with fuel use, the environment wins, cyclists win (to a point), cycling
> will become way more popular in urban climes, huge
oil
> tankers won't beach and spill their oil on marine life. What is holding back alternative fuel
> research and use of the technologies we now have (is) cheap petrol. When gasoline gets expensive,
> people will seek alternative fuels and more efficient smaller cars. This is one of those topics
> you cannot win, everyone has an opinion and
will
> anything change for the better and is my better, better for everyone else? Some things in life ya
> gotta sidestep, lest you get yer foot stuck in something all smelly and sticky. ********One of the
> nice things about this Newsgroup is that it is a diversion from the Eleven o'clock news of death,
> destruction, pending & current wars. We are getting drilled daily about crap happening in the
world
> and I kinda like a Newsgroup that the biggest concern is Recumbent Butt or Air Free tires. The
> Newsgroup is like an Opiate (most of the time), a nice place to visit...a much needed diversion.
> ---Peace----
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------------------
> "Michael Perry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Joshua Goldberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Canada is 2nd to Russia in Oil reserves and under NAFTA the USA may
take
> our
> > > oil (IF) the key supplies to the USA are cut off re: Iraq.
> >
> > Some sources say Canada is #1 in reserves, but there are problems. It's bound in sand, so
> > instead of pumping, it'd just be dug from the ground and processed, recovering maybe 20-30% of
> > the oil... with huge slag piles left over. Say goodbye to your forest.
> >
> > "But the biggest drawback for oil sands development is the high production cost associated with
> > extracting the heavy, gooey bitumen -- a petroleum product that can be refined into gasoline or
> > other products -- stuck to every grain of sand. Production costs, although significantly cheaper
> > than a decade ago, still range from $ 11 to $ 18 per barrel of oil sands bitumen. This is
> > considerably more expensive than producing conventional Persian Gulf light crude which costs
> > less than $ 2 a barrel to recover."

 

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:59:41 GMT, "Robert Haston" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The price of oil is set by WORLDWIDE SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

And a little bit of manipulation by OPEC. Oh alright then, a lot of manipulation by OPEC. Well, OK,
let's settle on solely by the manipulation of OPEC, if you must.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

jim h wrote:
>
> ... I'm not sure if the Iraq crisis is about oil, or not. We don't yet have the facts. I'd be more
> likely to believe Bush if he hadn't acquired his personal wealth - rather easily - from oil.

G.W. Bush did not make his personal fortune from oil. His first two companies, Arbusto and Spectrum
7 were financial failures. When Spectrum 7 was on the verge of bankruptcy, it was purchased for
$500,000 by Harken Energy Corporation and G.W. Bush was appointed as a consultant to Harken.
Bush sold 2/3 of his stock in Harken when the company was in financial trouble, but concealing
it through questionable accounting practices. He failed to file the appropriate paperwork with
the SEC in a timely manner, and was later investigated by the SEC for insider trading. This
investigation was dropped (at the time, G.H.W. Bush was US President) without exonerating Bush
the Younger.

G.X. Bush's father and friends decided they needed to make something of
G.Y. besides a failed businessman, so they arranged to have him purchase a share of the Texas
Rangers when the team was sold. Despite only purchasing only 2% of the team (mostly with
borrowed money) G.W. Bush was made managing partner as a favor to the Bush family. During the
period that G.W. Bush was involved with the Rangers, a new stadium was built for the team,
primarily with public funds. This tripled the value of the Rangers to about $150 million US at
the time the team was resold
(G.Z. Bush was Governor of Texas at the time). When the team was sold, the other partners donated
approximately an additional 10% of the team to G.W. Bush, who made a profit of about $14
million US off the deal.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

"There are two things you need for success in politics. Money -- and I can't think of the other." --
Senator Mark Hanna (R-Ohio), 1903

 

Fascinating facts. So in reality he made his personal fortune - rather easily - by exploiting family
connections to other people who had made their personal fortunes from oil.

 

"Robert Haston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> The price of oil is set by WORLDWIDE SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

The funny thing is, for most Americans, the cost of gas is not half the cost of ownership.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm lists the Chrysler Concord, for example. Figuring on
$1.55/gal, 15K miles per year, & 21/29 MPG... it uses less than $1K per year in fuel. (It also dumps
nearly 8 tons of greenhouse gas per year.)

I couldn't find a car on that site where gas costs, even if doubled, would equal depreciation, for
the average owner. Yet, let the gas prices double over night and you'd see the same panic... dumping
3 year old "gas hogs" for new economy rigs.

It doesn't have to make sense... we are Americans.

 

It is interesting to see that this section revolves around Iraq and its oil, as the reason for fighting starting the war. It certainly looks like a strong argument. But other possibilities must be taken into account.

D. Rumsfeld and G. Rice have a neo conservative view of the world, that in my opinion is rather narrow. Both are old school communist debunkers, and see the world in black or white. It appears that both Rice and Rumsfeld and many others naively believe that democracy can be brought to all, and that Iraq is a major threat to Israel. There is a spin side too- setting up a pro- American government in Bagdad, gives America an important strategic position in the Middle East. Whether it be oil, military or economic factors.

The Bush administration must also realise that America is bound to international law. Any pre - emptive strike on Iraq would be a breech of international law. The only way that America can do this is by the book. Ie via the UN

No matter what this inevitable war could cost many American lives and it would be horrendous for America and its allies to be bound up in another Vietnam.

 

mccal01 wrote:
>
> ... The Bush administration must also realise that America is bound to international law. Any pre
> - emptive strike on Iraq would be a breech > of international law. The only way that America can
> do this is by the book. Ie via the UN....

The United States signed and ratified the Charter of the United Nations, so according to Article VI
[1] of the Unites States Constitution, the United States is obligated to treat the United Nations
Charter as supreme law.

