War on oil? Here's the math.

Iraq exported 1.49 million barrels of oil a day in 2004. The average price of a barrel of crude oil in 2004 was $36.97.
1,490,000 barrels x $36.97 = $55,085,300 a day.
$55,085,300 x 365 = $20,106,134,500.

This is taking all of Iraq's exports for 2004, and we end up with a net total of 20 billion dollars worth of oil. For 2005 let's estimate that $30 billion dollars of oil was taken. The war on terror has cost us $200 billion.

EVEN IF WE TOOK ALL THE OIL FROM IRAQ, we would still not balance the cost we have spent. We could have bought the same amount of oil for THREE TIMES it's market price, and still saved money. You can't tell me that a president in his second term could be that stupid.

There're still the several same basic flaws w/ this reasoning that there were the last time you brought this up.

The first one:
The USG doesn't "get the oil" even if we were going to take it. It would go to private companies. The private companies did not expend the resources to invade Iraq. The USG did. Therefore, the resources expended to invade Iraq do not show up on the private oil companies' balance sheet. Therefore the cost of invading iraq is not figured into the potential profit of selling Iraqi oil if the companies were to do so.

This single one pretty much renders the other flaws redundant debate-wise. We can go into them as well if you should be so inclined.

What's particularly silly is the story coming out of the Admin pre-war that said Iraq could fund it's own reconstruction. 30 min w/ Google revealed this to be an absurdity. And, of course, now the reality has borne out my assessment of this as absolute silliness if not mendacity on the part of the Admin.

Nez Dragon said:

Iraq exported 1.49 million barrels of oil a day in 2004. The average price of a barrel of crude oil in 2004 was $36.97.
1,490,000 barrels x $36.97 = $55,085,300 a day.
$55,085,300 x 365 = $20,106,134,500.

This is taking all of Iraq's exports for 2004, and we end up with a net total of 20 billion dollars worth of oil. For 2005 let's estimate that $30 billion dollars of oil was taken. The war on terror has cost us $200 billion.

EVEN IF WE TOOK ALL THE OIL FROM IRAQ, we would still not balance the cost we have spent. We could have bought the same amount of oil for THREE TIMES it's market price, and still saved money. You can't tell me that a president in his second term could be that stupid.

Click to expand...

Why does the war on oil always refer to number crunching and profit?

Nez, what if I said the US was a net importer of millions of barrells of oil a day? What if I said the entire US energy programme, every day life and the continued existance of the US as we know it today was dependant on oil imports from our 'friends' in the middle east?

The cost of oil is of little importance at the moment. If it cost $100 or $1000 per gallen we would have no choice but to continue to buy it (at least until the oil co's get round to alternative energy supplies). It is the resource itself which is of paramount importance.

I could give you another scenario - Saudi Arabie, Iran, Kuwait and all the other middle east co's stop exporting oil to the US. The US runs dry of oil - what do you think happens next? We go over there and take it from them..thats all thats happened here..we've just done it pre-emptively.

Simon W. Moon said:

There're still the several same basic flaws w/ this reasoning that there were the last time you brought this up.

The first one:
The USG doesn't "get the oil" even if we were going to take it. It would go to private companies. The private companies did not expend the resources to invade Iraq. The USG did. Therefore, the resources expended to invade Iraq do not show up on the private oil companies' balance sheet. Therefore the cost of invading iraq is not figured into the potential profit of selling Iraqi oil if the companies were to do so.

This single one pretty much renders the other flaws redundant debate-wise. We can go into them as well if you should be so inclined.

What's particularly silly is the story coming out of the Admin pre-war that said Iraq could fund it's own reconstruction. 30 min w/ Google revealed this to be an absurdity. And, of course, now the reality has borne out my assessment of this as absolute silliness if not mendacity on the part of the Admin.

Click to expand...

The cost of war are socialized while the benefits are privatized.

G-Man said:

Why does the war on oil always refer to number crunching and profit?

Nez, what if I said the US was a net importer of millions of barrells of oil a day? What if I said the entire US energy programme, every day life and the continued existance of the US as we know it today was dependant on oil imports from our 'friends' in the middle east?

The cost of oil is of little importance at the moment. If it cost $100 or $1000 per gallen we would have no choice but to continue to buy it (at least until the oil co's get round to alternative energy supplies). It is the resource itself which is of paramount importance.

