[Vision2020] Questions Lack Specifics...

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Phil et. al.

I think we already have a rather focused discussion of two important 
questions, more focused in fact than the two questions you are suggesting we discuss.  
Of course the two questions we have already addressed involve issues that 
overlap, but there is no way to discuss political/military/foreign policy issues 
without reference to major economic and resource issues.  I trust you are not 
going to suggest that we can rule out a struggle over economics and resources 
as a cause for a foreign policy advocating war in human history?

The two questions we have addressed are:  

Is Exxon/Mobil (and Chevron/Texaco) and the USA a loser in the current global 
oil economy with the spike in crude oil prices, compared to Aramco and Pemex? 
 

This question has been discussed under the subject heading "Petroleum 
Intelligence Weekly: Pemex Below Exxon & Chevron,... "    See my post today 
addressing this question in some detail.

This question started because you made this statement I found questionable:

Phil wrote on 8/18/05:

"PEMEX or Aramco are doing one heck of a lot better than Exxon or Chevron, 
because they simply own more oil and produce more oil than do the down streamers 
like the US oil 
firms have become."

"So who is 'making money'?  The big winners are the top exporters, Saudi 
Arabia, Russia and Norway and the big losers are the USA, Japan and China 
since they import the largest amount of fuel." 

The second question we have been discussing focuses on the one variable of 
securing oil and gas resources in the long term in the most oil rich region of 
the world, the Middle East, as a motivating factor for the US invasion and 
occupation of Iraq, and has been presented under the subject heading "Why Invading 
Iraq Makes "Oil" Sense."

This question I explored more fully because you wrote the following:

Phil wrote on 8/18/05:

"But it might interest you to note that Norway is the third largest exporter 
of oil.  Canada has the second largest reserves.  So if invading countries 
for their oil was the idea, invading Norway would look pretty good as would 
invading Canada."

This seemed to suggest that you thought securing Middle East oil resources 
was not a significant factor in the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, which I 
firmly disagree with.

The two questions you suggested we "break the discussion up" into are far too 
broad and lacking in specifics.  They are more appropriate for a book title:

"What should the Foriegn Policy role of Nation States be in our 
times?"

"What is our current state of risk from dependency on a single energy 
source that is in decline and not sustainable?"

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050827/43415770/attachment.htm