Petroleum Economics and the Middle East (25 Viewers)

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,146
#1
Due to off-topic posts regarding petroleum economics and US foreign policy in the Kosova thread, I'll move some posts here to keep the discussion running.

By the way, this is primarily an economic discussion that unfortunately has a lot of political roots. There is no point in hiding that fact and no point in closing this thread due to that fact.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com
OP
Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,146
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #2
    ...

    Everybody read this.


    Follow along with me here. The reason why we are in Iraq for oil (and perhaps soon to be Iran) is because we need to secure the crude that is already in the area and do whatever we can to limit China's access to crude. There is a new major oil pipeline being built by, of course, Halliburton in the Northern part of the country, stretching from Kirkuk to Baiji. The latter location contains the largest oil refinery in Iraq. This pipeline will then be connected to tap into the Ceyhan-Tblisi-Baku (BTC) oil pipeline, which links the Caspian sea to the Eastern Mediterranean with a flow of crude. The BTC pipeline was opened up in 2006 and is the largest pipeline to serve Western markets in the Middle East. Our nation has practically set up a new bloc with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Israel, securing pipeline capacity for years to come.

    Which nation is right in the middle of all this, Vinni? The construction of the BTC pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan began in 2003. What else began in 2003, Vinni? The answers are Iraq and the war on Iraq, respectively.

    These are all facts here.

    All major wars have been based on economic concerns. World War I can be explained by a quote from English economist John A. Hobson, which states, "Unlimited competition for expanding markets would lead to a global conflict." In other words, this is economic imperialism. World War II can be attributed to economic imperialism on the behalf of Adolf Hitler, among other concerns. Why are we in Albania and Nigeria today? Because they have all sorts of natural resources we are eager to consume.

    The reason why light sweet crude is over $100 per barrel today is because of supply concerns and chaos in the Middle East. OPEC controls the supply of crude to the world, thus they can keep the price high if they want no matter what we do to secure oil. But what the United States government believes is that it's better to pay more for oil than not have any crude whatsoever. To quote Brian Woodman from the film Syriana, "It's running out, it's running out. This is a fight to the death." We are running out of cheap extraction techniques and moving to more expensive means to extract oil due to the fact the many fields are drying up. Moreover, with the growth of China and their rapid demand increase for crude, even less is available to us.

    Hence why we don't like China, why we are in Iraq, and why we support Israel in bombing various sites in Lebanon (this is a whole other issue that I won't get into right now). It's all about light sweet crude, Vinni, the most important and sought after natural resource.

    Americans need to realize this and stop believing that George W. Bush's war on Iraq was in the kindness of our good hearts.



    No, those are not facts. That's what the US government wants you to believe, but there was never any evidence of weapons of mass destruction being built or stored by Iraq since the turn of the century. Not even one Uranium enriching device was found.

    By the way, the UN inspectors came out and said Iraq gave them full access to their facilities.



    Unnecessary. Unlike you, I don't think we should have a part in deciding the fate of land that isn't ours.

    And I guess I'm a terrorist now. Sweet, thanks for that.
    This is a good article by a retired professor from the University of Regina. Even though it goes back pretty far in history, it's still a good read and also leads us up nicely to the War on Iraq.



