 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Oil is created from organic matter (vegetation, etc) slowly over time (in nature anyway). We still have swamps and bogs, and they're still slowly creating oil. Saying oil quit being produced once we discovered it is like saying water quit flowing downhill the first time a human took a drink or the planet stopped turning the day we discovered gravity. Its still going on. |
Oil is created from organic matter, but not from swamps and bogs. They make coal. It's created from plankton and sea creatures that die and sink to the sea floor. It takes tens of millions of years to form, and whilst technically it may still be created today, in all realistic terms it is a finite resource, because it takes so long to form.
It's like saying that subsistence farmers shouldn't bother saving their harvest because they can get a new one next year.
quote:
Sandman, don't be a simpleton. If oil was the goal, if we truly just cared about the oil, then why not just buy it at market price from what ever dictator happened to be selling it? That would surely be cheaper then sending the $200 billion (US/UK/Australia) combined cost for war and reconstrution. |
The oil will eventually pay for itself.
Buying it from dictators is risky and for a vital resource like oil, it's too risky in the long run. Invading Iraq will give the US leverage against OPEC, secure a large source of oil which can be used if and when other sources run out, and also increase US dominance upon other states which depend upon oil imports.
quote:
Since we are willing to spend so much more then market price it stands to reason there are many more reasons then just the oil which the idiot "no blood for oil" crowd keeps babbling about. |
The market price doesn't take into account the full value of oil, you have to consider the long-term strategic implications of the US sitting on one of the world's largest oil reserves. Very good for the US. Probably bad for the world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tiberius
According to the World Oil magazine and the Oil and Gas Journal, cited by the The Energy Information Administration (EIA), as of Jan. 1 2002, ~ 65% of the world's oil reserves were in the Middle East.
The figures:
World total crude oil reserves: 1018 - 1032 billion barrels
Saudi Arabia: 261 - 262 billion barrels
Iraq: 112 - 115
Kuwait: 96 - 99
Iran: 90 - 99
UAE: 62 - 97 (? quite a disparity here between the two estimates)
Other big oil rezerves are in Venezuela and Russia (~ 50 - 70 billion barrels)
Now, why would all the big powers be interested in the ME is not for all that oil? Call me an ignorant, or childish or whatever, but give me a better reason first. Why is the US soooo interested in the ME, especially in the oil rich countries?
The world 3 biggest oil reserves are controlled now by the US (directly or indirectly); they have quite a military presence in all 3 countries. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Btw, did anyone notice that Iran has the 4th biggest oil reserve in the world? Apparently they are developing WOMD, plus harboring terrorists, too  |
Bullshit!
Alberta is sitting on 280-300 billion barrles of oil, just in the tar sands. Then there are the more conventional oil fields. Statistics lie and then sometimes it's the people publishing them that do.
There, all you had to do was wait til someone came along who could give you accurate information. Was that so hard?
As for why the armed might of the US might be interested in the ME right now, maybe you tuned out the fact that there is one hell of a hole in the ground right where the centre pieces of New York used to be, and the people who created the holes came from the ME. I don't know. I could be wrong here, but I think that is what has the Yanks up in arms.
Now, why Bush pushed the conflict into Iraq at that time, that is a good question. However, you can bet your last dollar that this is not done yet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
If the US didn't spend so much time projecting power overseas people wouldn't be wanting to kill Americans.
So why does the US feel a need to have bases around the world? To protect it's economy. |
Why is the US active on the world stage and projecting power here and there? Is it because nasty **** happened when they were of the habit of minding their own business and many of their sons died to put an end to it? And is it because after the last big go round, there arose a new 'threat' that kept them engaged? And is it because that unless they turned their backs on the whole shitery, they would need bases?
And just what do you think would replace American and European influence in much of the world? Don't miss your guess, without the US backing them up, Europe would have all the influence of a plate of cold beans over 75% of the surface of the globe.
Do you really want an isolationist US?
quote:
Why is it important to have bases in Iraq rather than neighbouring NATO member Turkey? |
Because bases in Turkey are not adjacent to the good bits of Iran and not adjacent to the Gulf at all? The problem of Arab states sponsoring terrorism is not yet solved, and bases may be required in the future.
Last edited by notyoueither on 04-10-2003 at 09:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Alberta is sitting on 280-300 billion barrles of oil, just in the tar sands. Then there are the more conventional oil fields. Statistics lie and then sometimes it's the people publishing them that do. |
I also know that there is almost as much oil in Utah as there is in Saudi Arabia. Don't laugh. The big problem is it's shale oil meaning it's stuck in shale beds where the permiability is pretty much tombstone. The shale is so fine grained the oil can't even flow through the pore spaces.
Last edited by Oerdin on 04-10-2003 at 10:18
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2003 04:20
The vast, vast amount of expenditures so far (I'd bet some where around 95%) have been for military costs which have zero, zip, zilch to do with Halburton or any other oil field company. You're acting like a two-year-old who keeps repeating the same word over and over again regardless of what the rest of the conversation is about.
|