Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Preon1 on January 22, 2003, 07:02:43 AM
-
The view from the American media really does lead one to believe that most of the oil that drives the industry in the United States comes from the Middle East. I had never heard a number but I had always thought the percentage was pretty high.
I decided to check it out.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0507.html (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0507.html)
This is a link to an html chart published by the US Dept of Energy detailing oil imports from selected nations. I find it interesting that the oil imported from the Persian Gulf Nations doesn't ever get much higher than a quarter of total US imports. I also find it interesting that the US imports much more oil from non-OPEC nations than it does from the Middle East.
Of course that makes sense. You don't want to be dependant on a region half way across the world for your energy source... (and I admit I could be reading the numbers wrong)
But why is the world so up in arms about American oil interests in the Persian Gulf? I'd like to find numbers on the oil interests of the Brits, French, Germans, Russians and Chinese. It may shed some light on whose immediate economic stability the US is really fighting for.
-
Don't forget Japan. IIRC, they rely very heavily on middle eastern oil. We still like their toys, they still like our money, so we want them to have plenty of energy to keep making all those neat electronic gizmos for us.
-
The truth is Preon1, Iraq has violated international law regarding oil. Oil is important to everyone in the world. Not just for cars, but for heating oil and plastics mainly. It is a damn good reason to go to war, if Iraq does not comply with international law.
They don't own it, it belongs to everyone on this planet.
Les
-
Due to North Sea Crude, the British percentage is comparatively low. I know Norway and I think Denmark share in the North Sea too, and possibly, although I am least sure about, Deutchland.
-
World War II and Vietnam were fought for the same reason...oil.
Les
-
World War II and Vietnam were fought for the same reason...oil.
:rolleyes:
-
That's why we invaded Grenada also....we lusted after the rich Grenadian oil fields.
-
Originally posted by ra
:rolleyes:
RA, Vietnam was an extension of WWII. First, during WWII, it was the Japanese objective to capture the rich oil fields north of Australia, and then the Communists wanted to do the same. (Vietnam) They were defeated both times by the United States with Allies. The US won the Vietnam War by denying the Communists control over these oil fields.
Les
-
Originally posted by Leslie
World War II and Vietnam were fought for the same reason...oil.
Les
WHAT?!!?:eek: Are you kidding me? Pick up a history book sonny...
-
Why should I do that Modas? So I can hit you over the head with it?:D
Les
-
I don't really care so long as unleaded premium stays under $2 a gallon.
lazs
-
Notes of interest:
1. OPEC isn't exclusively Middle Eastern countries:
Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are.
But Algeria, Indonesia, Libya, Nigeria and Venezuela aren't.
2. The table seems a bit odd - I note the Persian Gulf nations (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates) are also, with the exception of Bahrain, OPEC nations - why all the columns?
3. Reading the fine print I find this gem:
Notes: · The country of origin for refined petroleum products may not be the country of origin for the crude oil from which the refined products were produced. For example, refined products imported from refineries in the Caribbean may have been produced from Middle East crude oil.
4. So I figure it's probably better and more accurate to base it on crude oil imports than petroleum. Partly due to the fine print, but also because crude oil is used for much more than just petroleum.
According to this table here (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_annual/psa_volume1/current/txt/table_21.txt), the country that imported the most crude oil into the US in 2001 was Saudi Arabia, followed by Mexico, Canada and Venezuela. Saudi Arabia's still in the Middle East ain't it? ;) And this despite the fact that the three next highest importers are all much much closer to the US - No 2 and No 3 even share borders with the US.
-
It's about time for the US government to hand over the cold fusion generators and anti-grav devices we acquired in Roswell a few decades ago. I want my cheap to operate flying car NOW!
;)
-
The Caspian Sea is projected to have more oil than even Saudi Arabia, currently the world's largest oil holder. (<---- That part is true, the next is more speculative ->) Getting to this oil and getting the land to build a pipeline is why GWB, Dick Cheney, the CIA and Mossad carried out the Sept 11 attacks.. :rolleyes: Yes, yes It true. Voices be quiet... Where's my tinfoil hat? Where???