I could give you another scenario - Saudi Arabie, Iran, Kuwait and all the other middle east co's stop exporting oil to the US. The US runs dry of oil - what do you think happens next? We go over there and take it from them..thats all thats happened here..we've just done it pre-emptively.

Click to expand...

In the 1970s, during the Arab oil embargo, the US made plans to invade Saudia Arabia and several other Middle East countries with the objective to seize their oil fields. If Venezuela had decided not to sell oil to the US at that particular time in history, then it is likely that we would have invaded Saudia Arabia and these other Middle East countries. You can find an article on the BBC and Aljazeera concerning this issue, here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3333995.stm

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/77D89FC3-E6BE-4222-A2E5-8EF036F54650.htm

Nez, what if I said the US was a net importer of millions of barrells of oil a day? What if I said the entire US energy programme, every day life and the continued existance of the US as we know it today was dependant on oil imports from our 'friends' in the middle east?

The cost of oil is of little importance at the moment. If it cost $100 or $1000 per gallen we would have no choice but to continue to buy it (at least until the oil co's get round to alternative energy supplies). It is the resource itself which is of paramount importance.

I could give you another scenario - Saudi Arabie, Iran, Kuwait and all the other middle east co's stop exporting oil to the US. The US runs dry of oil - what do you think happens next? We go over there and take it from them..thats all thats happened here..we've just done it pre-emptively.

Click to expand...

It may be reasonable, but that doesn't make it true. I haven't seen any about the US fighting for oil except saying that we did. So dow do we get oil out of it? How does it work? I have a hard time finding information like that.

-Demosthenes- said:

It may be reasonable, but that doesn't make it true. I haven't seen any about the US fighting for oil except saying that we did. So dow do we get oil out of it? How does it work? I have a hard time finding information like that.

Click to expand...

That's because you obviously didn't bother to click on the links I provided above. You don't have a leg to stand on until you address some of the articles I have posted. The links I provided above were about US plans to seize oil fields in 1973. However, those plans from 1973 are part of a continuing pattern from that era to our present venture in Iraq of US policy of securing Middle East oil for it's own interests and it has little to do with "fighting terror" or "spreading democracy." These are merely, popular pretexts used by the US government that everybody will be for and nobody will be against in order to garner support for war to take control of oil. These policies of keeping control of Middle East oil for the US of course has helped to generate terrorism against the US with September 11 being an example. So, take the time to read the links I provided instead of refusing to read the evidence and then claiming their is no proof when in fact the proof is staring you right in the face. Learn to accept the truth and the evidence for what it is rather than ignoring it hoping it will go away. It doesn't change anything.

TimmyBoy,

Have no doubt that:

> should it, as an absolute last resort, come down to the choice of survival of the US, or the taking of ME oil fields, that we would take the ME oil fields

> that contingency planning for such an eventuality has been a regular part of military planning for many, many years (along with many, many other contingencies).

Neither of these should come as any surprise to anyone. Neither should it come as a surprise that every major industrialized country that depends on external sources for its primary energy sources has done and continues to do exactly the same thing. If you doubt this, research the reasons for Japanese attack on the US on Dec 7, 1941.

oldreliable67 said:

TimmyBoy,

Have no doubt that:

> should it, as an absolute last resort, come down to the choice of survival of the US, or the taking of ME oil fields, that we would take the ME oil fields

> that contingency planning for such an eventuality has been a regular part of military planning for many, many years (along with many, many other contingencies).

Neither of these should come as any surprise to anyone. Neither should it come as a surprise that every major industrialized country that depends on external sources for its primary energy sources has done and continues to do exactly the same thing. If you doubt this, research the reasons for Japanese attack on the US on Dec 7, 1941.

Click to expand...

When it comes to survival, a nation will do anything in order to survive. It is a natural instinct for most humans and nations to do what is necessary to survive. The US needs oil in order to survive. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the US believed it was a possibility that they might try to invade Iran or roll into the oil rich Middle East. So, Carter drew the line in the sand with the Carter Doctrine where he stated that the US would respond to any Soviet invasion of Iran or Middle East as an attack on US interests and the US would in turn use military force to repel such an invasion, including the use of nuclear weapons.

You can also read about the Carter Doctrine here and how it tied into oil in the Middle East:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

-Demosthenes- said:

It may be reasonable, but that doesn't make it true. I haven't seen any about the US fighting for oil except saying that we did. So dow do we get oil out of it? How does it work? I have a hard time finding information like that.

Click to expand...