    The U.S. in Afghanistan

    The U.S. government has been in Afghanistan since July 1979, when President Jimmy Carter issued directives to aid the right wing forces trying to overthrow the leftist government headed by Noor Mohammad Taraki. In concert with the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakiston, the mujadiheen resistance movement grew, with its core support among militant Muslim fundamentalists and those from the old deposed feudal order. With cash, arms and training from these sources, the Islamic resistence forced the Soviet Union to withdraw in January 1989.
    In 1984 Osama Bin Laden founded Makhtab al Khadimat, which recruited Muslims from the Middle East to go to Afghanistan to fight in the war against the Soviet Union. His operation was heavily financed by Saudi Arabia, but also the United States. The aid was funneled through Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Bin Laden went back to Saudi Arabia in 1989 but returned to Afghanistan in 1996 to set up his al-Qa’eda operation with the toleration of the Taliban leadership.
    Once the Soviet Union withdrew, the U.S. government abandoned the country, focusing on events in Iran, the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the first Gulf War. The Afghan government under Dr. Mohammed Najibullah lasted for another three years. When he was ousted in 1992, Afghanistan collapsed into a vicious civil war between various political-military forces, ethnic groups, and religious factions. Kabul was destroyed by artillery and rocket assaults from all sorts of warring groups. An estimated 50,000 civilians were killed. Massacres were common. Women and children were murdered. Hundreds of thousands of people became refugees. Chaos reigned. From 1992 to 1996 the Northern Alliance between Tajik and Uzbek warlords ran the Afghan government, supported by the U.S. government.
    In 1994 the Taliban emerged, primarily a Pushtun group of Sunni Moslems with a fiercely radical political and religious orientation. They received strong support from the government of Pakistan. The Taliban military force moved north to unite the country. Like the other political factions, they launched a murderous assault on Kabul and seized power in 1995. Many commentators have attributed their success to the desire of the Afghan people for an end to civil war and a stable government. The Taliban forces then pushed further north to take possession of 90 percent of the country. Very quickly they received the full support of the governments of both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Why was this the case?

    The Struggle for Oil

    Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the U.S. government sought political and military agreements with the new Central Asian governments. The key here was the undeveloped oil and gas deposits in the Caspian Sea region. U.S. national security policy shifted from the Cold War against communism to protection of existing sources of oil and diversification away from reliance on the Persian Gulf. In support of this goal, the United States today maintains 250,000 service men and women overseas at 725 bases in 38 countries, in addition to five aircraft carrier battle groups. This is outside their commitments to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Central Asia has been a key focus of U.S. policy. The goal has been to tie the oil and gas resources to the West and block Russian domination of the area. As always, the U.S. government operates closely with U.S. oil corporations. In 1993 Chevron ventured into Kazakstan. In 1994 a consortium of oil corporations, including Amoco, BP, Unocal and Pennzoil signed a joint venture with Azerbaijan. The American Petroleum Institute supported this objective, calling the Caspian region “the area of greatest resource potential outside of the Middle East.”
    From the beginning, the U.S. government strongly supported the building of an oil and gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. They refused to support a pipeline through either Russia or Iran. The American oil corporations also supported this policy, preferring the major markets in India, China, Japan and the west coast of the United States to the more competitive markets in Europe.
    In 1993 the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan negotiated the building of the pipelines. They were joined by the Union Oil Corporation of California (Unocal), who hired Henry Kissinger, Hamid Karzi and Zalmay Khalilzad as advisers. Amoco hired Zbigniew Brzezinsky. Turkmenistan hired U.S. General Alexander Haig. When the Central Asia Gas and Pipeline Consortium (CentGas) was created in 1996, both Enron (Kenneth Lay) and Halliburton (Dick Cheney) were to be involved with the development. Condoleezza Rice, then on the board of directors of Chevron, supported the project.
    The key to the building of the pipelines was always the creation of a stable government in Afghanistan. Even before they seized power, the U.S. government supported the Taliban, concluding that it was the only political force which could create a national government. The Clinton Administration actively supported the pipeline agreement with Turkmenistan. Khalilzad became the special link between Unocal, the Taliban and the U.S. government. Unocal and the CentGas consortium were quite willing to deal with any government which could control the country.
    The pipeline plan received a setback in 1998 when terrorists with supposed links to bin Laden bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Bill Clinton responded by launching Cruise missiles on bin Laden’s bases in Afghanistan. The Taliban government agreed to extradite bin Laden to Saudi Arabia for trial for terrorism, provided evidence of his complicity was produced. None was produced. But Unocal withdrew from the pipeline project, concluding that the Taliban government was unstable and unreliable.

