What really scares me about USUK aggression - Page 4

GhengisFarb™ · October 3, 2003, 19:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
That would take a million years

What's your point? The oil produced today started the process millions of years ago. The vegetation that starts today will be oil millions of years from now. And there are millions of stages of oil in production in between those two stages.

Chemical Ollie · October 3, 2003, 19:22

Paiktis is right. US tax payers is bending over to pay the Bush Presidental campaign supporters a few couple of more % profit per year, while the total cost to US public is incredible. "Blood for Oil" is a term that tells us the whole truth. Haliburton's current stock owners (=US government) get rich while the US tax payer's get into deep debt for several generations.

GhengisFarb™ · October 3, 2003, 19:26

Americans are used to it.

Chemical Ollie · October 3, 2003, 19:26

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

What's your point? The oil produced today started the process millions of years ago. The vegetation that starts today will be oil millions of years from now. And there are millions of stages of oil in production in between those two stages.

Are you stupid? There is no way we will produce oil in the same rate as we are consuming it, no matter how much we redirect our farts into the earth crust.

GhengisFarb™ · October 3, 2003, 19:30

I didn't say you would, I said the US is. The US is still a very lush vegative environment continually pushing more vegetation into the cycle. Arabia lost it vegetation and halted the process long ago.

Oerdin · October 3, 2003, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Because Haliburton would not get the profit from that deal. Now they do.

Halburtion represents some where around 0.00001% of the US economy. Just because the VP used to work there doesn't mean the whole country cares about Halburton. What sort of simplton would believe such crap?

After 9/11 the intelligence community was be rated for not connecting the dots which hinted at an Al Quada attack so when faced with Iraq they possibly ended up connecting more dots then they should have. Iraq was know to have WoMD and they hadn't shown any proof that they destroyed those WoMD so why should we believe them? Add on top the fact that the US/UK had the option to end the cease fire at any time they felt like Iraq wasn't complaying with our demands and you see why GW2 happened. Saddam sponsored Hamas and Islamic Jihad suicide bombers but not Al Quada.

Still Hamas and IJ are horrible terrosit organizations and so we were right to seek the destruction of their financial backer.

Oerdin · October 3, 2003, 19:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
If it wasn't about oil, what is Haliburton doing there in the first place?

What's with the nonsensical obsession with Hallburton? You're starting to sound like Sava.

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.

Oerdin · October 3, 2003, 19:43

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I didn't say you would, I said the US is. The US is still a very lush vegetative environment continually pushing more vegetation into the cycle. Arabia lost it vegetation and halted the process long ago.

Most oil production isn't the result of sub-Ariel plant growth. Most of it comes from the accumulation of marine invertebrates.

Sandman · October 3, 2003, 20:05

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.

Chemical Ollie · October 3, 2003, 20:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

What's with the nonsensical obsession with Hallburton? You're starting to sound like Sava.

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.

Of-course it is self-evident that Haliburton had nothing to do with the military budget. Except that their boss is a part of the government who decides the military budget.

Sava is a very decent person who'm I highly respect, despite him being a socialist (or whatever he calls himselves) which means he belongs to an ideology totally opposed to mine in many issues.

But as a conservative, I am a no-bullshit scientist. As a European, I lack the side blinkers most Americans put on when looking at their own politicians. Why do you think there is no link between the tax payer's expenditures and the co-incidendece that the corporations who contributed the most in the Bush election campaign are hired for rebuilding Iraq in a no-bid deal?

Ted Striker · October 3, 2003, 22:38

Yeah, the American economy is just totally BOOMING after taking over Iraq.

I am also so happy to be enjoying this 25 cents per gallon gasoline.

You morons who think it's about oil, tell me exactly what tangible benefits we are enjoying from occupying Iraq.

Well?

Drake Tungsten · October 3, 2003, 22:39

The price on imported camels has gone down considerably.

Ted Striker · October 3, 2003, 22:49

Good point Drake.

You know you can get some Bedouin hoes in your harem by offering her family a few camels.

Drake Tungsten · October 3, 2003, 23:08

Been there, done that. I hit it.

notyoueither · October 3, 2003, 23:10

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 · October 3, 2003, 23:15

btw, when you add in the oil they don't have the technology to recover yet, the estimates of the reserves in Alberta go up to 1700 to 2500 billion barrels.

