It was part of another post but I prefer to put it as main thread ...
2. did I said somewhere that the war was only for oil ?
no, I said, based on fact, sorry again, that only oil seems to go the way they - the 'coalition' - wanted ......
but we can speak about oil and the importance of oil for US:
first supplier of oil to US: Saudi Arabia. Too bad, US doesn't trust them anymore due to 911 and their support - financial - to terrorists groups ....
the others suppliers: how much US import from these countries ? adding the fact that Venezuela is not anymore a good friend, too bad
Alaska ? as far as I know Bush didn't get the authorisation to go there, for the moment
Arctic ? everybody is against ....
Now the question is: why Bush need to go in these place ? lack of oil in US ? US oil is too expensive ? I don't know but if Bush doesn't need it why trying to go there ?
Shake all these graphics, see who will be in trouble if he loose OPEC oil - so Saudi Arabia -.
quote:
".... the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration forecast that in 2025 the majority — 51 percent — of world oil production would come from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. About two-thirds of OPEC production, in turn, emanates from the Persian Gulf. The Energy Information Administration, or E.I.A., says OPEC now produces 38 percent of the world's oil. "
quote:
....
The US Energy Information Administration forecasts that world demand for oil will rise by between 37% and 90% by 2020, depending on the rate of economic growth. The US alone is forecast to need another two to three and a quarter billion barrels a year over the same period.
US net oil imports more than doubled between 1985 and 2000 as US production fell and consumption rose. More than half the oil used in the US is now imported. By 2020, this dependence could rise to two-thirds.
....
quote:
May 17, 2001
Bush Unveils Energy Plan
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush braced Americans on Thursday for a summer of blackouts, layoffs, business closings and skyrocketing fuel costs and warned of "a darker future" without his aggressive plans to drill for more oil and gas and rejuvenate nuclear power.
"If we fail to act, Americans will face more and more widespread blackouts. If we fail to act, our country will become more reliant on foreign crude oil, putting our national energy security into the hands of foreign nations," the president said in releasing a 163-page energy task force report in St. Paul, Minn.
VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY:
Whatever our hopes for developing alternative sources and for conserving energy -- and that's a part of our plan -- the reality is that fossil fuels supply virtually 100 percent of our transportation needs and an overwhelming share of our electricity requirements. For years down the road, this will continue to be true.
By W. Clark
The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves.
Prague, 1 November 2000 (RFE/RL)
-- Iraq is going ahead with its plans to stop using the U.S. dollar in its oil business in spite of warnings the move makes no financial sense.
Baghdad this week insisted on and received UN approval to sell oil through the oil-for-food program for euros only after 6 November.
Mar. 9, 2003. 03:59 PM
Oil war: 23 years in the making
Analysts see attack this week or next
'We're just waiting on the president'
(...)But the long-term goal, say big-picture analysts, has been in the works for far more than the 23 years since former U.S. president Jimmy Carter linked American security — "the vital interests of the United States'' — to the Persian Gulf and its oil, and threatened military intervention.
Lets continue :
Iraq: second world oil reserve
quote:
This war, say analysts, is about power and oil. It's about control of the Gulf states by means of strategic Iraq and, by extension, a final post-Cold War shakeout to give the U.S. more economic clout over China and Russia by controlling the oil spigot.
If the US were to get control of all or most of the product of Iraq's planned 417 new wells, total Iraqi production would be more than enough to meet the predicted increase in US consumption.
You control Iraq, you control OPEC - remember Saudi Arabia ? -
you control OPEC, you control oil
you control oil, you control other countries
this make quite a lot of coincidence ........ or my glass is still half empty .... of oil ?
The US is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign oil, but the biggest source is not the Middle East.
In 1996, US wells still produced slightly more than half the oil consumed in the US. In 2001, however, imports accounted for 57 percent of US consumption.