    The Pipeline Must Go Ahead

    In 1999 the governments of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan signed a new agreement to promote the pipelines. The following year Unocal resumed talks with the Taliban government. Additional UN Security Council sanctions were imposed on Afghanistan after the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. The Taliban government continued to agree to extradite bin Laden provided proof was presented tying him to the terrorist acts. But still no evidence was produced. The Taliban government hired Laila Helms, niece of Richard Helms, former director of the CIA, as their negotiator in talks with the U.S. government.
    The new administration of George W. Bush began talks with the Taliban government, which went from February 2 to August 6, 2001. Dick Cheney’s report on U.S. energy needs, released in May 2001, called for major U.S. involvement in the development of the Caspian Sea reserves. The allies for this project were the Taliban and Pakistan governments, both of which were strongly anti-Iranian.
    What could be done with the Taliban government? In June 2001 Chokila Iyer, the Indian Foreign Secretary, reported that the United States and the Russian government were planning a military attack on the Taliban through the borders of Tajikstan and Uzbekistan. They were to back the warlords of the Northern Alliance in an effort to overthrow the Taliban government. The Indian government agreed to “facilitate” this action. The planned attack on Afghanistan was widely discussed at the July 2001 meeting of the G-8 countries in Geneva.
    Shortly after in July the United Nations hosted a meeting between the U.S., Russia and the six countries that border Afghanistan in Berlin. The eight governments agreed that what was needed was a new government of natural unity which would be followed by international economic aid and the building of the pipelines. Naif Naik, the Pakistani Foreign Minister, reported that at the meeting the U.S. government threatened the Taliban that if they did not agree to this proposal they would bring on “a military operation.” Naik reported that U.S. officials told him that military action against the Taliban government would begin by the middle of October 2001.
    Then came the events of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration made new demands on the Taliban government. Once again, the Taliban agreed to extradite bin Laden to another country for trial, but only if some evidence was presented demonstrating that he had some ties to the U.S. airline hijackings. An agreement was reached to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan, but this was then rejected by President Pervez Musharraf, now closely allied with the U.S. government. The White House stated that “there would be no negotiations, no discussions with the Taliban.” On October 7 US and UK bombers attacked Afghanistan and increased their economic and military aid to the warlords of the Northern Alliance.

    The New Afghan Government

    Under massive air attack from the US and UK forces, the Taliban government was rapidly defeated. Hamid Karzai was chosen by the U.S. government to head the new regime in Kabul. He had long been closely linked to the U.S. government, as the CIA agent, based in Pakistan, who channeled the $2 billion in U.S. aid to the mujahideen. The core of power in the new government is held by the Tajik and Uzbek warlords.
    By February 2002 the Karzai government had revived plans for the oil pipelines, a new proposal was drafted in May, and a formal agreement was signed in December. Unocal is again the lead company.
    However, construction has been blocked by the advancing resistance to the government in Kabul, which is corrupt, incompetent and very unpopular. The legislature is dominated by regional warlords, drug traffickers, members of known criminal gangs, and many who should be indicted for war crimes and murder. Other forces have joined the revived Taliban in the resistance movement. The rallying cry, once again, is to rid Afghanistan of foreign occupiers.
    Despite what we hear from our political and military leaders, this war to support U.S. oil policy is not going well. Just recently it was reported that in 2005 there were 150 insurgent attacks against NATO forces each month; this has risen to 600 in 2006. Back in 1979 Zbigniew Brzesinski urged President Jimmy Carter to lure the Soviet Union into Afghanistan to trap them in their own “Vietnam war.” How long will Canadian forces stay in Afghanistan? We have already surrendered our long tradition of peacekeeping under the United Nations.

    - John W. Warnock recently retired from teaching at the University of Regina where he specialized in the political economy of Canada-U.S. relations.

    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3891
    Wolfowitz: "Iraq War Was About Oil"
    By George Wright
    The Guardian

    Wednesday 04 June 2003

    Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.

    The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

    The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

    Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

    Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbours - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.

    His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."

    Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war.

    Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war.

    Amid growing calls from all parties for a public inquiry, the foreign affairs select committee announced last night it would investigate claims that the UK government misled the country over its evidence of Iraq's WMD.

    The move is a major setback for Tony Blair, who had hoped to contain any inquiry within the intelligence and security committee, which meets in secret and reports to the prime minister.

    In the US, the failure to find solid proof of chemical, biological and nuclear arms in Iraq has raised similar concerns over Mr Bush's justification for the war and prompted calls for congressional investigations.

    Mr Wolfowitz is viewed as one of the most hawkish members of the Bush administration. The 57-year old expert in international relations was a strong advocate of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Following the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harboring or sponsoring of militants.

    Prior to his appointment to the Bush cabinet in February 2001, Mr Wolfowitz was dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), of the Johns Hopkins University.
    Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

    Graham Paterson

    Greenspan on the 'irresponsible' Bush

    AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

    In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

    However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

    Former chairman of the Federal Reserve critical of President’s economic competence in his memoir published tomorrow.

    Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

    Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

    _________

    Vinni, Alan Greenspan was probably the top FED Chairman in history. Are you going to discredit this guy, too?
    The reverse has been true for a LONG LONG LONG time though. That the Saudi's have had a big influence on the US govt since their unholy alliance after the WWII.

    I mean, they are talking about war on terror, while the country its "illega"l to even mention the Saudi's in CIA reports or investigations, despite the fact the fund the majority of islamic extremist terrorism and that most chunk of terrorists come from there.

    Its funny how they deflect everything from the Saudis, makes much more sense that the US govt and likes of big kahunas like Ron Pearl said to George Tenet (then CIA chief) in govt meeting the day after 9/11, that Iraq has a hand in this and that the CIA should find them ways to go after this (meaning invent reasons to attack them). Everyone in the room just nodded and agreed. While Mr CIA chief was baffled and said the CIA has zero connection with Iraq in global terrorism, or have influence outside their boarders at all. He said Iran, Syria and Pakistan are more viable threats, and that he laid out several times how the Saudi's are 5 times more of a threat then everyone else (Pakistan are threat because its an anarchy that has training camsp....but they are funded and lead by saudis).


    Sorry for the rant, but its funny the influence the Saudi's have, instead of being typical puppets, they are the puppeteers at times. The US doesnt need to invade them for oil, not in their interest and they its a self-destructing move (no offense, but even the most docile western friendly muslim would go Osama nuts if the US invaded and took over anywhere close to the Mecka).

    P.S If you are wondering to the corious little bit I mentionned about George Tenet and how the US govt was already set on invading Iraq, made up their about it and just took some year or 2 to invent reasons to invade them, well this former CIA chief said all of this in his book. And also a big special in 60 minutes. Pretty fucking interesting how direct and obvious their are in their distorting and self-interest.
    As the one of the prime orchestrators of the frigging Iraq war, Mr wolfish hawk said (read: wolfowitz which in Andy's article), the only threat Iraq had to the US is threat to their financial interest.

    Meaning that its one of the few big oil reserves they didnt controll and were in the hands of a country they didnt controll (its why they tried a coup on Venezuela, their puppet president went away, and the nut Chavez had the nerve to want to sell the country's oil instead of give it to them).
    So what is the Iraq war about then, Rab? It's obvious that the Bush Administration was lying when they said Iraq had WMD's, the UN stated that Saddam didn't have any such weapons since 1993, and figureheads such as Wolfowitz and Greenspan admitted the war was about oil. I think it's pretty obvious even years ago that this war was all about oil.





    Indeed, and one of the "great hopes" for the region of the Bush administration is probably a free Kurdistan. Afterall, it's rich in oil and will allow our companies for easy access to those fields and the pipelines in the area. An oil Mecca.

    If you look back about 10 pages or so, that's where the whole Middle East oil discussion started.
    Of course Bush Administration were lying when they came up with the report saying Iraq had WMD's. As it was pretty obvious for everyone around the world that this is a big lie. But was a reason for them to enter Iraq.