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Why should I do that Modas? So I can hit you over the head with it?:D
Les
Sure, that would be ok. I could probably fanagle workman's comp somehow and take a couple of days off :D
-
Read this VERY CAREFULLY.
Security Council Sells Out
By Thomas W. Murphy
While public opinion polls in the United States indicate that Americans overwhelmingly favor military action to disarm Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein, a growing number of Americans favor military action only if it is endorsed by the United Nations.
Many Americans hold an idealistic view of the world community that leads them to conclude that any military action against Iraq should be approved by the U.N. Security Council, while others stung by criticism the U.S. is arrogant and unilateralist, favor military action under the umbrella of United Nations approval simply to pacify world opinion.
This idealistic view that the U.N. will do the "right thing" about Iraq, fails to recognize the realities of international politics and the impact that national self-interest has on the decision making process in the U.N.
For example, both Russia and France have significant financial interests at stake, including oil exploration and development contracts worth billions of dollars. For years, both Russia and France have been more interested in getting U.N. sanctions lifted for their own economic gain, then in ensuring that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.
Since 1996, Russia has ranked first among nations doing business with Iraq under the oil-for-food program with sales exceeding $4 billion, and Russia still hopes to collect the $12 billion in cold-war-era debt owed by Iraq.
In 1997, a consortium led by Russian giant Lukoil signed a contract worth an estimated $4 billion to develop the massive West Qurna oil field in southern Iraq. A contract Lukoil cannot start work on until the U.N. sanctions are lifted.
Last year under the oil-for-food program, France sold $1.5 billion worth of goods to Iraq, the most of any nation. Major French companies like communications giant Alcatel and automakers Peugeot and Renault have landed lucrative deals in Iraq.
France's Total Fina Elf has exclusive rights to develop the Majnoon and Bin Umar oil fields which are believed to be the largest in the world and estimated to hold 35 billion barrels of oil; more than three times Total Fina Elf's current reserves.
Neither Russia or France initially supported a tough, new U.N. resolution that would require Iraq to comply with previous resolutions to disarm and cooperate with U.N. inspections. In fact, they did not see the need for a new resolution, and actually favored relaxing U.N. sanctions so that Russian and French firms could start working the oil fields.
Much to the ire of Baghdad, Russia and France finally succumbed to pressure from the U.S. and Great Britain and supported resolution 1441 which requires Iraqi disarmament and cooperation with U.N. weapons inspections.
On December 8, 2002, Iraq sent both Russia and France a message when it cancelled the $4 billion contract with Russia's Lukoil to develop the West Qurna oil field. French oil firms, fearing they were next, began pressuring the French government to force the U.N. to resolve the Iraq crisis peacefully and Total Fina Elf demanded assurances its oil contacts in Iraq will be protected in the face of a possible U.S. attack.
Chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix says Iraqi cooperation is lacking and they failed to meet their obligations under resolution 1441 to provide a full and accurate declaration of their weapons of mass destruction. This is a direct violation of resolution 1441 which states "false statements in the declaration" submitted by Iraq, "shall constitute a further breech of Iraq's obligations."
On January 16, in direct contradiction of Blix's statements, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister met with the Iraqi government and praised "the positive spirit of cooperation from Iraq" on the weapons inspections.
On January 17, the Russian oil company Lukoil "miraculously" announced that it had "persuaded" Baghdad to reverse the decision made on December 8th to cancel the contract with Lukoil to develop the giant West Qurna oil field.
Later that day, it was announced that Iraq and Russia had signed three new oil accords to explore and develop oil fields in southern and western Iraq.
The first of the three new accords was to develop the Al-Rafidain oil field in southern Iraq by Russia's Sayunefte company. The second covers exploration and development of a concession in Iraq's western desert by Russia's Stroyangaz. The third provides for future plans and projects to be implemented by Russian companies in Iraq. One oil industry source described the deal as; Iraq holding out a what could turn into a $40 billion carrot for Russian oil exploration in Iraq's western desert.
