Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Gen. Abizaid, "Of Course It's About Oil,"


Spurious George

Recommended Posts

 
  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Spurious George

    11

  • Clocker

    5

  • Guardsman Bass

    4

  • AROCES

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Yes, it is about oil. So?

Well the funny thing is, if you look at that FP article Celumnaz posted, it doesn't mention oil at all :o Maybe that's the point; the American people were told very different reasons than oil for going to war. I don't know if hiding the truth or part of the truth technically constitutes as lying, but I'm sure at least some people feel that way. Also, a lot of people have been claiming over and over it's not about the oil. Suddenly there's no such denial anymore and going to war for oil was ok. To me, it really does look that's one reason why a lot of people think Bush and his administration have done a poor job; it hasn't been completely honest. I know that's one reason to. Always giving another reason for the war when the previous one fails does not exactly inspire trust in me. Others, however, will take anything the administration does for granted it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sigh

Aroces, thats just stupid

its not just about oil

Bass has come the closest to explaining the situation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its not just about oil

Bass has come the closest to explaining the situation

Agreed, Bass captured the essence of the matter in just a few sentences :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is about oil. So?

Although I'm not going to fault you for being completely blunt about this :D , I believe the problem with fighting a war for oil is that it really consists of putting a bandaid on what is an increasingly dangerous structural problem for the United States - our steadily increasing dependence on foreign oil. US oil production reached its peak in 1971, and with a very short exception as the Alaska fields came on-line, US domestic oil production has steadily fallen year after year. The Energy Information Administration predicts that US oil production in 2007 will be 5.1 million barrels/day - down more than half from the roughly 11 million barrels produced per day in the US in 1971. At the same time, US oil consumption is going up, which means that we are forced to import oil in increasing quantities. The only real way out of this problem would be to make serious changes to reduce further consumption of oil on a national scale, and this isn't happening; instead, we seem to be focusing on keeping an eye on our import sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is about oil. So?

the funny thing is bush never mentioned that in the run up to war.... :hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything before that was opinion... but I liked how you threw in "free world" there, like every tanker coming through the Strait of Hormuz is destined for Freedomland, USA.

But sure it's not all black and white, sure the US was after some huge oil reserves with an easy target in their way but they must have also had the 'Iran Plan' hatched before then and saw the benefit of having troops on both sides of Iran's border(Afghanistan, Iraq). Now we are in the second phase of 'We have no evidence but they want nukes! And judging by our opinion their previous track record we need to bomb them too... to keep oil secure for the free world' at $150 a frickin barrel.

The recent 'energy security' justification that is gaining popularity is a sugar-coated half-assed admission, be a man USA and admit it... there is a 'Great Game' raging right now and without some drastic action the US was going to lose it... of course the drastic action was taken by a bunch of fanatic chickenhawks and failed miserably... but that is a different topic and one I would also enjoy discussing.

Your opinion(s) of my opinion(s) are respectfully noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheney, energy and Iraq invasion - Supreme Court to rule on secrecy

In July 2003, after two years of legal action through the Freedom of Information Act (and after the end of the war), Judicial Watch was finally able to obtain some documents from the Cheney-led National Energy Policy Development Group.

They included maps of Middle East and Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, two charts detailing various Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a March 2001 list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," detailing the status of their efforts. The documents are available at www.judicialwatch.org.

These documents are significant because during the 1990s, U.S. policy- makers were alarmed about oil deals potentially worth billions of dollars being signed between the Iraqi government and foreign competitors of the United States including France's Total and Russia's LukOil.

The New York Times reported the LukOil contracts alone could amount to more than 70 billion barrels of oil, more than half of Iraq's reserves. One oil executive said the volume of these deals was huge -- a "colossal amount."

As early as April 17, 1995, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. petroleum giants realized that "Iraq is the biggie" in terms of future oil production, that the U.S. oil companies were "worried about being left out" of Iraq's oil dealings due to the antagonism between Washington and Baghdad, and that they feared that "the companies that win the rights to develop Iraqi fields could be on the road to becoming the most powerful multinationals of the next century."

- Link -

Maps and Charts of Iraqi Oil Fields

These are documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under a March 5, 2002 court order as a result of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." The documents are dated March 2001. Click here to view the press release.