Is there a shortage of oil? No.

Why is it that some feel it necessary to paint the oil situation as something it is not?

notyoueither · October 4, 2003, 00:19

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.

Theben · October 4, 2003, 00:44

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.

What's the cost of refined oil from Canada as opposed to Venezuela? I'll bet it's considerably higher. We can get plenty of oil; we want cheap oil.

Oerdin · October 4, 2003, 00:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
Oil is created from organic matter, but not from swamps and bogs. They make coal.

With enough heat and pressure your coal beds will turn to oil. Of course if you put to much then it will become gas and if you put way to much it will burn up.

Quote:

It's created from plankton and sea creatures that die and sink to the sea floor.

This is how most of our oil is formed mainly because the surface of the Earth is 3/4 water so most of the organic matter we have will be marine in origin. Shallow protected seas are excellent for this because you can get a thick mat of organic detritus.

Oerdin · October 4, 2003, 00:55

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.

notyoueither · October 4, 2003, 01:01

We are extracting those 300 billion barrels.

We are waiting for technology for the other 1700 billion barrels.

notyoueither · October 4, 2003, 01:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Theben

What's the cost of refined oil from Canada as opposed to Venezuela? I'll bet it's considerably higher. We can get plenty of oil; we want cheap oil.

No, you want oil out of the pump. You pay the world price no matter who you are as a consumer.

You'll like our blend just fine, thank you. Your oil companies do too.

Hint, we are extracting and refining those 300 billion barrels right now, at current prices for oil. Addit/ and with current technology.

notyoueither · October 4, 2003, 01:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
This is how most of our oil is formed mainly because the surface of the Earth is 3/4 water so most of the organic matter we have will be marine in origin. Shallow protected seas are excellent for this because you can get a thick mat of organic detritus.

Interstingly enough, Alberta and Saskatchewan are right smack dab in the middle of a huge inland sea that used to occupy much of the land east of the Rockies. It went way south, so I wouldnt be surprised if Iowa started pumping at some time in the future.

Oerdin · October 4, 2003, 01:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The price on imported camels has gone down considerably.

Clearly the invasion was all about the camels.

Theben · October 4, 2003, 01:13

Not every nation adheres to world price all the time.

FE, Russia and Venezuela have undersold world price on occasion. If Iraq becomes our newest colony, maybe we could influence OPEC prices more effectively. Ya think?

Theben · October 4, 2003, 01:15

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Interstingly enough, Alberta and Saskatchewan are right smack dab in the middle of a huge inland sea that used to occupy much of the land east of the Rockies. It went way south, so I wouldnt be surprised if Iowa started pumping at some time in the future.

That same sea also covered Utah. The reminants of it are still there.

Apparently didn't help Utah.

Oerdin · October 4, 2003, 01:17

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Interstingly enough, Alberta and Saskatchewan are right smack dab in the middle of a huge inland sea that used to occupy much of the land east of the Rockies. It went way south, so I wouldnt be surprised if Iowa started pumping at some time in the future.

Yes, most of North America and South America were covered by water at one time or another.

The absolute wet dream of an oil man is to find an old river delta system. Why? Because the prograding delta will bury organic matter quickly under sand and silt plus the beds will be layed down dipping slightly. That means the oil which is formed will have a natural permiable pathway leading up and the path way will almost always be capped by silt stone at the top. That means lots of oil if you drill in the right spot and since the bedding will most likely be fairly consistent it should be easy to figure out where the right spot is.

notyoueither · October 4, 2003, 01:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Theben
Not every nation adheres to world price all the time.

FE, Russia and Venezuela have undersold world price on occasion. If Iraq becomes our newest colony, maybe we could influence OPEC prices more effectively. Ya think?

No. I don't think.

You are saying that someone sold a commodity for less than it was worth on the world market? What kind of fools were they, and where are your links?

Oerdin · October 4, 2003, 01:21

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
No. I don't think.

You are saying that someone sold a commodity for less than it was worth on the world market? What kind of fools were they, and where are your links?

Commies do that all the time or at least they did until they went bankrupt. They didn't have money to give so they gave cut rate deals on resources.

notyoueither · October 4, 2003, 01:21

Bullshit!