What an amazing coincidence; Russia starts praising Iraqi compliance and criticizing any potential U.S. military action and the next day Iraq reverses its cancellation of the Lukoil contract and awards Russian firms additional contracts that could be worth up to $40 billion.
Critics of possible U.S. military action against Iraq say its all about oil. They are partially right; they just got the "U.S. part" wrong. Its about Moscow and Paris wanting to protect their oil interests in Iraq. Its about billions of dollars for Russia and France as long as they look the other way while Saddam Hussein develops weapons of mass destruction, supports terrorism, and continues to be a destabilizing force in the Middle East.
This past week, French President Jacques Chirac delivered a blunt warning against any unilateral action against Iraq. Chirac listed the reasons for not attacking Iraq as, the human cost, economic consequences, and the actual price tag to wage a military operation. Its hard not to notice that two of the three reasons on Chirac's list involve money.
Americans waiting for the United Nations to do the "right thing" might be waiting for a long time. Lets just hope we don't have to wait until the U.N. finds the "smoking gun" in the form of a mushroom cloud over Manhattan.
http://usainreview.com/1_21_Security_Council.htm
-
Where a country gets its oil doesn't matter. That is largely a dynamic of location and transportation efficiency. If you take the Middle East out of the equation, say even a single country like Saudi Arabia, then the pool of oil prodution is dramatically reduced and supply and demand factors, natural limitations and overproduction concerns cause an impact felt throughout the entire system.
Charon
-
http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-25-02.html
So while no one is really talking about it, the issue of oil as it relates to military action against Iraq is a nagging question.
Senior officials claim that the administration is preoccupied with military planning, not with oil. But this is not the same thing as the administration not understanding the perceived importance of oil in its decision-making about Iraq. After all, U.S. relations with West African nations -- which comprise about a 15 percent share of the United States oil import market -- have warmed considerably since Sept. 11. Indeed, last week Bush met with the leaders of 11 African nations, in the face of looming war against Iraq and concerns over the security of oil supplies from the Persian Gulf. And the United States is even considering building a naval base on the tiny island nation of Sao Tome and Principe, a former Portuguese colony believed to be sitting on massive and largely untapped oil reserves.
It's also hard to ignore the fact that Iraq has proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the second largest in the world after Saudi Arabia. This is certainly not lost on American oil companies that -- having been banished from direct involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s -- could profit enormously from a post-Hussein government friendly to the United States. According to one oil industry analyst, "There's not an oil company out there that wouldn't be interested in Iraq."
Even if American oil interests are keeping largely silent on the issue, the Iraqi opposition that hopes to succeed Hussein isn't. According to one Iraqi National Congress leader who favors the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil."
None of this has gone unnoticed by non-American companies from more than a dozen nations - including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam, and Algeria - who have oil interests in Iraq. Nervous that a pro-American government in Baghdad might exclude them, representatives of those companies have met with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake in a post-Hussein Iraq. Although many of these foreign oil concerns have existing agreements (or have sought to reach agreements in principle) to develop and expand Iraq's oil industry, Iraqi opposition officials have made it clear that they will not be bound by any existing deals.
The most blunt statement comes from former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, a leading advocate of U.S. military action against Iraq: "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them." Woolsey also said, "If they throw their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."
-
http://aeolusmag.com/beta/issues/5/saudiconnection.html
Revolution in Saudi Arabia is not yet imminent, but it is growing likelier by the day. The people demonstrate a passionate hatred of their government’s business partner, the US, and are likely to turn to the anti-American Wahabbi to overthrow it. A fundamentalist Islamic government in the country would take control of the world’s largest oil reserves and definitely not honour American commercial or military requests.