The US last (2002) year imported $100 billion worth of crude from 97 nations. Some 47 percent of imports came from the Americas. In fact, Canada—with $14.5 billion in sales—was the top foreign supplier of oil to the US last year. Next came Venezuela, from which the US imported $13.3 billion worth of oil.
Saudi Arabia is the third-largest individual supplier of oil to the US, with sales of $12.5 billion last year. The Middle East supplies less than one quarter of all imports.
Oil is fungible, and any disruption of world supply anywhere would quickly be felt in the global market. Prices would rise as consumers competed for diminished supplies.
Last Updated: May 22, 2003
Next Update: May 27, 2003
Energy Situation Analysis Report Archive (PDF)
Latest Oil Price Information
As of 8:45 am, Thursday, the near-month WTI futures contract was at $28.69 per barrel in overnight ACCESS trading, down $0.34 per barrel from yesterday’s closing price.
The near-month futures price for West Texas intermediate (WTI) crude oil decreased by $0.25 per barrel, to $29.03 per barrel, on May 21, as it moved from the expired June contract to the July contract. Comparing the close of the July contract on May 21 to the close of the July contract on May 20, showed an increase of $0.62 per barrel.
Latest Oil Price Table
Iraq Oil Developments
Iraq is producing approximately 310,000 barrels per day, according to statements made by Thamir Ghadhban, the newly-appointed head of Iraq's oil sector.
The senior U.S. advisor to the Iraqi oil ministry, Philip Carroll, said on Monday (5/19) that Iraqi oil production could recover to 2.0-2.5 million barrels per day by the beginning of September.
The US-led civil administration in Baghdad announced the creation on Thursday (5/22) of the Development Fund for Iraq, designed to take the place of the United Nations in managing Iraq's oil revenues, as well as manage frozen Iraqi financial assets held abroad. The Development Fund will be advised by a board including representatives from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the UN, and the Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development.
Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organization, or SOMO, will have a new director for foreign oil sales, Mohammed al-Jibury, replacing Ali Hassan. Other elected officials include Mobdir al-Khudhair and Kadim Razouki, both of whom will head the crude oil marketing department. Hashim al-Wardi will be director of marketing refined products. SOMO announced that it plans to sell most of its oil to refiners through long-term contracts rather than to traders on a spot basis in a bid to secure a steady source of income.
The Basra refinery is set to reach full capacity of 140,000 bbl/d by May 27, according to British engineers. However, resumption of operation of the refinery is contingent upon whether a pipeline from Baghdad to Basra is brought into operation on May 25.
World Oil Market Issues
Production in Nigeria remains constrained due to ethnic unrest in the Niger Delta. The volume of production currently disrupted is estimated at around 200,000 barrels per day, with production at 2.0 million barrels per day (MMBD) compared to 2.2 MMBD in February 2003.
Venezuelan production is widely believed -- by striking workers and independent analysts -- to be around 2.6 MMBD. State oil company PdVSA, on the other hand, estimates current production at over 3 MMBD, and expects to cut its oil output in June to comply with its new OPEC quota of 2.9 MMBD, according to PdVSA president Ali Rodriguez.
OPEC plans to hold a meeting of oil ministers on June 11 in Doha, Qatar.
Latest OPEC Production Table
Latest U.S. Petroleum Information
U.S. crude oil imports averaged nearly 10.1 million barrels per day for the week ending May 16, up 739,000 barrels per day from the previous week. Although the origins of weekly crude oil imports are preliminary and thus not published, it appears that only one small shipment of Iraqi oil arrived last week. However, crude oil imports from Saudi Arabia appear to have averaged more than even the high amounts seen in recent weeks, possibly reflecting high production levels in April. Meanwhile, U.S. crude oil refinery inputs averaged 15.7 million barrels per day, down 44,000 barrels per day from the previous week. With crude oil imports exceeding 10 million barrels per day, and refinery inputs declining slightly, U.S. commercial crude oil inventories (excluding those in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) increased by 0.6 million barrels, but are 40.5 million barrels less than last year at this time. Even with a record level of gasoline imports last week, motor gasoline inventories declined by 0.2 million barrels, but remained above the low end of the normal range. Distillate fuel inventories increased by 2.8 million barrels, with most of the increase seen in low-sulfur (diesel fuel) distillate fuel. As of May 16, total commercial petroleum inventories are 118.8 million barrels less than last year.