Iraq Oil Map

Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts - Part 1

Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts - Part 2

United Arab Emirates Oil Map

United Arab Emirates: Major Oil and Natural Gas Development Projects

Saudi Arabia Oil Map

Saudi Arabia: Major Oil and Natural Gas Development Projects

- Link -

Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.

- Link -

Eurasian oil geopolitics

US policy, as Brzezinski openly stated in The Grand Chessboard, is to Balkanize Eurasia, and ensure that no possible stable economic or political region between Russia, the EU and China emerges in the future, that might challenge US global hegemony. This is the core idea of the September 2002 Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive wars."

In taking control of Ukraine, Washington would take a giant step to encircle Russia for the future. Russian moves to use its vast energy reserves to play for room in rebuilding its political role would be over. Chinese efforts to link with Russia to secure some independence from US energy control would also be over. Iran's attempts to secure support from Russia against the Washington pressure would also end. Iran's ability to enter into energy agreements with China would also likely end. Cuba and Venezuela would also likely fall prey to a pro-Washington regime change soon after.

Washington policy is to directly control the oil and gas flows from the Caspian including Turkmenistan, and to counter Russian regional influence from Georgia to Ukraine to Azerbaijan and Iran. The background issue is Washington's unspoken recognition of the looming exhaustion of the world's major sources of cheap high-quality oil, the problem of global oil depletion, or as the late American geologist, M. King Hubbard termed it, of peak oil.

Over the coming 5-10 years the world economy faces a major new series of energy shocks as older fields from the North Sea to Alaska to Libya and even major fields in Saudi Arabia such as the giant Ghawar field, peak and begin to decline. Many large fields already have peaked such as the North Sea, perhaps one reason for the British interest in Iraq. And no new fields of a North Sea size have been found to replace them.

It was clearly no accident of politics that former Halliburton chief, Dick Cheney, became Vice President, with quasi-presidential powers, in the current Washington Administration. Nor that his first job was to oversee the Energy Task Force.

Back in late 1999, as CEO of Halliburton, Cheney delivered a speech to the London Institute of Petroleum. Halliburton, of course, is the world's leading oilfield services and construction group. Cheney presumably had a pretty good picture of where there was oil in the world.

In his speech, Cheney presented the picture of world oil supply and demand to fellow oil industry people. "By some estimates," he stated, "there will be an average of two percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three percent natural decline in production from existing reserves." Cheney added an alarming note: "That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day." This is equivalent to more than six Saudi Arabia's of today's size.

He cited China and East Asia as fast-growth regions, and noted that the oilfields of the Middle East were, along with the Caspian Sea the major untapped oil prospects.

- Link -

Its all about superpowers, more specifically the US countering any other country's bid to become one, and that is of course best accomplished through oil/energy maneuvering. Iraq of course wasnt an up and coming power but their oil was useful in countering other country's oil deals and acquiring them... so Iraq was about oil, "we can't really deny that", but there is also a bigger global picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although Peak Oil is definitely a prominent concern (especially if Kenneth Deffeyes and his ilk are correct, and we either have or will soon hit the peak of light oils), I'm far more concerned about the fact that non-OPEC oil has, for the most part, peaked. That, my friends, means that as the years progress, we and the rest of the world will become more and more dependent on OPEC oil.

That assumes, of course, that Matt Simmons isn't right. If he is, then even OPEC oil won't prevent shortages, since it won't have Saudi Arabia there to make up any discrepancy between western demand and the promised supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oil price can hit $150 before 2010 - Investec

The price of oil, which hit a new record high above $88 a barrel on Tuesday, can rally further and may reach $150 before 2010, the fund manager for Investec's Global Energy Fund said.

"The reason why it has potential is the underlying supply and demand fundamentals are causing a serious crunch in oil markets," said Tim Guinness, chairman of Guinness Asset Management, who runs the Investec Global Energy Fund.

Guinness, who was chairman of Investec Asset Management for four years before he retired in 2002, said strong demand from developing countries was emulating that of the developed world from 1950 to 1970.

"It's comparable to the demand growth we saw between 1950 and 1970 in the OECD countries ... We are seeing that again generated by China, Asia ex-Japan and India," he said.

"It boasts very strong potential demand growth for 10 to 15 years if the developing world continues to grow 5 percent per annum. As far as I can see that's a reasonable scenario."

The Investec Global Energy Fund has $2.2 billion in assets and has handed investors 30 percent returns so far this year. Investec outsourced management of the fund to Guinness after he left the company to found Guinness Asset Management.

