[Vision2020] Re: Why Invading Iraq Makes "Oil" Sense

[Phil Nisbet]

Ted

I will answer this in more detail later, however, I do not misqoute the 2004 
article, I am simply reflecting what the current production numbers have 
been coming back for tar and oil sands production from Alberta for this year 
2005.  Truth is that Alberta production is outstripping even the rosy 
pictures painted in 2004.  As I noted in my last post on this subject, 
Alberta costs for production of a barrel of oil from tar sands are now at 
$15 a barrel.

US oil consumption is just less than 8 billion barrels a year and there are 
178 Billion barrels of oil in Canadian tar sands, the equivalent of all US 
consumption for a couple of decades, even if we imported oil exclusively and 
stopped producing our own.

The truth is that at $60 oil, there are one heck of a lot more reserves out 
there.

Phil


>From: Tbertruss at aol.com
>To: pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: Why Invading Iraq Makes "Oil" Sense
>Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:41:56 EDT
>
>
>Phil et. al.
>
>Thanks for your reply.
>
>You misquote the article on the oil sands production of oil in Canada.  I
>noted that technological improvements could change the oil sands production 
>rate,
>but the article you quoted did not say, as you claimed:
>
>"You might want to note the following, http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp ,
>which shows
>that oil sands in 2005 will account for half of all Canadian production and
>10% of the oil production in North America."
>
>But rather:
>
>"It is anticipated that in 2005, Alberta's oil sands production may account
>for one-half of Canada's total crude output and 10 per cent of North 
>American
>production. It is also predicted that the oil sands will create a total of
>102,000 new jobs across Canada by 2012."
>
>Note the words "may account for" not "will account for."  This may seem a
>trivial issue, but saying something "may" happen is very different from 
>saying it
>"will" happen.
>
>Even if this production rate does happen, it still does not negate the
>critical importance of the oil reserves in the middle east, which combined 
>(Saudi
>Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran and other oil rich areas in this part of the 
>world)
>are much, much larger than all known oil reserves in North America.  Where 
>we
>are getting our oil now is not the main issue in regard to the need to 
>protect
>the oil reserves in the middle east.  The issue is 20, 30, 40, 50 years 
>down
>the road when things really get critical with oil supplies and 
>international
>competition for these resources.  We know we have access to Canada's oil.
>But the oil in the Middle East is not secure, with or without Saddam.
>
>Protecting our allies access to Middle East oil is also critical for the
>economic well being of the US.  The US economy is more critically linked to 
>the
>global economic system than ever, so if Japan or China, for example, has
>problems with its oil supply, this creates problems for our economy also.
>
>You call bombing raids on Iraq, enforcing a no fly zone for the Kurds,
>economic sanctions, and the devastation of Iraq's military during Gulf War 
>One,
>"sucking up to Saddam?"  All these actions were before we invaded Iraq in 
>Gulf War
>Two, and no wonder we marched to Baghdad with such ease.  Saddam's military
>was a joke, with his country under economic sanctions, common bombing raids 
>on
>military infrastructure, and the devastation from Gulf War One.
>
>A good case could be made that in fact now the oil reserves in the Middle
>East are less stable than they were before we invaded Iraq in Gulf War Two,
>creating a religious, ethnic and political mess that is increasing 
>terrorism and
>giving Islamic fundamentalists a rallying call world wide.
>
>I never said I supported invading Serbia.  Excuse me?
>
>Phil wrote:
>
>"In the mean time, allowing mad men to hold
>huge economic power and use it willy nilly both to terrorize their own
>populations and threaten global war and terrorism is simply silly." 
>
>So that's why we back the Saudi government with the Islamic Wahhabism in 
>that
>nation using Saudi wealth to support Islamic terrorism?
>
>Why not invade Saudi Arabia to take down that oppressive dictatorship that
>terrorizes its citizens and allows a fundamentalist religious group like
>Wahhabism fund Islamic terrorism?  It couldn't be that the US has a cozy 
>economic
>deal with access to Saudi oil with the Saudi ruling family, could it?  Get 
>a clue
>here, Phil, I do not think it was a random accident that 15 of the 19 9/11
>terrorists in those airplanes were Saudi nationals.
>
>Odd how the US will support dictatorships like the one in Saudi Arabia if
>they suit our needs, but when the US wants to remove a dictator suddenly 
>the US
>becomes angels wishing to save the masses from oppression.
>
>Ted Moffett

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/