    United States is in Iraq for more than Oil, Oil was never their goal, it's very laughable to really think that States are there for the sake of Oil when they're throwing thousands of their soldiers down there.

    Condaliza Rice and Bush's Administration have been always hinting that they're looking forward to change the political way in the middle east and the zone from the dictatorships such as Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Najad etc.

    Iraq was their first stop knowing that they got everything there, from oil to the best geographically position, sorrounded by Syria and Iran to etc etc.

    Reasons:

    Reasons are simple If you look at United States policy[history] in the past.... Not to mention that they're world's strongest country, so it's pretty predictable, and any other country in the US place would be doing the same, meaning any country leading the world.

    anyway back to my reasons, here they're IMO

    -Any country not going in the same road with the United States is always their target. Afghanistan vs Russia is an example. They can be with you anyday anytime, once they smell that you're looking for a change they eat you before you prepare your fork and knife.

    -Controlling middle-east will advance them like no other.

    -Dictatorships time is getting over, but slowly slowly they're putting them down... first one was Saddam, the next....Assad or Najjad? we'll see.

    and so on... I could go on alot, but I promised myself not to really go off-topic.


    I apologize anyway:bow::D..... maybe anytime soon we'll have a thread concerning this topic.
    Well, why would people within the exodus of Bush personnel come out and say the war was for oil when the Bush administration doesn't even admit that? It just doesn't make any sense.



    If that was truly the case, why haven't we done anything about Assad then?

    And Ghaddafi is, strangely enough, apparently on our side now.





    Well that is certainly true, but it also goes hand in hand with the oil argument because it's so crucial to our economy.



    But we don't have a problem with installing or aiding dictatorships as long as they help us. That's for sure.
     
    OP
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    116,146
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #3
    Rab has a point when he states that the US wants to influence over the Middle East, anybody would. But when top executives from the US government tell us that the war was about oil, it's not something that is too far off from the realm of imagination.
     

    HelterSkelter

    Senior Member
    Apr 15, 2005
    20,599
    #4
    Andy since you're so critical about America's foreign policy in the Middle East,whats your take on the Iran situation?And the conspiracy theory that the US is moving along lines..Afghanistan-Iraq..next up is a potential attack on Iran..and finally..Pakistan.

    What do you make of this theory?Or do you think its utter crap?
     
    OP
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    116,146
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #5
    Andy since you're so critical about America's foreign policy in the Middle East,whats your take on the Iran situation?And the conspiracy theory that the US is moving along lines..Afghanistan-Iraq..next up is a potential attack on Iran..and finally..Pakistan.

    What do you make of this theory?Or do you think its utter crap?
    If Bush had a 10 year term as opposed to a four, I might be a little worried. But since his lot of fools are going away in another year, I really doubt it for the following reasons:

    1) We don't have enough resources to go on invading Iran and Pakistan. The military is hurting for numbers right now, so the only way to have enough troops to lead Iraq-like offenses on said nations is to impose the draft, which I doubt will happen.

    2) Attacking Iran and Pakistan without good reason would upset the world even more, thus making more enemies. We already have enough of those to be honest, and any sane person wouldn't push the limits.

    3) It's probably going to be a Democrat in the White House, so useless wars probably aren't going to be an issue.

    Of course if major war breaks out across the Middle East due to some other factors such as Israel or Iran going at it, or Pakistan and India, then we'll be the first involved. But unless that happens I really doubt we'll pull another Iraq any time soon, provided some level of sanity in the White House.
     

