Ok this thread is about oil, and moreso about a program I saw on TV last week. I don't know if the show was anti or pro war as it seemed to swing half way through, but I just wanted to share the opinions of the programs creators with you guys and girls.

The program began by examining oil production around the world. It said in all areas of the world, except the middle east, oil production was failing, and within 20 years or so many of the current oil producing areas would have run out. Examples were North Sea, some of the bigger wells in Texas and some south American countries. It then went on to make a case how the western world would crumble without oil, and explained that countries which are either exports or break even countries (like the UK*) would become net importers, and by 2020, the USA would have to import 60% of its oil.

Now here is where the war connection swings in:

The program said that unless the west could control the oil supply it would be at the mercy of the middle east, which would be particularly bad if the main oil producers #1 Saudi Arabia and #2 refused to trade with the West. This may seem odd now but if a Fundalmetalist government were to be established in Riyadh then it could be very real. Given that much of the funding for terrorist activities comes from Saudi, and indeed the bulk of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and indeed Bin Laden is by birth, it isn't so incredible. (Also from other news stories the Jordanian King is holding off an election and has dissolved parliament because of the strength of the Fundalmentalist party in Jordan http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dail...902.html)Hence it explained why the USA/UK etc wished to have a favourable government in Iraq, to safegaurd future oil supplies. It also went on to explain that in particular several companies already have agreements with Iraq to export oil once the UN sanctions were lifted, but who would lose out if the current regime changed. These were Total of France, Lukoil of Russia and an Irish firm (I forget the name of this one).

The program also claimed that Mr Rummsfeld had advised Mr Bush to attack Iraq after 9/11 whether they were responsible or not, in order to safeguard oil supplies.

*The UK does import and export oil, but the production figures roughly equal the usage numbers

No matter what you come up with, some will always say that US just want to free Iraqis.

And some will continue to ignore the fact that Iraq has not disarmed in accordance with the '91 ceasefire. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

Freeing the Iraqi people is a side effect of disarming Saddam. A pretty good one, too. What was the positive side effect of leaving Saddam in power again?

You may be right - although its become a standing joke in Gen. Franks daily press briefings, as each day he has to answer the same question in the negative:

"Have you found evidence of WMD's?"
"It's normally the lady over there that asks this question. Did she put you up to it"?

Buuuuuuuuuh Ronn, not again please.
- There are so many countries that have not disarmed when told to. Though US will never bother with them, never.
- There are so many countries lead by dictators way worse than Saddam. US will never give a damn about them.
- Is Iraq a direct threat to US ? No way.

Stop lying to yourself Ronn and re read the first post of this thread.

[ 03-31-2003, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: Masklinn ]

I'm educated and I'm informed, but I've drawn different conclusions than you. I've tried to respect yours, so I'll ask you to respect mine.

Your comment is rude, and I would have expected better from you.

True, but it certainly blows a hole in the theory that the US will be planting WoMD all over Iraq to justify the war doesn't it? ;)

Buuuuuuuuuh Ronn, not again please.
- There are so many countries that have not disarmed when told to. Though US will never bother with them, never.
- There are so many countries lead by dictators way worse than Saddam. US will never give a damn about them.
- Is Iraq a direct threat to US ? No way.</font>[/QUOTE]Onto your other points... :D

No other nation has been so soundly defeated, and allowed to rebuild in spite of their agreement to disarm.

There are leaders who are worse than Saddam, and the UN doesn't give a damn about them either. So what's your point? No one should care about anything anyone else does?

Yes Iraq is a direct threat. Not in the conventional way, of course, but they can export WoMD if they are allowed to have them.

I wish that was true - but I rather think that the charge will be levied even if the US do find a genuine chemical/biological weapon's cache.

There have been too many public revelations of 'falsified information' (esp.from the UK) for any claim in the future to be taken seriously. (Most notable was the 'Fake Nuclear document' See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Mar7.html and Britains 'thesis plagiarism' scandal.)

The only way that the outside world will believe that SH does indeed have WMD's is if they are actually used on the battlefield. And that is definately *NOT* the way that I'd like the US to prove their case.