Considering that a fifth of America oil imports come from Saudi Arabia, there is a strong incentive for the US government to relocate many of its geopolitical interests in the Middle East before it is too late. The Americans need to secure new oil sources in the Gulf, find a new Arab-state ally and maintain their political and economical interest in the region, all this under the watchful eye of the ‘international community’.
Iraq is America’s best bet for oil. The country holds the world’s second largest oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia, with a confirmed $1.1 trillion worth and probably a lot more. A new, American-friendly government in Iraq, such as the one recently established in Afghanistan, would not join or succumb to the pressure of OPEC, which the Americans themselves consider a manipulative and greedy cartel, despite the fact that member countries rely on oil alone to keep their people alive.
Such circumstances would be favourable for the US oil industry: some oil giants would lose out, some would win, but all would be safe from the risky status of Saudi Arabia and free from OPEC’s stranglehold.
So Rip...Yes its about Oil...Just so happens that all are players in the Game.
-
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/0811greed.htm
If Saddam were toppled, the Western oil companies led by Exxon expect to have much readier access to those oil reserves, making them less dependent on Saudi oilfields and the future of the Saudi royal family. The US President and Vice-President, both oilmen, cannot be unaware of those interests.
Of course Western policies towards Iraq have always been deeply influenced by the need for its oil, though they tried to be discreet about it. The nation of Iraq was invented in 1920, after the First World War. The allies had 'floated to victory on a sea of oil' (as the British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon put it), but they preferred to conceal their dependence on it: 'When I want oil,' said Clemenceau, the French Prime Minister, 'I go to my grocer.'
But both Clemenceau and Curzon, while they talked about Arab interests and self-determination, knew that what really mattered in Iraq was the oil that was emerging in the North; and the British and French succeeded in controlling the precious oilfields at Mosul.
Iraqi oil became still more desirable after the oil crisis of 1973 which enabled the Arab producers to hold the world to ransom; and the discovery of huge new oil reserves in the South made Iraq more important as a rival to Saudi Arabia - and Saddam more exasperating as an enemy.
It is true that since the Seventies, as the shortage turned into glut, producing countries have become much more dependent on the global marketplace. Countries which hoped to develop political clout by allocating oil supplies soon found they had to compete to sell their oil wherever they could. And Western companies developed new oilfields nearer home, or in friendlier countries.
But America and continental Europe still depend on uncertain developing countries, mostly Muslim, for much of their energy, and in times of crisis the concern about oil supplies returns. Western oil interests closely influence military and diplomatic policies, and it is no accident that while American companies are competing for access to oil in Central Asia, the US is building up military bases across the region.
In this security context the prospect of a 'terror network' controlling Saudi Arabian oil, which last week's briefing to the Pentagon conjured up, presents the ultimate night mare: a puritanical Islamist regime in Saudi Arabia, and perhaps in other Gulf states, would be prepared to defy the marketplace, with much less need to sell their oil than corrupt monarchies or sheikhdoms. Bin Laden, himself a Saudi, made no secret of his overriding ambition to rid his country of corrupt rulers and return to its austere Islamist roots.
In this scenario Americans would be more determined to get access to oil in Iraq, and the demands to topple Saddam would be reinforced.
There are undoubtedly many different and sometimes conflicting strands behind Washington's attitudes to Iraq. Certainly the public sense of outrage about 11 September, and the fear of terrorism, remains the most potent political force behind the moves against Saddam - reinforced by Israel's dread of Iraq's weaponry.
But there are also the longer-term geopolitical arguments in the Pentagon and the State Department, with commercial pressures behind them, about the need for energy security. And these have become more urgent with the growing worries about the Saudis.
The crucial question remains: would toppling Saddam safeguard Iraq's oil for the West? After all, both previous American Presidents - Clinton and George Bush Sr - were persuaded not to overthrow Saddam, because the alternative could well be a more dangerous power vacuum. That danger remains. If Iraq were to split into three parts, as many expect, the new oil regions in the South might be become still less reliable, in a region dominated by Shia Muslims who have their own links with the Shia in Iran. And a destabilized Saudi Arabia could make a power vacuum still more dangerous.
