War and Oil - - GoFuckYourself.com

Content Girl · 03-17-2003, 11:10 AM

I have heard so much about how the pending war affects our current oil prices. I have seen the price of gas go up to $2.30/gallon here in LV. So, I decided to do a little research and educate myself on the "oil crisis". What I found is that there doesn't really appear to be an immediate or even pending crisis due to the situation in Iraq.

Below is the info I have..........I know there is more info out there, I am not in the least claiming this to be the complete story, but I thought you all might be interested. I'm also interested in any other info you may have whether it be in support of the following or in contradiction.

Most of these quotes came from the American Petroleum Institute:

"For the entire year, Iraq supplied about 450,000 barrels per day to the U.S. or less than 3 percent of U.S. oil consumption

Speculation about potential supply shortfalls is premature. Iraq plays a relatively small role in WORLD supplies (about 3 percent) and other oil producing countries could make up for a loss of the oil it supplies.

Alaska's North Slope provides 17 percent of U.S. oil production. That's about one million barrels per day or the equivalent of nearly half of U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf.

The situation in Venezuela, the country's fifth largest supplier of crude oil, appears to be stabilizing and it is expected that it will be able to increase its oil production over the coming weeks. Which would compensate from any loss from Iraq.

There are about 600 million barrels of crude oil in the SPR. It was developed to deal with supply emergencies such as the embargo of the 1970s. It can only be used if a major supply shortfall occurs. At this point, the data indicate no shortfall in supply. "

Sly_RJ · 03-17-2003, 11:19 AM

Finally, someone with a brain.

Interlude · 03-17-2003, 11:24 AM

Does this surprise you at all? Do people remember the first Gulf War? We had the same idiots standing outside protesting with "no war for oil" signs back then, too. Prior to Pearl Harbor, most Americans didn't wan't to get involved in WW2, either.

Really the whole problem comes down to Bush being a lousy diplomat. I happen to agree with his policies, but the way he's gone about it has pissed a lot of people off. Clinton managed to get involved in sevaral conflicts without facing such harsh international resistance, which is surprising since I consider him a shitty president in all but his ability to look good in TV. That should tell you something about the world.

Content Girl · 03-17-2003, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ
Finally, someone with a brain.

I try =)

jonasty · 03-17-2003, 11:28 AM

I was listening to a report on NPR the other morning that stated there is no connection between the war in Iraq and our gas prices. That in fact we buy an inconsequential fraction of our crude from Iraq. And market crude oil prices have been going back down... our fuel prices are still going up. It's the oil industry taking advantage of the situation. Funny to think that they're greedy oportunists. I always held them in the highest regard.

Content Girl · 03-17-2003, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jonasty
It's the oil industry taking advantage of the situation.

my sentiments exactly!!

Rocky · 03-17-2003, 11:50 AM

Operation Oily Residue

foreverjason · 03-17-2003, 11:55 AM

Ya but the oil market is worked through the buying and selling of "futures" this war is more of a "futures" war. To secure oil for the next 50 to 100 years.

Sly_RJ · 03-17-2003, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by foreverjason
Ya but the oil market is worked through the buying and selling of "futures" this war is more of a "futures" war. To secure oil for the next 50 to 100 years.

Alaska looks pretty yummy to me.

JeremySF · 03-17-2003, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Interlude

Really the whole problem comes down to Bush being a lousy diplomat. I happen to agree with his policies, but the way he's gone about it has pissed a lot of people off.

Exactly.

Rocky · 03-17-2003, 12:26 PM

We must recall that President George Bush Jr and Vice-President Dick Cheney made their money in the oil business.

In between Bush regimes, Cheney was CEO of Haliburton Industries, an oil services company that has dealings with repressive governments like Burma and Iraq. The Washington Post revealed that in fact two Haliburton subsidiaries were doing business with Iraq. Haliburton also has vested interest in Alaska and Mexico's Cantarell offshore oil fields in the Gulf Of Mexico.

Before coming to the Bush administration, Don Evans, Secretary of Commerce, was chairman and CEO of Tom Brown, Inc., a 1.2 billion oil and gas company.

directfiesta · 03-17-2003, 01:04 PM

I am listening NOW to CNN, and the whole discussion is about how much to rebuild the oil fields, the price at the gas pump, and so on...