The U.S. average retail price for regular gasoline rose last week after eight weeks of falling prices. Prices increased by 0.7 cent per gallon as of May 19 to hit 149.8 cents per gallon, which is still 9.4 cents per gallon higher than a year ago. Over the previous eight weeks, the average price for regular gasoline declined by 23.7 cents per gallon. This price increase may be related to the fact that U.S. gasoline stocks remain below average as Memorial Day, the traditional start of the summer driving season, approaches.
I think you will have to agree that the U.S. isn't hard up for oil. We have and get plenty from the many countries that wish to do business with us. We haven't even dipped into the Strategic Oil Reserves. So to make an argument that the U.S. and Bush is after Iraq's oil is LUDICROUS at best.
Thanks for highlighting common sense. Even if the US was the sole importer of Iraqs oil tommorow then it would hardly make a difference in the overall scheme of things. Mexico and Canada are are Americas 2 highest importers of oil which is White House policy to build upon yearly.
Anyway, where was the oil in Yoguslavia and Afghanistan to begin with? Where are the filthy profits coming in from those lovely places today?
The joke is those that think oil is the main motivation. It would never have had nothing to do with stopping genocide caused by Milosevic, destroying the terrorists and those that harboured them after Sept 11 and Iraq which was a bulwark to ME peace and Saddam's sponsoring to breeding of terrorism. That is just too normal a way of thinking for some people.
I never said that it was the main reason but one of the reasons ....
quote:
Reliable Supplies of Energy for a Growing World Economy
Alan Larson, Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs
Remarks to the Energy Forum, New York University
New York, New York
March 4, 2003
Conflict in Venezuela has damaged its reputation as a reliable oil supplier, and all parties to the ongoing political turmoil there must work together to restore confidence, stability and rule of law, U.S. Under Secretary or Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs Alan Larson says.
"The damage done cannot be repaired overnight," Larson said in March 4 remarks in New York.
"And when the Venezuelan parties show a commitment to seek reconciliation and restore their position as a reliable partner of the United States, they will find a willing and ready partner in the United States," he said.
Aside from Venezuela, Larson described also challenges facing other major energy suppliers in Russia, the Caspian region, West Africa, North America, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.
He expressed concern that growing opposition in Russia might jeopardize passage of legislation allowing production sharing agreements that would promote more foreign investment, citing the need to bring technology to Russia's frontiers.
Russia needs to adopt many other reforms, he said, including strengthening rule of law for business, allowing competition in energy and transportation, improving its technology and moving domestic oil prices to world levels.
Around the Caspian, Larson said, the key issues are completing the South Caucasus natural gas pipeline, improving the investment climate and bringing Kazakhstan oil into the East-West Energy Corridor.
In West Africa, he said, bribery threatens the hope of using oil and gas production to stimulate national economic development.
"We have an interest in helping West African nations solve these problems, not just out of altruism but also self-interest," Larson said. "West Africa will not be a fully reliable supplier if its energy sectors are corrupt."
The countries of the Gulf should not view the rise of other oil-producing regions with alarm, he said, because rising world demand will require expanded supply all around. He said Gulf producers should open their economies to expanded private investment and let market forces set price and production levels.
.......
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Producers
The Middle East holds some two-thirds of proven world oil reserves. The size of its reserves combined with its low production cost guarantees that the Middle East will continue to play a pivotal role in the world market. Despite frequently expressed concerns about "dependence" on the Middle East, our economy clearly benefits from these supplies. Without them, we would expend scarce economic resources to secure the energy we need at higher cost to our citizens and economy.