    Bisco

    Senior Member
    Nov 21, 2005
    14,418
    #6
    andy i agree with alot of the points u stated about this topic. I personally think that the american exterior politics is already planned out in advance i mean bush came in and at his arrival america has reached a certain number or points/goals and so he carries on with the rest until his presidency period ends and so on.. i might be wrong but at certain periods thats exactly how i see things. correct me if aim wrong please.

    i also believe in the term American empire. just the same way we had an ottman, french, english, and dutch empires, i think its americas time to have an empire considering it to be the soul super power in the world now. its no secret crude oil is by far the most important source of energy until now and probably for a few good years still to come.

    the middle east as a region is by far the most important for the united states of america and hence complete control on these states is of utmost importance. people who think that the united states is here for democracy and making sure we arabs are happy is just tooooooooooooo naive 'm afraid. the gulf war 2 ( 1990) was the begining of the end for this bec its very obvious sadam was not an enemy as protrayed by the media back then but a strong ally to the states and this was all a show so they can have more reasons to be here in the region and in particular the kingdom of saudi arabia which until the gulf crisis did not welcome the miltiary presence of the untied states of america.
     
    OP
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    116,146
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #7
    It just goes to show how hypocritical we are. Sure, we are quick to come to the defense of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to ward off Iraqi influence outside of their own borders. But if it was Saudi Arabia or Israel invading some land with vast reserves of oil, we would probably help them in their efforts.

    http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-593-3127/conflict_war/gulf_war/clip14
     
    OP
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    116,146
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #8
    Oil closed at a new high today of $102.9 per barrel at the NYMEX. Some analysts even have price targets of around $150, which means about $4.00 or so for RBOB (gasoline). :seven:
     

    Red

    -------
    Moderator
    Nov 26, 2006
    47,024
    #9
    Andy, You speak about the US wanting control over crude oil to try and limit China, but I would think it would have as much to do with Russia.

    Russia has vast amounts of oil and gas, and I would think that the US would want to gain control over more crude oil to compete with them. Countries such as the UK would also like this as an American controlled supply is likely to be more reliable than a Russian controlled supply.


    Oh, and that stuff about all wars coming down to economics is bang on. There will usually be other factors, but economics will almost always be the decisive factor.
     
    OP
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    116,146
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #10
    You speak about the US wanting control over crude oil to try and limit China, but I would think it would have as much to do with Russia.

    Russia has vast amounts of oil and gas, and I would think that the US would want to gain control over more crude oil to compete with them. Countries such as the UK would also like this as an American controlled supply is likely to be more reliable than a Russian controlled supply.
    You're certainly right, Russia is another problem for our government. They have recently discovered another field in Siberia that contains about 15 billion barrels of oil. This surpasses all the fields we know about currently as far as I know.

    But China is really the bigger problem because they're not getting enough oil as it is now. Approximately 3,000 new cars hit streets in China every single day. Doing that math, that's over 10,000,000 new cars in the next decade, which doesn't even factor in further growth in wealth. Moreover, the rate of change in industrial demand for oil is probably even higher.

    We don't want to start losing contracts to the Chinese as we're trying to ward off their economic prosperity as it stands right now, so we'll do anything to stunt their growth. They're more of a problem.
     
    OP
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    116,146
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #11
    Oh, and that stuff about all wars coming down to economics is bang on. There will usually be other factors, but economics will almost always be the decisive factor.
    I think so as well. Of course there are all sorts of factors, but in reality it's primarily all about greed.
     
    OP
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    116,146
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #15
    Yeah, Delpiero06 needs to post in here for sure.

    It's an important topic. But then again, if we're talking about pipelines running through Turkey and Azerbaijan, he wouldn't be able to understand because he's never heard of those nations.
     
    OP
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    116,146
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #17
    Putin mocks US-backed gas pipeline project

    MOSCOW (Thomson Financial) - President Vladimir Putin today mocked a US-backed plan to build a gas pipeline to Europe that would bypass Russia as he concluded a deal with Hungary on a rival project.

    "There's always an alternative but it's worse than cooperation with Russia.

    You can build two pipelines, you can build three. The question is what you pump through them," Putin told reporters after the agreement was signed.

    "It's very clear that the project we are proposing can be realised and has supplies guaranteed. If someone wants to dig up the ground and build a pipeline -- go ahead, we don't mind," he said.

