War For Oil....Producers?

Show Me The Money

Published on June 20, 2005 By kingbee In Politics

the argument that we invaded iraq in order to take advantage of its oil resource cannot meet the results test. nobody is benefitting much from iraqi oil because it iraq is only producing slightly more than half the oil it did prior to the invasion. even if seen as a consequence of (or even more evidence for) an abysmal lack of planning by the administration, the fact is we're being hurt rather than helped.

we? well not all of us.

to keep us from going cold turkey, america has to shoot up an estimated 20 million barrels of oil per day. (it musta been one of the getty heirs who first described a rapidly escalating addiction to heroin as an 'oil burner habit'.) 8 million barrels are extracted from domestic sources.

oil is selling at $59 a barrel this morning. that price may reflect increased costs of production elsewhere in the world but is it at all likely the cost of pumping domestic oil has increased nearly $30 a barrel over the past 3 years?

maybe the war for oil people weren't so much wrong as confused or short-sighted and it was really a war for oil producers (as in domestic oil pumpers) rather clumsily disguised as a war for foreign oil?

Comments

kingbee

on Jun 20, 2005

gusher bump

ParaTed2k

on Jun 20, 2005

Great Article Kingbee!

I never gave much credence to the "war for oil" rage. I heard the same thing chanted back in 1990-91, yet getting our hands on oil was not made part of our agreement with Kuwait, the UN resolutions for use of force, the agreements between the U.S. and Coalition countries, the Safwan Accords (which became the basis for the ceasefire agreement), or UN Resolutions based on the ceasefire. It's strange that, if oil was the reason then, oil rights were never part the result. Even after we held all of Kuwait's oil fields, and much of Iraq's.

So, since "No War For Oil" and all its derivitives are kind of catchy things to yell at a rally, this, much less popular war, seemed like a likely time to dredge up the past.

As you point out though, it doesn't seem to be a likely reason to go to war, in light of the fact we've never even tried to capitalize on the fact we held all Iraq's oil up until the time the fields were turned over to the government of Iraq.

You also make a pretty good point about domestic oil. It is more expensive, so why wouldn't we expect to see higher prices overall at the pump?

For the good or the bad of it, oil is the life's blood of the "1st World" economies. With China becoming a major player, Japan's consumption expanding, European nations showing no signs of giving up their piece of the oil use pie, and even Australia getting in on the use action, what's a supply & demand scale to do? Up, Up, Up, and away!!

If we all weren't so short-sighted, we would be racing towards alternatives. However, that starting gun must have come with a silencer. ;~D

Dr Guy

on Jun 20, 2005

While I would debate with you on the intent of the war being the above, I would not argue with you that it is a result of the war. But then Wars do have unforseen consequences all the time. And this is one that would have happened without the war as China becomes a major consumer over the next century.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!