Producers of the Persian Gulf, therefore, are a vital part of a reliable energy supply system. Saudi Arabia plays a key role in global oil markets as the world's largest oil exporter. Moreover, the Saudis support international energy security by maintaining considerable excess production capacity that can be brought on line quickly in the event of a serious supply disruption anywhere in the world.
.......
Why would they want to "help" those oil producers ? for the world economy ? no, he said it: (otherwise) we would expend scarce economic resources to secure the energy we need at higher cost to our citizens and economy
They can't rely anymore on Venezuela, they don't trust anymore Saudi Arabia, they don't have easy access to Russia, ...... what remains as valid suppliers: USA, Canada and Mexico ...... where do you think USA will go with that ?
extracting oil from US, Mexico and Canada is more expensive then importing oil, especially from OPEC countries .....
again, you control Iraq, you control OPEC ........ so the oil price ...
Larson Says U.S. Dependence on Foreign Oil Will Continue
Safeguarding supplies a key issue, State's Larson adds
U.S. energy security policy has two main goals, says Under Secretary of State Alan Larson: maintain access to energy on terms and conditions supporting U.S. economic growth, and "ensure that the United States and its foreign policy can never be held hostage by foreign oil suppliers ."
Testifying June 20 before the House of Representatives International Relations Committee, Larson said that energy security cannot be defined simply as self-sufficiency.
While it is in the U.S. interest to limit its imported oil dependency through increased efficiency, conservation and domestic production, Larson said, oil imports will be an "unavoidable component of the energy supply mix" in the future.
An effective energy security policy can ensure, however, that oil imports do not erode the independence of U.S. foreign policy or the security of U.S. economy, he said.
Larson said that the international aspects of such a policy would need to include promoting increased and diversified supplies of energy from a range of countries, maintaining oil reserves to respond to physical oil supply disruptions and encouraging major oil producing countries to pursue responsible production policies.
He said that because strategic oil reserves make a credible safeguard against oil supply disruptions, countries that hold them, including the United States, have the ability to deter hostile regimes from using supply shocks as a weapon.
"They [strategic reserves] send an important signal to global economic markets that we are prepared to manage the unexpected," Larson said.
In dealing with "problem" countries the United States must balance its desire to diversify its energy sources with its concerns about the security threats that these nations pose to the international community, he said.
While the Iran Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) sets out a policy to discourage the development of petroleum resources in Iran and Libya that could be used to support international terrorism and to acquire weapons of mass destruction, Larson said, "Iraq will continue to be a wild card in world oil markets ."
In response to a question about the consequences of a possible U.S. military action against Iraq, Larson said that in such an event the Bush administration would want to make sure that U.S. oil-consuming partners would be prepared to take all necessary steps to prevent disruptions in their oil markets and that friendly suppliers would be able to maintain and, hopefully, increase their production.
Reviewing energy initiatives of the Bush administration, Larson said that managing energy trading relationships with Canada and Mexico, two of the four largest U.S. oil suppliers, is a top priority of the administration.
Among other initiatives he cited were:
conducting a dialogue with Venezuela to build a more productive relationship with that country,
developing multiple pipelines connecting the Caspian Basin to major transportation routes,
strengthening energy ties with Russia,
reevaluating Africa's role as a potential major energy supplier,
encouraging Middle Eastern countries to open up certain areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.
Following is the text of the Larson’s testimony as prepared for delivery:
The International Aspects of U.S. Energy Security
Alan P. Larson, Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and
Agricultural Affairs
Testimony Before the House International Relations Committee
Washington, D.C.
June 20, 2002
Chairman Hyde, Mr. Lantos, respected Committee members, I am delighted to be here today with Secretary Abraham to discuss the international aspects of U.S. energy security.
