We Are All Spaniards

(Steven P. McNicoll) wrote:

(pacplyer) wrote in message . com...

What dumb comments! We import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.


No, we do not. Since 60% of all our oil is imported, it's obvious
that we do not import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.

Most of it comes from Mexico and Venezuela, a simple side effect of
the fact that *they're closer!*

However, if you disrupt the Middle East oil production, you raise the
global price of the stuff.

Rob

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:08:37 GMT, Rob Perkins wrote:

What dumb comments! We import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.


No, we do not. Since 60% of all our oil is imported, it's obvious
that we do not import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.

Most of it comes from Mexico and Venezuela, a simple side effect of
the fact that *they're closer!*

http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#imports (old data - 1999)
and
http://api-ec.api.org/industry/index.cfm (current)


However, if you disrupt the Middle East oil production, you raise the
global price of the stuff.

true.
or try to use less ( -- less demand -- lower price )

Rob

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

Martin Hotze wrote:

However, if you disrupt the Middle East oil production, you raise the
global price of the stuff.

true.
or try to use less ( -- less demand -- lower price )

If you're trying to reduce dependency on foreign oil, that tactic really doesn't work
well here. The EPA regulations have shut down many of the domestic wells that used to
produce. The general idea behind the regulations is that a well that doesn't produce
for some period of time must be capped. The capping method prescribed is rather
permanent. Once capped, the price of oil would have to triple to make it economical
to re-drill the well.

One of the results is that, every time OPEC drops prices and maintains that lower
price for more than a year, a few more marginal producers go out of business in this
country. Permanently. If you reduce demand and OPEC does, in fact, react by cutting
prices, you will actually *increase" dependency on foreign oil.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

Martin Hotze wrote:
true.
or try to use less ( -- less demand -- lower price )


If you're trying to reduce dependency on foreign oil, that tactic really doesn't work
well here.

I really, really hate to agree with Martin, but, if we (in
the U.S.) would put a full court press on reducing oil
consumption then prices would go down. Clearly we should
strongly encourage domestic production, but either, by
itself will not be enough.

Doug Carter wrote:

I really, really hate to agree with Martin, but, if we (in
the U.S.) would put a full court press on reducing oil
consumption then prices would go down.

Yes, prices would. And that would permanently reduce the amount of available domestic
oil. Which would *increase* the dependency on imports from other countries. Re-read
my post.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

In article , "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:

Doug Carter wrote:

I really, really hate to agree with Martin, but, if we (in
the U.S.) would put a full court press on reducing oil
consumption then prices would go down.

Yes, prices would. And that would permanently reduce the amount of
available domestic
oil. Which would *increase* the dependency on imports from other
countries. Re-read
my post.

It's not a simple system, driving down the price of
oil isn't simply a matter of only reducing consumption.
Other aspects have to be addressed such as, as mentioned
above, getting the EPA on board instead of having them
(the EPA) creating even more counterproductive regulations.
In addition, the consumption in other nations will have
to be considered.

--
Bob Noel

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:00:45 -0500, Doug Carter wrote:

true.
or try to use less ( -- less demand -- lower price )


If you're trying to reduce dependency on foreign oil, that tactic really doesn't work
well here.

I really, really hate to agree with Martin,

oh. you don't have to feel bad about that :-))

but, if we (in
the U.S.) would put a full court press on reducing oil
consumption then prices would go down. Clearly we should
strongly encourage domestic production, but either, by
itself will not be enough.

well, one point was not counted in:
use less oil - less demand - prices will fall - OPEC will decrease
oil-output - less oil on market - higher prices (or the same before the
price reduction). the only winner would be our environment, but this would
be worth to give it a try, IMHO.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

(Steven P. McNicoll) wrote in message om...
(pacplyer) wrote in message . com...

What dumb comments! We import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.


No, we do not. Since 60% of all our oil is imported, it's obvious
that we do not import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.

I meant to say: We import 80% of all our *gulf* oil from from Saudi
Arabia. But even that figure fluctuates yearly. So, my statistical
error. Would you agree that pre-war Iraq produced less than 10% of
U.S. imported oil? Post-war it is minimal so far. I doubt the output
has been restored to any comprable pre-war level. My point was that
stealing oil from Iraq was not a motive for the invasion. We should
pick another target, say the Spratly islands (a cache of oil the size
of the whole Persian Gulf) in the South China Sea if we are willing to
spend 170 billion dollars for military action, if the real motive is
oil conquest. I suspect the motives for invading Iraq centered
around a former "employee" (S.H.) publicly defying the Bush Dynasty
(O'niel allusions.) It would be easy then, to justify the action
based on providing stability for the region. IMHO.

pac

"pacplyer" wrote in message
om...
(Steven P. McNicoll) wrote in message
om...
(pacplyer) wrote in message
. com...