I think Timmboy has covered this with his posts and links. However, the point I was making is that to argue we didn't invade Iraq for their oil, because it would not be cost productive, is irrelevant. The resource itself , and control off, is the 'prize'. How much will we pay for oil....however much it takes is the only logical answer.

Timmy boy said:

That's because you obviously didn't bother to click on the links I provided above. You don't have a leg to stand on until you address some of the articles I have posted. The links I provided above were about US plans to seize oil fields in 1973. However, those plans from 1973 are part of a continuing pattern from that era to our present venture in Iraq of US policy of securing Middle East oil for it's own interests and it has little to do with "fighting terror" or "spreading democracy." These are merely, popular pretexts used by the US government that everybody will be for and nobody will be against in order to garner support for war to take control of oil. These policies of keeping control of Middle East oil for the US of course has helped to generate terrorism against the US with September 11 being an example. So, take the time to read the links I provided instead of refusing to read the evidence and then claiming their is no proof when in fact the proof is staring you right in the face. Learn to accept the truth and the evidence for what it is rather than ignoring it hoping it will go away. It doesn't change anything.

Click to expand...

Your links looked more like links for the gulf war, and conflicts in the 70's, you can understand why I can be confused:

Timmy boy said:

In the 1970s, during the Arab oil embargo, the US made plans to invade Saudia Arabia and several other Middle East countries with the objective to seize their oil fields. If Venezuela had decided not to sell oil to the US at that particular time in history, then it is likely that we would have invaded Saudia Arabia and these other Middle East countries. You can find an article on the BBC and Aljazeera concerning this issue, here:

Click to expand...

Sorry about that.

Anyway, recently I have been more open to the possibility of different intentions in Iraq, and it has seemed fairly obvious that oil has some kind of connection to the current conflict. More obvious, though, is that it's a combination of things, including bringing down a dangerous dictator and freeing a people. If we just straight up wanted oil, then a better target would be Saudi Arabia (a country with much much more oil than Iraq), but at the same time, if the war was about taking down a dangerous dictator ect. then places like N. Korea and other similar oppressive countries should also be the target.

It reminds me of the recent thread "Blind Partisanship" (http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6056&highlight="Blind+Partisanship"). On the right you have the people who think the war is the same as the invasion of Afghanistan, against the Osama Hussein guy, and on the left you have those who think it's all about oil. I say it all the time: the extremes of both sides of the political spectrum are usually wrong, those who follow partisan politics are usually wrong.

Oil equals power.....power equals war...war equal death...at the ent of the war they will be giving us oil...quote me....

Loxd4 said:

Oil equals power.....power equals war...war equal death...at the ent of the war they will be giving us oil...quote me....

Click to expand...

You skipped a step. Oil equals money.....Money equals power

Its hard to fund power without money! :twocents:

Oil equals power.....power equals war...war equal death

Click to expand...

Power will exist in spite of oil as well as because of oil.

Nez Dragon said:

Iraq exported 1.49 million barrels of oil a day in 2004. The average price of a barrel of crude oil in 2004 was $36.97.
1,490,000 barrels x $36.97 = $55,085,300 a day.
$55,085,300 x 365 = $20,106,134,500.

This is taking all of Iraq's exports for 2004, and we end up with a net total of 20 billion dollars worth of oil. For 2005 let's estimate that $30 billion dollars of oil was taken. The war on terror has cost us $200 billion.

EVEN IF WE TOOK ALL THE OIL FROM IRAQ, we would still not balance the cost we have spent. We could have bought the same amount of oil for THREE TIMES it's market price, and still saved money. You can't tell me that a president in his second term could be that stupid.

Click to expand...

Please allow me to correct this insanity! I work for CENTAF, the HQ in charge of that AOR. All the oil is being pumped into Turkey. Any oil revenue is going directly to the the Iraqi goverment for rebuilding their nation, which is why we are racking up the deficit that we are for the cost of the war. What we are getting from other countries in the area is fuel for our planes as part of their contribution to the effort.

Our goverment is not making a dime. I still haven't seen my $1 - $.50 a gallon of gas so many Dems predicted, after we 'stole their oil' after the war!
Good gosh! Stop with the propoganda/conspiracy theory BS!