You are so right. :(

I don't see how you can say the UK falsifies information, and support it with a link that claims Iraqi informants supplied false information ;) All nations that have been involved with this affair have provided evidence that supports their claim. Imagine a trial where the defence supplied evidence of the defendants guilt ! ;) Besides the program was not a government sponsored one, I know it undoubtedly had a bias, but I don't think it was following political guidance.

Besides the program never mentioned WoMD or that as a reason for going to war..it was claiming oil and oil control were the reasons.

[ 03-31-2003, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Sir_Tainly ]

<font color="#ffccff">Ignorance is bliss Skunk. People believe what they want to believe. As for me, I know that the US being in Iraq right now will be good for Iraqi's, good for Kurds, good for Suni's, good for Shiite and good for the USA in the long run.

As for the doom and gloom oil predictions that Sir Tainly posted. I have heard all that before. ohhh back in 1976 or 1975. According to the same people we ran out of oil rougly 12 years ago. Amazing how that works.... Some day we may actualy deplete the worlds oil reserves but we don't really know how much there is and may have only just tapped a small portion of what really exists. Either way, by the time we are actually out of oil, Im pretty confident we will have alternatives...wer already do...its just that cheap oil makes the alternatives economicly infeasable. </font>

I agree Magik that oil may last longer than expected, but its like driving a car and trying to stop..you don't wait until you hit the vehicle in front to start braking ;) Reduce oil consumption now, and have it last longer while alternatives are developed. Right now alternatives are years behind in the level of technology, we can't wait until oil runs out before we start reseaching. LPG is starting to become an alternative in the UK, but we are a small market, the biggest users of cars/oil would need to make a change for alternatives to be properly developed and to be economically viable.

<font color="#ffccff">Well I guess this isn't about the war, but the onl;y reason the technological innovation to replace oil isn't there is because there is no reason for it...no economic reason that is. As I said, there are alternativces to oil, the German Army did amazing things in World War II when their supplies of oil ran out or were cut off...today we have solar, nuclear, wind and wave technologies that if needed can be put in place....they are just 2 - 10 times as expensive as current petro-chemical equivelents....once money starts being diverted or oil prices get to a certain level then you will see these alternatives really come to the forefront.....but then I believe in the ability of man to overcome obstacles that bar his path [img]smile.gif[/img] Call me optimistic [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

And on the subject of Oil, there have been studies done, and in fact (I don't know where to look to find published articles, but there are) Utah has as much or more oil than all of the middle east, the only problem is that its in shale, which is like a sponge and its very hard to get oil out of shale.

The use of oil will likely destroy us before we run out of oil. Conservative scientists estimate that oil will be around for 4000 years, though I don't know if that accounts for increase in the *rate* of usage. Nevertheless, that time period is as far from now as the Great Pyramids are from now.

Even if oil did dry up, other energy supplies are out there. Sure, they would be expensive to implement, but that sort of economic incentive is just what's needed, IMO. The only reason we don't have hydrogen cars zooming about right now is that oil is so dirt cheap to get.

Bang on! Bush better find some nuclear waste in Iraq or this war is gonna look ugly even when won.

There are possibly two other reasons.
1. Costs of Converting gas stations to Hydrogen stations
2. Some Governments make a killing off gas taxes (Guess they can always change to a H2 tax)

There are possibly two other reasons.
1. Costs of Converting gas stations to Hydrogen stations
2. Some Governments make a killing off gas taxes (Guess they can always change to a H2 tax)</font>[/QUOTE]pritchke, the moment that hydrogen is used in cars at any decent level, governments will start taxing hydrogen. Don't think for a second that it will be otherwise.

Your comment about "Costs of Converting gas stations to Hydrogen stations" is well taken. I actually think that it's not only just about cost. Think about it. It's also about getting enough of the hydrogen-stations for buying a hydro-car to be viable. A hydro-car's not worth a darned if there are not enough places to refuel.

It's sort of a symbiotic relationship. Without enough of one, it will difficult to sell more of the other.

COsts to convert stations were taken into account in my statement that oil is cheaper. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 04-02-2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]