So, why if it is not about oil... What the fuck do the US care if the iraqui's oil field don't produce... I read here arguments that you don't need it , that France takes most of it...

If you were logic, then blow them up instead of pouring red wine in the gutter.... France will be fucked.... much more

Or you really cant call that bluff ( to stay in the spirit of your saloon card player president)....

wonton · 03-17-2003, 01:06 PM

Take it from the horse's mouth - Rumsfeld, Cheney and the gang all say the coming war is principally about oil. In 1998 they even urged Clinton to attack Iraq in order to stabilize the world oil markets:

Rumsfeld Urged Clinton to Attack Iraq

Rumsfeld urged Clinton to attack Iraq

Exclusive: By Neil Mackay Home Affairs Editor

DONALD Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz wrote to President Bill Clinton in 1998 urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a 'hazard' to 'a significant portion of the world's supply of oil'.
In the letter, Rumsfeld also calls for America to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations and says the US should not be 'crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council'.

Those who signed the letter, dated January 26, 1998, include Bush's current Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle; Richard Armitage, the number two at the State Department; John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, under-secretaries of state; Elliott Abrams, the presidential adviser for the Middle East and a member of the National Security Council; and Peter W Rodman, assistant secretary of defence for international security affairs.

It reads: ' We urge you to seize [the] opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the US and our friends and allies around the world.

'That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.'

' We can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf war coalition to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades the UN inspections.

'If Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil, will all be put at hazard.'

Bush's current advisers spell out their solution to the Iraqi problem: 'The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

'We believe the US has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the Security Council.'

The letter -- also signed by Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition; ex-director James Woolsey and Robert B Zoelick, the US trade representative -- was written by the signatories on behalf of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a right-wing think-tank, to which they all belong.

Other founding members of PNAC include Dick Cheney, the vice-president.

What do you think? Have your say in the forum

Web report: Iraq

directfiesta · 03-17-2003, 01:15 PM

Welcome back Wonton ... tought they had threw you in jail...

wonton · 03-17-2003, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
Welcome back Wonton ... tought they had threw you in jail...

When Bush imposes martial law after the next so called "terror attack" I am sure I will be rounded up with other political dissdents and sent to the Gulag. But for now, I run wild.

Yep. Martial law. Just remember that Wonton warned you all...

But don't worry. Martial law, just like income tax, will be a "temporary measure...."

03-17-2003, 11:10 AM	#1
Content Girl Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 67	War and Oil - I have heard so much about how the pending war affects our current oil prices. I have seen the price of gas go up to $2.30/gallon here in LV. So, I decided to do a little research and educate myself on the "oil crisis". What I found is that there doesn't really appear to be an immediate or even pending crisis due to the situation in Iraq. Below is the info I have..........I know there is more info out there, I am not in the least claiming this to be the complete story, but I thought you all might be interested. I'm also interested in any other info you may have whether it be in support of the following or in contradiction. Most of these quotes came from the American Petroleum Institute: "For the entire year, Iraq supplied about 450,000 barrels per day to the U.S. or less than 3 percent of U.S. oil consumption Speculation about potential supply shortfalls is premature. Iraq plays a relatively small role in WORLD supplies (about 3 percent) and other oil producing countries could make up for a loss of the oil it supplies. Alaska's North Slope provides 17 percent of U.S. oil production. That's about one million barrels per day or the equivalent of nearly half of U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf. The situation in Venezuela, the country's fifth largest supplier of crude oil, appears to be stabilizing and it is expected that it will be able to increase its oil production over the coming weeks. Which would compensate from any loss from Iraq. There are about 600 million barrels of crude oil in the SPR. It was developed to deal with supply emergencies such as the embargo of the 1970s. It can only be used if a major supply shortfall occurs. At this point, the data indicate no shortfall in supply. " __________________ <a href="http://www.contentguys.com" ><img src="http://www.contentguys.com/friends/promo/cb_468x80_3.gif" border=0/></a>

03-17-2003, 11:19 AM	#2
Sly_RJ Live Hard - Die Hard Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Ready to leave... Posts: 17,042	Finally, someone with a brain. __________________ PHAT SERVERS - Quality dedicated hosting at a quality price! sly AT phatservers DOT com - 147479144

03-17-2003, 11:50 AM	#7
Rocky Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Living Off The Grid Posts: 3,022	Operation Oily Residue __________________ Are you down with Sin?