The history of oil wars is not encouraging, and oil companies are not necessarily the best judges of national interests. The Anglo-American coup in Iran in 1953, which toppled the radical Mossadeq and brought back the Shah, enabled Western companies to regain control of Iranian oil: but the Iranian people never forgave the intervention, and took their revenge on the Shah in 1979.
The belief that invading Iraq will produce a more stable Middle East, and give the West easy access to its oil wealth, is dangerously simplistic. Westerners live in a world where most of their oil comes from Islam, and their only long-term security in energy depends on accommodating Muslims.
*Anthony Sampson is the author of 'The Seven Sisters', about oil companies and the Middle East.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Notes of interest:
1. OPEC isn't exclusively Middle Eastern countries:
Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are.
But Algeria, Indonesia, Libya, Nigeria and Venezuela aren't.
2. The table seems a bit odd - I note the Persian Gulf nations (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates) are also, with the exception of Bahrain, OPEC nations - why all the columns?
3. Reading the fine print I find this gem:
4. So I figure it's probably better and more accurate to base it on crude oil imports than petroleum. Partly due to the fine print, but also because crude oil is used for much more than just petroleum.
According to this table here (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_annual/psa_volume1/current/txt/table_21.txt), the country that imported the most crude oil into the US in 2001 was Saudi Arabia, followed by Mexico, Canada and Venezuela. Saudi Arabia's still in the Middle East ain't it? ;) And this despite the fact that the three next highest importers are all much much closer to the US - No 2 and No 3 even share borders with the US.
Good find. It still shows Middle Eastern oil under 30% of US imports. Ofcourse that's still a huge amount of money. Can anybody say for sure how that compares to the French and Russian interests?
edit - By the way, Ping: Nobody's trying to dispute the fact that Iraq has oil and that oil is a desireable thing (well until we can find a more economical method of generating energy). The topic I wanted to discuss was America's immediate consumption of Middle Eastern oil compared to that coming from other imports.
-
Originally posted by Ping
If Saddam were toppled, the Western oil companies led by Exxon expect to have much readier access to those oil reserves, making them less dependent on Saudi oilfields and the future of the Saudi royal family. The US President and Vice-President, both oilmen, cannot be unaware of those interests.
Shell is a Dutch corporation and does business in the USA in partnership(called "Motiva", which is also partly owned by Saudi Arabia and includes the old "Texaco" company )with Exxon, which now owns Mobil.
BP(Great Britain) now owns Amoco, which does business in the USA with Transmontaigne(French)which markets the BP/Amoco brand product at American-owned terminals and refineries.
All internationally owned and operated oil conglomerates.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It's about time for the US government to hand over the cold fusion generators and anti-grav devices we acquired in Roswell a few decades ago. I want my cheap to operate flying car NOW!
;)
You juse made me laugh out loud at my office....thanks:)
-
Originally posted by Leslie
RA, Vietnam was an extension of WWII. First, during WWII, it was the Japanese objective to capture the rich oil fields north of Australia, and then the Communists wanted to do the same. (Vietnam) They were defeated both times by the United States with Allies. The US won the Vietnam War by denying the Communists control over these oil fields.
Everyone knows that Vietnam war was started by evil Imperialists who wanted to take control of oil fields in Siberia and Arctic Ocean shelf.
/*I wonder how many people here will take this seriously.*/
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Everyone knows that Vietnam war was started by evil Imperialists who wanted to take control of oil fields in Siberia and Arctic Ocean shelf.
/*I wonder how many people here will take this seriously.*/
Boroda, I've *never* taken any of your posts seriously. Ever. :)
-
Boroda please show me on a map where you think the following places are:
Vietnam
Siberia
Arctic Ocean
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Boroda please show me on a map where you think the following places are:
Vietnam
Siberia
Arctic Ocean
Grun :)
You are the best!