[1] (Article VI, second paragraph): This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall
be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority
of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall
be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

I just want to point out that I not only didn't *start* this thread, but I'm not going to contribute
to it, beyond pointing out that the term "neo-conservative" is mis-applied to Rumsfeld and Rice.
(And Rice really isn't old enough to be a cold warrier, is she?) Neither were ever socialists, which
is sort of a primary requirement for the term "neo"-conservative. They're just conservatives (of the
US rather than the Euro/Tory variety). Daniel Bell, Gertrude Himmelfarbe, Irving Krystal and Jean
Kirkpatrick are "neo"-conservatives. Not that anyone really gives a damn about using the term
correctly any more.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"mccal01" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> It is interesting to see that this section revolves around Iraq and its oil, as the reason for
> fighting starting the war. It certainly looks like a strong argument. But other possibilities must
> be taken into account.
>
> D. Rumsfeld and G. Rice have a neo conservative view of the world, that in my opinion is rather
> narrow. Both are old school communist debunkers, and see the world in black or white. It
> appears that both Rice and Rumsfeld and many others naively believe that democracy can be
> brought to all, and that Iraq is a major threat to Israel. There is a spin side too- setting up
> a pro- American government in Bagdad, gives America an important strategic position in the
> Middle East. Whether it be oil, military or economic factors.
>
> The Bush administration must also realise that America is bound to international law. Any pre -
> emptive strike on Iraq would be a breech of international law. The only way that America can do
> this is by the book. Ie via the UN
>
> No matter what this inevitable war could cost many American lives and it would be horrendous for
> America and its allies to be bound up in another Vietnam.
>
>
>
> --
> >--------------------------<
> Posted via cyclingforums.com http://www.cyclingforums.com

 

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> mccal01 wrote:
> >
> > ... The Bush administration must also realise that America is bound to international law. Any
> > pre - emptive strike on Iraq would be a breech > of international law. The only way that America
> > can do this is by the book. Ie via the UN....
>
> The United States signed and ratified the Charter of the United Nations, so according to Article
> VI [1] of the Unites States Constitution, the United States is obligated to treat the United
> Nations Charter as supreme law.
>
> [1] (Article VI, second paragraph): This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which
> shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
> authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every
> state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the
> contrary notwithstanding.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
The Constitution and the Charter of the United Nations are just scraps of paper which only very
small minds think bind any one to anything. Get real. The name of the game is power politics. Read
Machiavelli. Sadamm Hussein ought to be an object lesson to us all.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota aka Lower Slobovia

 

"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I just want to point out that I not only didn't *start* this thread, but I'm not going to
> contribute to it, beyond pointing out that the term "neo-conservative" is mis-applied to Rumsfeld
> and Rice. (And Rice really isn't old enough to be a cold warrier, is she?) Neither were ever
> socialists, which is sort of a primary requirement for the term "neo"-conservative. They're just
> conservatives (of the US rather than the Euro/Tory variety). Daniel Bell, Gertrude Himmelfarbe,
> Irving Krystal and Jean Kirkpatrick are "neo"-conservatives. Not that anyone really gives a damn
> about using the term correctly any more.
>
> --
> --Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

 

"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I just want to point out that I not only didn't *start* this thread, but I'm not going to
> contribute to it, beyond pointing out that the term "neo-conservative" is mis-applied to Rumsfeld
> and Rice. (And Rice really isn't old enough to be a cold warrier, is she?) Neither were ever
> socialists, which is sort of a primary requirement for the term "neo"-conservative. They're just
> conservatives (of the US rather than the Euro/Tory variety). Daniel Bell, Gertrude Himmelfarbe,
> Irving Krystal and Jean Kirkpatrick are "neo"-conservatives. Not that anyone really gives a damn
> about using the term correctly any more.
>
> --
> --Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.
>
>
> "mccal01" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > It is interesting to see that this section revolves around Iraq and its oil, as the reason for
> > fighting starting the war. It certainly looks like a strong argument. But other possibilities
> > must be taken into account.
> >
> > D. Rumsfeld and G. Rice have a neo conservative view of the world, that in my opinion is rather
> > narrow. Both are old school communist debunkers, and see the world in black or white. It
> > appears that both Rice and Rumsfeld and many others naively believe that democracy can be
> > brought to all, and that Iraq is a major threat to Israel. There is a spin side too- setting
> > up a pro- American government in Bagdad, gives America an important strategic position in the
> > Middle East. Whether it be oil, military or economic factors.
> >
> > The Bush administration must also realise that America is bound to international law. Any pre -
> > emptive strike on Iraq would be a breech of international law. The only way that America can do
> > this is by the book. Ie via the UN
> >
> > No matter what this inevitable war could cost many American lives and it would be horrendous for
> > America and its allies to be bound up in another Vietnam.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > >--------------------------<
> > Posted via cyclingforums.com http://www.cyclingforums.com

No way this is going to be another Vienam nor is it going to cost many American lives. It is
something we can do on the cheap and the payoff will be tremendous - a whole new middle east that
will be much more to our liking. Read your history. War solves many otherwise unsolvable problems.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota aka Lower Slobovia

 

Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> No way this is going to be another Vienam nor is it going to cost many American lives. It is
> something we can do on the cheap and the payoff will be tremendous - a whole new middle east that
> will be much more to our liking. Read your history. War solves many otherwise unsolvable problems.

I agree completely. How dare the people in the Middle East lay claim to AMERICA'S OIL, just because
it lies beneath their pitiful countries? Kill them all, and let Jehovah/God/Allah sort them out.

What good are our nuclear weapons if we don't get to use them on other people, anyhow?

Tom Sherman - Recumbent Curmudgeon