Stop the 'Oil = Power = Death' cr@p. Sometimes you just do what is RIGHT! I know that is a hard concept for Democrats to grasp, especially if there is nothing in it for you. When we went to Kuwait's aid after they were over-run by Iraq, the Dems screamed we were doing it all for oil. We liberated kuwait - we never took their oil and the whole 'war for oil' BS then was proven to be wrong. You don't hear anyof the Dems bringing THAT one up, do ya?

easyt65 said:

Please allow me to correct this insanity! I work for CENTAF, the HQ in charge of that AOR. All the oil is being pumped into Turkey. Any oil revenue is going directly to the the Iraqi goverment for rebuilding their nation, which is why we are racking up the deficit that we are for the cost of the war. What we are getting from other countries in the area is fuel for our planes as part of their contribution to the effort.

Our goverment is not making a dime. I still haven't seen my $1 - $.50 a gallon of gas so many Dems predicted, after we 'stole their oil' after the war!
Good gosh! Stop with the propoganda/conspiracy theory BS!

Stop the 'Oil = Power = Death' cr@p. Sometimes you just do what is RIGHT! I know that is a hard concept for Democrats to grasp, especially if there is nothing in it for you. When we went to Kuwait's aid after they were over-run by Iraq, the Dems screamed we were doing it all for oil. We liberated kuwait - we never took their oil and the whole 'war for oil' BS then was proven to be wrong. You don't hear anyof the Dems bringing THAT one up, do ya?

Click to expand...

Thank you. The Bush haters have been spewing this lie for years now and have never, ever substantiated it. This Michael Moore rhetoric only makes the left look more stupid. Then again, the are so desperate to regain political power, they will stop at nothing. Fortunately, red state America doesn't buy this hogwash and they remember it at the voting booth.

KCConservative said:

Thank you. The Bush haters have been spewing this lie for years now and have never, ever substantiated it. This Michael Moore rhetoric only makes the left look more stupid. Then again, the are so desperate to regain political power, they will stop at nothing. Fortunately, red state America doesn't buy this hogwash and they remember it at the voting booth.

Click to expand...

KC, is everyone with a different opinion to yours a 'bush hater'? Personally, I have nothing against the guy but then that might just be because I don't think he is capable of running the country and simply regurgitates everything his innner circle tell him.

Re: spewing this lie for years, America has 2 interests in the Middle East, Israel and Oil. It doesn't matter if its a Democratic or Republican govt. in power, these are always our prime concerns.

Yeah we threw Saddam out of Kuwait but in doing so this enabled us to maintain a large military force in the region for years to come. Our interests over there have always been well protected since.

Democracy in the middle east is just a nice political dream enabling us to stay in the Middle east and protect our own interests. Did I not just see Bush over in Saudi Arabia congratulating the new King on his accession to the throne and wishing him well for his RULE OVER the Saudi population? If we're serious about this shouldn't we get our 'friends' to lead the way and show democracy works? If democracy ain't for the Saudis why is it so important for the Iraqi's?

Iran is a democracy in that its leader was voted for by the people. Of course this has led to the election of a hardline islamist but then thats what the people wanted.

There are more dictators in Africa than the middle east, there is genocide in Sudan and wars (including civil wars) are rife. There are millions starving whilst the tyrants live like kings. Where is the West to sort this mess out?

Busy pouring billions of dollars and thousands of lives into Iraq. If Iraq was an empty desert and Sudan was overflowing with oil do you believe US forces would still be over in Iraq as opposed to sorting out events in Sudan?

g-man said:

Iran is a democracy in that its leader was voted for by the people. Of course this has led to the election of a hardline islamist but then thats what the people wanted.

Click to expand...

Well, no. The Iranian religious authorities (i.e., the ayatollahs) threw all candidtates off the ballots - except for those meeting their approval. Result: almost all candidates were unopposed.

Where is the West to sort this mess out?

Click to expand...

Ask the UN. They know.

G-Man said:

America has 2 interests in the Middle East, Israel and Oil. It doesn't matter if its a Democratic or Republican govt. in power, these are always our prime concerns.

Click to expand...

Again, spewing without a trace of substantiation. Hey, if we went into Iraq only for the oil, then where is it? lol Why am I paying $2 a gallon? Either back it up or be done. Until you provide evidence for your wild claims, then it's just partisan hate.

oldreliable67 said:

Well, no. The Iranian religious authorities (i.e., the ayatollahs) threw all candidtates off the ballots - except for those meeting their approval. Result: almost all candidates were unopposed.

Ask the UN. They know.

Click to expand...