What dumb comments! We import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.


No, we do not. Since 60% of all our oil is imported, it's obvious
that we do not import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.

I meant to say: We import 80% of all our *gulf* oil from from Saudi
Arabia. But even that figure fluctuates yearly. So, my statistical
error. Would you agree that pre-war Iraq produced less than 10% of
U.S. imported oil? Post-war it is minimal so far. I doubt the output
has been restored to any comprable pre-war level. My point was that
stealing oil from Iraq was not a motive for the invasion.

Iraqi oil production was minimal because of the sanctions and if any oil did
make its way to the US it would have probably been a mistake. The only oil
that was allowed to be exported was for humanitarian supplies. Therefore US
imports of oil from Iraq were zero before the war. Because Iraqi oil
production has been held back for 14 odd years the Iraqis have some of the
biggest oil reserves known.
So going to war to steal Iraq's oil is not an unreasonable assumption. It is
not just a matter of current production it is about access to future
production and the control of the reserves.
Its of no consequence to the US whether the Iraqi oil production is high or
low at the moment as their is a glut of oil. In fact I suspect that the US
is happy for it to take some time before Iraqi oil production is up to pre
Gulf War I levels. Its like keeping money in the bank.

Mind you some Iraqi people might like to see production and exports rise and
try and get living standards back to what they used to be.

"S Green" wrote snip

Iraqi oil production was minimal because of the sanctions and if any oil did
make its way to the US it would have probably been a mistake. The only oil
that was allowed to be exported was for humanitarian supplies. Therefore US
imports of oil from Iraq were zero before the war. Because Iraqi oil
production has been held back for 14 odd years the Iraqis have some of the
biggest oil reserves known.
So going to war to steal Iraq's oil is not an unreasonable assumption. It is
not just a matter of current production it is about access to future
production and the control of the reserves.

Sure it's an unreasonable assumption. The burden of proof is upon the
person making the charge of stealing (that would be you, Green.) I see
no evidence that spending 170 billion was a secret plot to steal such
a small (5% of total U.S. import) oil. Future undeveloped oil fields
cost a fortune in development, require regional stability, and their
future output is theroretical at best. But this charge of stealing is
a moot point anyway. Once we hand over control, that oil can go to the
world market (not just the U.S.) The difference will be that the oil
proceeds this time will go more towards improving the standard of
living for common Iraqies instead of all to a madman building secret
"superguns" (1991) and other military hardware to support more 8-year
wars on his neighbors (e.g. the Iran-Iraq war.) Looking for WMD is
what the Bush Admin did. Just because they didn't discover
functioning a-bombs or bugs doesn't mean those things didn't slip into
Syria before we got there. Saddam = weapon purchases and regional
war. USA/handover = oil production and money spread to more
individuals (we hope.)

Its of no consequence to the US whether the Iraqi oil production is high or
low at the moment as their is a glut of oil. In fact I suspect that the US
is happy for it to take some time before Iraqi oil production is up to pre
Gulf War I levels.

Hmmm, you said pre war production was zero (see your quote above.)
Martin posted a link that in 1999 it was 8% of all US imports (isn't
that pre Gulf War II ? I guess you meant the immediate period before
invasion?


Its like keeping money in the bank.

Mind you some Iraqi people might like to see production and exports rise and
try and get living standards back to what they used to be.

But again, who is all this revenue going to go to? Warlords? Madmen?
Some long lost royal familly? Radical terrorists? I betcha none of
them want it to go to their people. I want us to pull out, but I
realize it's going to be a disaster any way we do it.

I supported both invasions, but I am against this occupation. Our
attempts at helping these people achieve freedom is unappreciated.
There is no way to convert oppressed peoples who have not the courage
to throw off their oppressors themselves. Believing that all people
on this earth deserve freedom is where Bush screwed up. The guy is
too big-hearted. Our reconstruction efforts also appear to be
unappreciated. My conclusion is that some people just don't deserve
to be liberated. We should pull out and let the place fall into civil
war. If it spreads into the other oilfields then we'll come back and
bomb them again.

Is this what you want, Green?

pacplyer