Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sickbeatz
Maybe they didn't want him destroying those beautiful oil
resources again before they got a chance to steal it all?
|
While control of Iraqi oil is a good argument, saying the US is simply stealing it is absolutely absurd. Don't believe me? Here's some facts Michael Moore won't tell you:
Quote:
The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...681119,00.html
|
Quote:
Iraq has tumbled a long way since the heady days of 1990, when it pumped about 3.5 million barrels a day, its peak production year. Since then, wars, sanctions and neglect have left the industry in tatters.
Nobody has definitive numbers on Iraq's oil production, but analysts say daily production this year will average about 1.8 million barrels per day, about 10 percent less than 2004 levels of about 2 million barrels -- and just over half 1990 levels
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005..._3912_8_05.txt
|
Current price of crude oil per barrel: 68.48
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
Using the the LOW estimate of the war costing 1 Trillion Dollars we have the following: $1,000,000,000,000 / $68.48 = ~$14,602,803,738
So using the low projected cost of the Iraqi War, the same spending dollars wise could buy more than 14.5 billion barrels of oil at today's prices on the open market.
How long would it take for Iraq to produce 14.5 billion barrels of oil at it's maxium pre gulf war 1 rate? Well, 14,602,803,738 / 3,500,000 = ~4172 days. That's more than 11 years.
Conclusion: Under ideal conditions, it would take Iraq more than 11 years to produce enough oil to offset the overall cost of the war. Assuming that the US just took the oil and didn't buy it.
Maybe your deffinition of stealing is different than mine?