Iraq was a 'Democracy', too - they could all vote for anyone they wanted to....they just all voted for Saddam Hussein! :shock: :roll:

easyt65 said:

Iraq was a 'Democracy', too - they could all vote for anyone they wanted to....they just all voted for Saddam Hussein! :shock: :roll:

Click to expand...

Seek wisdom in the eldar!

Saddam was the only person running for president!
http://breaking.tcm.ie/2002/10/16/story72752.html

More information on Saddam:
Saddam Hussein

Born: April 29, 1937 in Ouja, Iraq

Family: first wife: Sadija Khair-Allah; 2 sons: Uday, Qusay (both killed in shootout with U.S. troops in July, 2003); 3 daughters: Raghad, Rana, Hala; second wife: Samira Shabandar 1 son: Ali
Education: University of Cairo, law degree 1962; Mustanseriya University in Baghdad, law degree 1971
Background: joined Baath Socialist Party, 1957; jailed for killing a government official, released after 6 months, 1958; participated in failed assassination on life of Gen. Adel Karim Kasim: fled to Syria, 1959; studied law in Egypt, 1959-1962; returned to Iraq & assumed regional leadership of Baath Party,1963; imprisoned for attempted overthrow of Abdul Salam Aref, 1964-1966; escaped from prison 1966; elected to command of National Baath Party, 1965; Deputy Chair of Revolutionary Command Councel, 1969 - 1979; President of Iraq, 1979 -; Prime Minister of Iraq, 1994 -; re-elected to presidence of Iraq, 1995, 2002.
Significant Events invaded Iran, 1980, ceasefire, 1988; put down Kurdish rebellion using poison gas, 1988; invaded Kuwait, Aug. 1990; ordered killing of two sons-in-law 1996; ordered United Nations inspectors to leave Iraq 1998; coalition forces began air strikes against Baghdad, March 18, 2003; sons Uday and Qusay killed July, 2003; captured near Tikrit by coalition forces 12/14/2003. Related Web Site: Iraqi News
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/briefings/bio/saddam1214.html

KCConservative said:

Again, spewing without a trace of substantiation. Hey, if we went into Iraq only for the oil, then where is it? lol Why am I paying $2 a gallon? Either back it up or be done. Until you provide evidence for your wild claims, then it's just partisan hate.

Click to expand...

meet previous post

G-Man said:

The cost of oil is of little importance at the moment. If it cost $100 or $1000 per gallen we would have no choice but to continue to buy it (at least until the oil co's get round to alternative energy supplies). It is the resource itself which is of paramount importance.

I could give you another scenario - Saudi Arabie, Iran, Kuwait and all the other middle east co's stop exporting oil to the US. The US runs dry of oil - what do you think happens next? We go over there and take it from them..thats all thats happened here..we've just done it pre-emptively.

Click to expand...

Simon W. Moon said:

meet previous post

Click to expand...

Thanks for setting me straight, Simon. As always, you're right.

KCConservative said:

Again, spewing without a trace of substantiation. Hey, if we went into Iraq only for the oil, then where is it? lol Why am I paying $2 a gallon? Either back it up or be done. Until you provide evidence for your wild claims, then it's just partisan hate.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't have any links to prove this ,unfortunately, but I reckon some of the millions of barrels produced by Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam have ended up at our shores. Exactly where do you think it has gone? If you can provide a link showing no Iraqi oil has came to the US in the last 2.5 years then I will believe you but until such point I think common sense dictates that we have bought some Iraqi oil during this period.

Re: the price...well thats set by OPEC and thats what we pay but as I've already said if it cost $200 a gallon we would still pay it...what else could we do?

Partisan hate??? I've already acknowledged both Democrats and Republicans are primarily concerned with oil and Israel in the middle east. Why wouldn't they be? They are the US authorities and these are the primary US concerns. Hardly Bush bashing!!

Its those who claim 'we went there for the WMD' or 'we're in Iraq to free the Iraqi people' who I'm arguing with. Whether it was democrat or republican administration who launched this war I would still be arguing against it.

I guess the facts that Bush and his friends are all major players in the oil industry and that Iraqi has the worlds 2nd largest oil supplies just make him an easy target.

Oh yes..and the recently adopted Iraqi constitution opens the Iraqi oil fields to foreign investment (i.e US) for much needed capital. This however will not be in the form of a loan (which would leave the oil in Iraqi ownership)...we actually get to buy the oil reserves. So I guess if you just wait a few years you may get that cheap gas after all.