Hard Facts About the International Oil Market
A number of hard facts must be factored into the formulation of an energy security policy. These hard facts include: Two-thirds of proven world oil reserves are in the Middle East. In contrast, the United States has 2 percent of proven world oil reserves;
The United States, as well as Europe and Japan, rely on imports to meet a large and growing portion of our oil needs;
Because markets are global, energy market disturbances that initially affect others will transmit aftershocks to us through prices and other economic linkages;
Significant amounts of oil are controlled by problem States.
Taken together, these facts mean that an effective energy security policy must have important international dimensions, including: Policies to promote increased and diversified production of energy from a range of foreign suppliers, especially those in more secure areas.
- now they have the second world oil reserve in a "secure area" -
Effective international measures to respond to physical oil supply disruptions, through the coordinated use of strategic stocks and the encouragement of spare oil production capacity.
Dialogue to encourage major oil producing countries to maintain responsible production policies that give full weight to their interest in preserving a growing world economy and a less volatile international oil market.
Energy security policy has two main goals. First, to ensure that our economy has access to energy on terms and conditions that support economic growth and prosperity. Second, to ensure that the United States and its foreign policy can never be held hostage by foreign oil suppliers.
Energy security is a timely and appropriate topic. Earlier this year Iraq made yet another futile attempt to damage the world economy through an oil production shutdown, its third embargo in less than two years. The Iraqi action overlapped with a short oil supply interruption caused by labor unrest in Venezuela. These two disruptions removed close to 3 million barrels per day from the market and remind us that the international oil market can be both volatile and unpredictable.
.......
We are virtually self-sufficient in all energy resources except oil, of which we import 52 percent of our needs. Estimates indicate that over the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption will increase by 33 percent or more than 6 million barrels a day. Depending on many factors, including the policies we adopt, the Energy Information Administration estimates that imported oil could grow to 62 percent of our total oil consumption by 2020
......
Admittedly, the U.S. has a long way to go in regards to conservation. Personally I think we could easily live with $4.00 a gallon and it would go a long way to the road of conservation.
We haven't felt the pain because we believe gas is still cheap. If we were forced to conserve by raising prices to $4.00 a gallon it would promote a new mass transit infrastructure, which is sadly, missing here.
By this I mean we are NOT in it for the oil because we have not really begun conservation methods of any consequence. Conservation would mean eliminating the dependence on Arab oil.
In addition to raising the gas price, car pooling on a regular basis and working from home one or more days a week (I am in that category) or even going to a 4 day work week would be an easy and workable conservation effort. So, we haven’t seen why oil is the issue in Iraq.
Seizing reserves will be an allied priority if forces go in
Faisal Islam and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer
Facing its most chronic shortage in oil stocks for 27 years, the US has this month turned to an unlikely source of help - Iraq.
Weeks before a prospective invasion of Iraq, the oil-rich state has doubled its exports of oil to America, helping US refineries cope with a debilitating strike in Venezuela.
After the loss of 1.5 million barrels per day of Venezuelan production in December the oil price rocketed, and the scarcity of reserves threatened to do permanent damage to the US oil refinery and transport infrastructure. To keep the pipelines flowing, President Bush stopped adding to the 700m barrel strategic reserve.
But ultimately oil giants such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell saved the day by doubling imports from Iraq from 0.5m barrels in November to over 1m barrels per day to solve the problem. Essentially, US importers diverted 0.5m barrels of Iraqi oil per day heading for Europe and Asia to save the American oil infrastructure.
The trade, though bizarre given current Pentagon plans to launch around 300 cruise missiles a day on Iraq, is legal under the terms of UN's oil for food programme.
But for opponents of war, it shows the unspoken aim of military action in Iraq, which has the world's second largest proven reserves - some 112 billion barrels, and at least another 100bn of unproven reserves, according to the US Department of Energy. Iraqi oil is comparatively simple to extract - less than $1 per barrel, compared with $6 a barrel in Russia. Soon, US and British forces could be securing the source of that oil as a priority in the war strategy. The Iraqi fields south of Basra produce prized 'sweet crudes' that are simpler to refine.