03-17-2003, 12:26 PM	#11
Rocky Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Living Off The Grid Posts: 3,022	We must recall that President George Bush Jr and Vice-President Dick Cheney made their money in the oil business. In between Bush regimes, Cheney was CEO of Haliburton Industries, an oil services company that has dealings with repressive governments like Burma and Iraq. The Washington Post revealed that in fact two Haliburton subsidiaries were doing business with Iraq. Haliburton also has vested interest in Alaska and Mexico's Cantarell offshore oil fields in the Gulf Of Mexico. Before coming to the Bush administration, Don Evans, Secretary of Commerce, was chairman and CEO of Tom Brown, Inc., a 1.2 billion oil and gas company. __________________ Are you down with Sin?

03-17-2003, 11:24 AM	#3
Interlude Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: State of Denial Posts: 1,147	Does this surprise you at all? Do people remember the first Gulf War? We had the same idiots standing outside protesting with "no war for oil" signs back then, too. Prior to Pearl Harbor, most Americans didn't wan't to get involved in WW2, either. Really the whole problem comes down to Bush being a lousy diplomat. I happen to agree with his policies, but the way he's gone about it has pissed a lot of people off. Clinton managed to get involved in sevaral conflicts without facing such harsh international resistance, which is surprising since I consider him a shitty president in all but his ability to look good in TV. That should tell you something about the world.

03-17-2003, 11:28 AM	#5
jonasty Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Nor Cal Posts: 126	I was listening to a report on NPR the other morning that stated there is no connection between the war in Iraq and our gas prices. That in fact we buy an inconsequential fraction of our crude from Iraq. And market crude oil prices have been going back down... our fuel prices are still going up. It's the oil industry taking advantage of the situation. Funny to think that they're greedy oportunists. I always held them in the highest regard.

03-17-2003, 11:55 AM	#8
foreverjason Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,452	Ya but the oil market is worked through the buying and selling of "futures" this war is more of a "futures" war. To secure oil for the next 50 to 100 years.

03-17-2003, 01:04 PM	#12
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 29,787	I am listening NOW to CNN, and the whole discussion is about how much to rebuild the oil fields, the price at the gas pump, and so on... So, why if it is not about oil... What the fuck do the US care if the iraqui's oil field don't produce... I read here arguments that you don't need it , that France takes most of it... If you were logic, then blow them up instead of pouring red wine in the gutter.... France will be fucked.... much more Or you really cant call that bluff ( to stay in the spirit of your saloon card player president)....

03-17-2003, 01:06 PM	#13
wonton Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 802	Take it from the horse's mouth - Rumsfeld, Cheney and the gang all say the coming war is principally about oil. In 1998 they even urged Clinton to attack Iraq in order to stabilize the world oil markets: Rumsfeld Urged Clinton to Attack Iraq Rumsfeld urged Clinton to attack Iraq Exclusive: By Neil Mackay Home Affairs Editor DONALD Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz wrote to President Bill Clinton in 1998 urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a 'hazard' to 'a significant portion of the world's supply of oil'. In the letter, Rumsfeld also calls for America to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations and says the US should not be 'crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council'. Those who signed the letter, dated January 26, 1998, include Bush's current Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle; Richard Armitage, the number two at the State Department; John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, under-secretaries of state; Elliott Abrams, the presidential adviser for the Middle East and a member of the National Security Council; and Peter W Rodman, assistant secretary of defence for international security affairs. It reads: ' We urge you to seize [the] opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the US and our friends and allies around the world. 'That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.' ' We can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf war coalition to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades the UN inspections. 'If Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil, will all be put at hazard.' Bush's current advisers spell out their solution to the Iraqi problem: 'The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. 'We believe the US has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the Security Council.' The letter -- also signed by Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition; ex-director James Woolsey and Robert B Zoelick, the US trade representative -- was written by the signatories on behalf of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a right-wing think-tank, to which they all belong. Other founding members of PNAC include Dick Cheney, the vice-president. What do you think? Have your say in the forum Web report: Iraq

03-17-2003, 01:15 PM	#14
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 29,787	Welcome back Wonton ... tought they had threw you in jail...