Guinness, a member of the Guinness family behind the Irish beer, said: "On the other side of the coin, non-OPEC supply is proving extremely hard to grow ... The growth that we are seeing in Caspian, West Africa, Brazil, non-conventional Canada is simply not enough to meet the extra (demand)."

"The demand for oil is so important for transportation, and transportation is so important and relatively inexpensive that the oil price may have to go to $150 a barrel to really dent the demand," Guinness said.

"Before 2010 it (the oil price) will go above $100, probably to around $150," he added.

- Link -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sigh

Aroces, thats just stupid

its not just about oil

Bass has come the closest to explaining the situation

Alright , it is not about Oil only. But if it is only about Oil, does it matter? See my point

Whenever we say to protect our interest, that means Oils, commerce and security that affects us.

See, it's not that as stupid as you thought it is. You just being defensive in your position by using the word stupid, kind of stupid really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
He did say, to stabilize the Middle East, right?

From what I've read, in terms of books like Bob Woodward's books on the Iraq invasion and the post-invasion, the idea was to build a stable, democratic, and above all US-friendly government in the heart of the Middle East that could double as a location for military bases outside of Saudi Arabia, while being conveniently close to the heart of OPEC oil on Earth. Again, oil touched every decision made; the US, for example, would never dream of doing the same thing to, say, Cameroon in Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although Peak Oil is definitely a prominent concern (especially if Kenneth Deffeyes and his ilk are correct, and we either have or will soon hit the peak of light oils), I'm far more concerned about the fact that non-OPEC oil has, for the most part, peaked. That, my friends, means that as the years progress, we and the rest of the world will become more and more dependent on OPEC oil.

That assumes, of course, that Matt Simmons isn't right. If he is, then even OPEC oil won't prevent shortages, since it won't have Saudi Arabia there to make up any discrepancy between western demand and the promised supply.

I agree, which is why I stated:

The wisest solution to all this would be a big push to go green with renewable energy sources. This would render any threat to global economic instability inert by reducing the global demand for oil.

I modified my statement to reflect the present tense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've read, in terms of books like Bob Woodward's books on the Iraq invasion and the post-invasion, the idea was to build a stable, democratic, and above all US-friendly government in the heart of the Middle East that could double as a location for military bases outside of Saudi Arabia, while being conveniently close to the heart of OPEC oil on Earth. Again, oil touched every decision made; the US, for example, would never dream of doing the same thing to, say, Cameroon in Africa.

I think protecting COMMERCE or FREE TRADE that our economy relies on is the more approriate statement, which happen to be Oil.

I'm telling you, those who cries for no blood for oil will be quiet by now had we not done anything when Saddam rolled into Kuwait and then Saudi Arabia.

The WHOLE WORLD was behind us when we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait for it was reality that was happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one hand your complaining that the Middle East turmoil is all about oil, and therefore we can infer the US should withdraw from the area. And on the other hand your complaining about the rising costs of gasoline.

If the US did withdraw....oil would quickly surge over $100 a barrel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one hand your complaining that the Middle East turmoil is all about oil, and therefore we can infer the US should withdraw from the area. And on the other hand your complaining about the rising costs of gasoline.

If the US did withdraw....oil would quickly surge over $100 a barrel.

True, true...not all of us are complaining about rising gas prices though ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only real way out of this problem would be to make serious changes to reduce further consumption of o*l on a national scale, and this isn't happening; instead, we seem to be focusing on keeping an eye on our import sources.

so in the 70s we only needed to import about 10%

now we need to import 40% or more from over seas not

counting mexico and canada import just to keep us moveing

Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is a special international terrorist organization.

The Revolutionary Guard and the U.S. military have also had a low-key history of

cooperation from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Syria and Iraq have agreed to build a gas pipeline from Iraq into Syria, where Iraqi

gas will be treated in Syrian plants.

Turkey may be cut out of the deal and be made to invade iraq so us can gain control of byzantium

A “Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition” — which forms the basis of a global counter-alliance — is emerging. America and Britain rather than opting for outright war, may choose to reel in Iran and Syria through macro-economic manipulation and velvet revolutions.

War directed against Iran and Syria, however, cannot be ruled out. There are real war preparations on the ground in the Middle East and Central Asia. A war against Iran and Syria would have far-reaching worldwide implications.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer based in Ottawa specialising on the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.