<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Phil et. al.<BR>
<BR>
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?<BR>
<BR>
The two questions we have addressed are: <BR>
<BR>
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? <BR>
<BR>
This question has been discussed under the subject heading "<B>Petroleum Intelligence Weekly: Pemex Below Exxon & Chevron,... "</B> See my post today addressing this question in some detail.<BR>
<BR>
This question started because you made this statement I found questionable:<BR>
<BR>
Phil wrote on 8/18/05:<BR>
<BR>
"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 <BR>
firms have become."<BR>
<BR>
"So who is 'making money'? The big winners are the top exporters, Saudi <BR>
Arabia, Russia and Norway and the big losers are the USA, Japan and China <BR>
since they import the largest amount of fuel." <BR>
<BR>
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."<BR>
<BR>
This question I explored more fully because you wrote the following:<BR>
<BR>
Phil wrote on 8/18/05:<BR>
<BR>
"But it might interest you to note that Norway is the third largest exporter <BR>
of oil. Canada has the second largest reserves. So if invading countries <BR>
for their oil was the idea, invading Norway would look pretty good as would <BR>
invading Canada."<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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:<BR>
<BR>
"What should the Foriegn Policy role of Nation States be in our <BR>
times?"<BR>
<BR>
"What is our current state of risk from dependency on a single energy <BR>
source that is in decline and not sustainable?"<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
</FONT></HTML>