    Putin was referring to Nabucco, a plan supported by the European Union and the US to build a pipeline from gas-rich ex-Soviet Central Asian states to Europe via Turkey and thereby skirting Russia.

    Russia's own plan to build a pipeline under the Black Sea to Bulgaria and on towards Austria and Italy got a further boost on Thursday when Hungary became the latest country after Bulgaria and Serbia to sign up to the project.

    The signature came despite a warning by a senior US official Budapest against going ahead with the South Stream project, which is to be developed by Russian gas monopoly Gazprom and Italian energy giant ENI.

    Russia holds a quarter of the world's known gas reserves and the European Union relies on Russia for about a quarter of its supplies -- a proportion that would increase when Moscow's Nord Stream and South Stream projects are built.

    Welcoming Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany in the Kremlin, Putin said South Stream would boost "Hungary's significance as an important link for energy supplies to Europe and Hungary's own energy security." Gyurcsany told Putin at the start of talks: "You were faster than Nabucco." After the signing ceremony, Gyurcsany appeared to back the Nabucco project as well, saying: "Two pipelines are better than one. I would be happy if there were three. Three is even better than two." The jokey comment was understood by Putin as a reference to Nabucco, South Stream and Nord Stream, another planned pipeline which would run from Russia under the Baltic Sea to northern Germany.

    On Thursday, US Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried warned Hungary's leaders to resist Russian pressure to abandon the Nabucco project.

    "Moscow has responded to the advance of the Nabucco project by exerting pressure on Hungary and its neighbours to strike a quick deal on South Stream," Fried said in an article published in the Hungarian newspaper Nepszabadsag.

    "We know very little about the negotiations which led to this outcome." Chris Weafer, analyst at Moscow-based Uralsib bank, said South Stream "is a pipeline that was not really planned to be done that quickly. It's a direct result of the European Union having announced plans to build Nabucco." The Kremlin meanwhile heaped praise on Hungary, implicitly contrasting Budapest's friendly position with that of Western critics who worry about Moscow's energy might.

    A Kremlin statement said that "as a member of the European Union and NATO, Hungary is pursuing a pragmatic course in the international arena and enhancing its reputation as a predictable and reliable partner." Putin said growing cooperation was due to "changes in the political climate between our two countries" while Gyurcsany said relations were "less about ideology and more about pragmatism."

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/23391684/for/cnbc/

    ____________

    Fuck you Putin!
     

    X Æ A-12

    Senior Member
    Contributor
    Sep 4, 2006
    87,955
    #18
    Yeah, Delpiero06 needs to post in here for sure.

    It's an important topic. But then again, if we're talking about pipelines running through Turkey and Azerbaijan, he wouldn't be able to understand because he's never heard of those nations.
    If you want to actually have an intelligent conversation with me then don't act like a child. Seriously, stop calling me an idiot just because i have different opinions from yours. I don't get why everybody claims that this Iraq war was about Oil money when gas prices have skyrocketed and National debt has gone through the roof. So how did we make a profit off of that? And don't quote your stupid "actual facts" from those anti-America liberal articles you have.
     

    swag

    L'autista
    Administrator
    Sep 23, 2003
    84,779
    #19
    The war may not be about oil -- it really is about blowhard egos who had it out for Iraq since the mid-1990s looking to pin an excuse to invade on the first convenient cover they could ride. But there are dictators all over the world who need disposing. Iraq was only worth killing off some fellow Americans because oil was involved. That much is indisputable.
     

    GordoDeCentral

    Diez
    Moderator
    Apr 14, 2005
    70,836
    #20
    The war may not be about oil -- it really is about blowhard egos who had it out for Iraq since the mid-1990s looking to pin an excuse to invade on the first convenient cover they could ride. But there are dictators all over the world who need disposing. Iraq was only worth killing off some fellow Americans because oil was involved. That much is indisputable.
    Absolutely, Carthago delenda est!
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 25)