US appears to have fought war for oil and lost it

  1. US appears to have fought war for oil and lost it
    By Ian Rutledge

    From Dr Ian Rutledge.

    Sir, Your recent report that oil prices have reached an all-time nominal high and that Goldman Sachs has suggested the possibility of a "super spike" in prices to as high as $105 per barrel ("Crude at all-time high despite Opec's efforts", April 5) should be of no surprise to anyone who has studied the informed opinions of US energy experts in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Nor, for that matter, to anyone who has seen my own observations on future world oil prices in my recent book Addicted to Oil.

    In a crucial report to President George W. Bush by the US Council on Foreign Relations in April 2001, the president was warned that: "As the 21st century opens, the energy sector is in a critical condition. A crisis could erupt at any time . . . Theworld is currently close to utilising all of its available global oil production capacity, raising the chances of an oil supply crisis with more substantial consequences than seen in three decades."

    With US oil consumption in 2001 at an all-time high (19.7m b/d), import penetration at 53 per cent, and dependence on Arabian Gulf oil also at an all-time record (14.1 per cent of total US domestic and foreign supplies), the council stated that it was absolutely imperative that "political factors do not block the development of new oil fields in the Gulf" and that "the Department of State, together with the National Security Council" should "develop a strategic plan to encourage reopening to foreign investment in the important states of the Middle East".

    But while the council argued that "there is no question that this investment is vitally important to US interests" it also acknowledged that "there is strong opposition to any such opening among key segments of the Saudi and Kuwaiti populations".

    However, there was an alternative. In the words of ESA Inc (Boston), the US's leading energy security analysts: "One of the best things for our supply security would be liberate Iraq"; words echoed by William Kristol, the Republican party ideologist, in testimony to the House Subcommittee on the Middle East on May 22 2002 that as far as oil was concerned, "Iraq is more important than Saudi Arabia".

    So when, according to the former head of ExxonMobil's Gulf operations, "Iraqi exiles approached us saying, you can have our oil if we can get back in there", the Bush administration decided to use its overwhelming military might to create a pliant - and dependable - oil protectorate in the Middle East and achieve that essential "opening" of the Gulf oilfields.

    But in the words of another US oil company executive, "it all turned out a lot more complicated than anyone had expected". Instead of the anticipated post-invasion rapid expansion of Iraqi production (an expectation of an additional 2m b/d entering the world market by now), the continuing violence of the insurgency has prevented Iraqi exports from even recovering to pre-invasion levels.

    In short, the US appears to have fought a war for oil in the Middle East, and lost it. The consequences of that defeat are now plain for all to see
    •  
  2. 15 Comments

  3. by   Mkue
    Oh, we lost it a long time ago, where has this guy been?
  4. by   Thunderwolf
    Its always been about oil.
  5. by   Tweety
    Quote from Mkue
    Oh, we lost it a long time ago.

    Perhaps but people must have been salivating and drooling at the prospect of an American-friendly Iraq free of sactions and lots of oil.
  6. by   kitty29
    Price of gas has dropped under $2.00 here.
  7. by   Mkue
    Quote from Tweety
    Perhaps but people must have been salivating and drooling at the prospect of an American-friendly Iraq free of sactions and lots of oil.
    Perhaps some were, I don't know of any personally. For me, it's been more about wanting the best for the Iraqi ppl...allowing them to benefit from their oil.
  8. by   Tweety
    Quote from Mkue
    Perhaps some were, I don't know of any personally. For me, it's been more about wanting the best for the Iraqi ppl...allowing them to benefit from their oil.

    Well, that's what Mr. Bush wanted us to believe, that he was doing it for the Iraqi people, and many people choose to believe we are the rescuing heroes, and you're entitled to feel that way.


    But you have to admit that if America had no "interests" there, they wouldn't have gone in the first place. I have never believed it was a benelovant mission, at least not 100%. But I will grant that if they can get the oil flowing, hopefully some of the people of Iraq will benefit. But it's too bad America destroyed their country, and they are still at civil war, so we can't find that out, two years after the invasion.
    Last edit by Tweety on Apr 13, '05 : Reason: typo
  9. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from kitty29
    Price of gas has dropped under $2.00 here.
    Are you an Okie from MUSKOGEE?

    I heard about a filling station with old pumps that don'y go over $1.999 a gallon.
    The owner is getting new pumps.
  10. by   kitty29
    Quote from spacenurse
    Are you an Okie from MUSKOGEE?

    I heard about a filling station with old pumps that don'y go over $1.999 a gallon.
    The owner is getting new pumps.
    Sort of...MN! I was trying to think what the price of gas was when I first started driving...for a time it was I think around $1.40 and that seemed Very high.

    As I understand this what is really needed is more places to make the gas....we have enough oil.

    I was thinking of looking at a hybred SUV for the next ride tho....my Saturn is only 3 years old, so it'll be some time so the gang can make one up for me. Someone at work is getting a Ford Escape...and I want to see how it does in the cold.

    Anyone got a hybred car who lives in the cold like me?
  11. by   barefootlady
    I was flamed for expressing this opinion on another site. GWB was the focus of a very indepth report on PBS the other evening. Too bad the American voting public did not see some of this before the election. But, then he seems to have lots of people in his pocket.
  12. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Quote from barefootlady
    I was flamed for expressing this opinion on another site. GWB was the focus of a very indepth report on PBS the other evening. Too bad the American voting public did not see some of this before the election. But, then he seems to have lots of people in his pocket.
    some of us saw this and still lost the vote. But you are right, apparently a majority don't see this at all....51% believe hook, line and sinker what this administration feeds them about this being a "just war". That to me, is scary. And profoundly sad.
  13. by   barefootlady
    I was very interested in the gays who stated they were avid supporters of GWB until he and his cronies stabbed them in the back after they raised thousands of dollars for his compaign. One man stated GWB's inner circle is riddled with gays who ascribe to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
    This is not an anti gay statement on my part, this is a reflection on the character of a man who has used every special interest group he could use to gain power. There were pictures of GWB and wife with obviously gay individuals that were NEVER allowed to be shown to the general public.
    So sad he could gain the trust of people and discard it so easily. Here we ascribe to the thought that politics is just a form of legal lieing.
  14. by   Tweety
    barefoot, that's very interesting because I don't even think the Log Cabin gay republican group supported Bush. Actually Bush during his campaingn stated he was for an amendment banning gay marriages, courted the reglious right vote on this issue, then when elected backslid and said he decided not to persue the amendment. Not that there aren't gays that supported Bush, but I didn't know he courted the vote either, I just presumed with 99% of gays voting democrate he gave up that vote.

    But yes indeed, there are many gay republicans in power, and in his administration, make no mistake about that.

    Clinton on the otherhand back stabbed gays royally by couting their vote, going to gay funded functions, accepting gay money and rather than support eliminating banning gays in the military came up with his emphamis back stabbing "don't ask don't tell policy". When he was elected gays were literally dancing in the street. When he stabbed them in the back, it was a cold slap of reality.

    But that's off topic. Mr. Bush certainly has done his fair share of sleeping in the beds of strange bedfellows, but he's not alone in this, I think most politicians do. But they should live up to their campaign promises when they do.

close