If you don't know where all that places are on the map - it's better to ask your co-worker or neighbour who had geography at school then to turn to someone 10000km away from you. I don't get paid for educating grunherzes.
:):):):)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Grun :)
You are the best!
If you don't know where all that places are on the map - it's better to ask your co-worker or neighbour who had geography at school then to turn to someone 10000km away from you. I don't get paid for educating grunherzes.
:):):):)
He's right Grun, it's always better to ask somebody who actually knows ;)
-
Cmon boroda point out where you think Vietnam is and the Siberia and then the Arctic Ocean... Cmon..
-
Originally posted by Preon1
...I also find it interesting that the US imports much more oil from non-OPEC nations than it does from the Middle East...
that chart puts 51% of US oil imports from OPEC in the most recent year
-
Originally posted by whgates3
that chart puts 51% of US oil imports from OPEC in the most recent year
OPEC isn't entirely middle eastern countries
-
duh
-
And, again, it really doesn't matter who gets their oil from where. If you take Saudi production away, it will impact America just as a loss in Venezuelan oil production would impact Japan and Europe. Hell, a refinery fire or a pipeline disruption downstream will raise the price of gasoline 30 cents or more in some markets. The decision to pump a few million fewer barrels is felt immediately. Where you get your crude oil from is more a function of transportation efficiencies in deregulated Western markets. If you lose one source of production, particularly one on the scale of Saudi Arabia, it will be hard to replace in any acceptable time frame.
Yes Rip, there are multinational oil companies headquartered in various countries. I cover international oil companies as part of my job. In fact, next week I’ll be talking to BP, Shell and ExxonMobil about their joint ventures with PetroChina.
Everybody is in every deregulated market trying to do everything, and all multinationals have a major presence in the US market and, of course, there's ExxonMobil. All have significant political power in the US and abroad.
While it is possible that the oil issue is profit taking, the current administrative concern is likely over the threat of a Saudi supply disruption, which as Ping's material points out, is possible. Proactive gains would just be an ancillary benefit. Of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which is the true home of international, fundamentalist Islamic terrorism? What happens if we lose Saudi Arabia five years from now in another Iran, or if they start playing political pressure games with their supply to influence world politics because the ruling family is running scared? It sure would be nice to have a comparable source to replace that shortfall.
Charon
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Cmon boroda point out where you think Vietnam is and the Siberia and then the Arctic Ocean... Cmon..
Fine words from someone who never told me where Europe was on a map! :D
-
I pay huge amounts of taxes to the feds for an army... I have a right to expect unleaded premium to stay at less than two dollars a gallon (adjusted for inflation). That's about all they're good for in my opinion so let em get on with it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Leslie
It is a damn good reason to go to war, if Iraq does not comply with international law.
They don't own it, it belongs to everyone on this planet.
YES!!! Hereby I declare war on the US for not sharing their women with me. The US of A dont own them they belong to everyone.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I pay huge amounts of taxes to the feds for an army... I have a right to expect unleaded premium to stay at less than two dollars a gallon (adjusted for inflation). That's about all they're good for in my opinion so let em get on with it.
lazs
Premium? That's just a warm fuzzy for you right? You do know that all those hoses connect to the same tank?
-
I don't really care if they are so long as they fool my pistons and distributor.
lazs
-
YES!!! Hereby I declare war on the US for not sharing their women with me. The US of A dont own them they belong to everyone
if you think you can handle one of are free women,,go right ahead,,,,they would turn you inside out and leave you cring on a step saying,,why why!,,lol<~~~and who said anyone aint sharing?usa women are free to do as they please and who they please,, i guess if your having troubles getting one,,its your own falt,,lol
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't really care if they are so long as they fool my pistons and distributor.
lazs
And my knock sensor.
-
And actually I'd prefer it under $1.50.
-
Don't have a knock sensor funked and my ears don't work that great these days either but...
you are right... 1.50 is more like it. We should use up the rest of the worlds oil first (if that's even possible) and then when it's all gone turn Alaska into a pincossion.
lazs