On Friday, Pentagon sources said US military planners 'have crafted strategies that will allow us to secure and protect those fields as rapidly as possible in order to then preserve those prior to destruction'.
The US military says this is a security issue rather than a grab for oil, after a 'variety of intelligence sources' indicated that Saddam planned to damage or destroy his oil fields - which would inflict up to $30bn damage on the US economy and cause irreparable environmental damage.
But the prospect of British and US commandos claiming key oil installations around Basra by force has pushed global oil diplomacy into overdrive. International oil companies have been jockeying position to secure concessions before 'regime change'.
Last weekend a Russian delegation flew to Baghdad to patch up relations after Iraq's cancellation of its five-year-old contract to develop the huge West Qurna oil field - worth up to $600bn at today's oil price. Lukoil was punished by Baghdad for negotiating with the US and Iraqi exiles on keeping its concession in a post-Saddam Iraq.
The delegation of Ministers and oil executives returned to Moscow with three signed contracts. Oil is the state budget's lifeblood, and Russia requires an oil price of at least $18. Russians fear a US grip on a large reserve of cheap oil could send prices tumbling.
But Saddam has offered lucrative contracts to companies from France, China, India and Indonesia as well as Russia.
It is only the oil majors based in Britain and America - now the leading military hawks - that don't have current access to Iraqi contracts.
Richard Lugar, the hawkish chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggests reluctant Europeans risk losing out on oil contracts. 'The case he had made is that the Russians and the French, if they want to have a share in the oil operations or concessions or whatever afterward, they need to be involved in the effort to depose Saddam as well,' said Lugar's spokesman.
A delegation of senior US Republicans was in Moscow last Tuesday trying to persuade Kremlin officials and oil companies that a war in Iraq would not compromise their concessions. A leaked oil analyst report from Deutsche Bank said ExxonMobil was in 'pole position in a changed-regime Iraq'.
Washington is split along hawk-dove lines about the role of oil in a post-Saddam Iraq. Two sets of meetings sponsored by the State Department and Vice-President Dick Cheney's staff have been attended by representatives of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhilips and Halliburton, the company that Cheney ran before his election.
The dovish line, led by Colin Powell, places the emphasis on 'protection' of Iraq's oil for Iraq's people. His State Department has pointed to a precedent in the US interpretation of international law set in the 1970s. Then, when Israel occupied Egypt's Sinai desert, the US did not support attempts to transfer oil resources.
While the State Department is mindful of cynical world opinion about US war aims, officials do not always stick to the script. Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary at the US Department of Commerce, said war 'would open up this spigot on Iraqi oil which certainly would have a profound effect in terms of the performance of the world economy for those countries that are manufacturers and oil consumers'.
The US economy will announce zero growth this week, prolonging three years of sluggish performance. Cheap oil would boost an economy importing half of its daily consumption of 20m barrels.
But a cheaper oil price could have been reached more easily by lifting sanctions and giving the US oil majors access to Iraq's untapped reserves.
Instead, war stands to give control over the oil price to 'new Iraq' and its sponsors, with Saudi Arabia losing its capacity to control prices by altering productive capacity.
Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Defence Secretary, and Richard Perle, a key Pentagon adviser, see military action as part of a grand plan to reshape the Middle East.
To this end, control of Iraqi oil needs to bypass the twin tyrannies of UN control and regional fragmentation into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish supplies. The neo-conservatives plan a market structure based on bypassing the state-owned Iraqi National Oil Company and backing new free-market Iraqi companies.
But, in the run-up to war, the US oil majors will this week report a big leap in profits. ChevronTexaco is to report a 300 per cent rise. Chevron used to employ the hawkish Condoleezza Rice, Bush's National Security Adviser, as a member of its board.
Five years ago the then Chevron chief executive Kenneth Derr, a colleague of Rice, said: 'Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas - reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to.'
If US and UK forces have victory in Iraq, the battle for its oil will have only begun.
Where are the filthy profits coming in from those lovely places today?